Dirty snow? Come on Cjunk, we all know its my truck. ~:D

It's been done:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006434.html

No matter, the leftards have their heads up their @sses and are ignoring this like they ignore all of their "inconvenient truths"

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=559ab24d-f0b4-43ce-afa1-02a0b3510c7e

Of course this is known to children in elementary school--black absorbs heat! Now we have to have scientists tell us that it is pollution, not co2 causing GW? But I guess there is not as much money in cleaning up something that is measurable?

Well, george, there's another aspect. If it's pollution that is the culprit in AGW, then, the Kyotoists couldn't chastize the West and get the West to pay Sin Money to the 'developing nations'.

After all, it's those 'developing nations' that are prime polluters in the world.

The Kyotoists will stick to CO2 and continue to ignore the problems of pollution.

My understanding of the basic condensation principles are - more particulate in the air = more surface area for condensation of water vapour = more precipitation as rain or snow = earth's surface is cooler and wetter in places. What pollutants may be in that precip is a question worthy of scientific study.

See the effect of pollution on rainfall as described in part of this Wikipedia article on rain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

[The fine particulate matter produced by car exhaust and other human sources of pollution form cloud condensation nuclei, leads to the production of clouds and increases the likelihood of rain. As commuters and commercial traffic cause pollution to build up over the course of the week, the likelihood of rain increases: it peaks by Saturday, after five days of weekday pollution has been built up. In heavily populated areas that are near the coast, such as the United States' Eastern Seaboard, the effect can be dramatic: there is a 22% higher chance of rain on Saturdays than on Mondays.[1]]

An alternative viewpoint (namely, that air pollution can actually reduce precip) can be viewed here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5459/1793

My issue with the above study is that the level of precipitation resulting from increased particulates in the air would largely depend on things like the amount and composition of particulates, area relative humidity, and the interaction of localized meterological pressure systems at the time of the pollution. There are likely several other complicating factors to influence this as well.

In any case, don't discount the possibility that the climate change self-interest folks will pounce on this and twist it to suit their overall purpose...remember, warming, cooling, warming again, Oh OK now it's climate change, now Sooty Snow and Rancid Rain...

The point is, that between solar radiation and dirt, CO2 caused GW is going the way of the Great Awk.

What is of concern for me at least, is that between dirt and solar radiation, great destruction can be caused. Imagine if ice loss would only be half of what it is if there weren't a zillion coal fired plants burning up a storm in China.

Just this past year the NOAA observed the first "dirty" pollution caused storms in the Pacific. Normal storm cells were accelerated into huge storms by Chinese dust and those storms made it all the way onto the Canadian prairies. Inside many of those Alberta raindrops was a nucleus particle from Chinese industry.

I'll get on the bandwagon if it makes common sense and is supported by science. I think most of us will.

From a news article I read the other day the temperature of some place in the high artic was 20 degrees C instead of the normal 5 degrees C. If indeed that is true and I am in no position to argue these numbers then I would suggest that dirty snow would not give sufficient heat absorbtion to cause that kind of temperature difference. A far more likely cause would be wind patterns influenced, I would speculate by ocean temperature/currents. I have yet to hear any solid explanation of El Nino/Nina.

offset your sins like Al and Dr. Bono Suzuki

http://www.gapadventures.com/carbon_calculator/

join the elite jet offset. the carbon cappachino crowd. the chardonnay carbonoffsetters.

one longs for the days of the scientists like John von Neumann who wanted to spread colour on the worlds icecaps to enhance melting and warm the earth.

"I'll get on the bandwagon if it makes common sense and is supported by science. I think most of us will.
Posted by: Paul "

Sure you will. You cite a dirty snow study as sound science, and claim to know that the conservation of mass puts Chinese (or any pollution) right around the world, but ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the existence of greenhouse gas as being a major contributor to climate change. You're all about spin that blames other countries for bad things, while forgetting to pass the blame around at home too.

Saskboy: Did I state that I'd get onto the dirty snow bandwagon? Did I say that the "dirty snow" thesis is any more than just a thesis? As of now it's a theory ... full stop.

What is your point anyway, except to make presumptions? Or is it that you somehow feel warm and fuzzy towards the Chinese, who, along with Europeans, are the dirtiest polluters on the planet.

Ah yes, dirty snow. Didn't some bloody Limey tell us a few months ago that we had a duty to keep our snow clean?

"Or is it that you somehow feel warm and fuzzy towards the Chinese, who, along with Europeans, are the dirtiest polluters on the planet."

I don't feel any better about Chinese or European pollution than I do about Canadian pollution. Do you figure we need a "Feel Good About Canada's Pollution" Campaign from our New Government?

Ha ... Saskboy you are such a wit!

It's not a new idea I can't remember when I first heard this but it goes quite a way back. Ultimately it is tangental as it's not a case this or AGW being true, both can be true.

"The point is, that between solar radiation and dirt, CO2 caused GW is going the way of the Great Awk."

Keep wishing.

"All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham."

- George Orwell

watch out where the huskies go
and don't you eat that yellow snow

F Zappa RIP

It's been address and spelled out in the IPCC and related studies.
"Radiative Forcing of +0.1 [±0.1] W m–2"

Next.

Dirty Snow.... really dirt snow ..... bad snow .... bad dirty snow .... you know I like my snow bad and dirty .... oh yeah baby! Give me that bad dirty snow love!

Wow!...
Just want to say that the posters stepping for Kate are firing on all cylinders...just reading these posts is exhilarating. Writing them must be even better.
Watch out Kate.
Good stuff.
Pedro

alby

NEXT!!!!

you realy missed the point, didn't you

there are, and dirty snow is one, many regional drivers of "climate change", so asking me to put bicyle pedals in my 9000 lbs P-up wouldn't fix the problemo

Dreamed I was an Eskimo
Frozen wind began to blow
Under my boots 'n around my toe
Frost had bit the ground below
Was a hundred degrees below zero
And my momma cried:
And my momma cried:
Nanook-a, no no (no no . . . )
Nanook-a, no no (no no . . . )
Don't be a naughty Eskimo-wo-oh
Save your money: don't go to the show
Well I turned around an' I said:
HO HO
Well I turned around an' I said:
HO HO
Well I turned around an' I said:
HO HO
An' the Northern Lites commenced t' glow
An' she said
With a tear in her eye:
WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO
AN' DON'T YOU EAT THAT YELLOW SNOW
WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO
AN' DON'T YOU EAT THAT YELLOW SNOW

Kelly, you pass through several, potentially productive, areas of inquiry.

Unfortunately, the big bucks go to "Global Warming Climate Change" "research", not to logical academic scientific inquiry.

Joe, around my area, and possibly around the Northern Canadian coast, it is warmer this fall. But look even at the IPCC figures: It hasn't warmed "globally" since 1998.

And in Antartitca, the ice sheets are the largest ever - if we are to believe these people. Of course, this is never mentioned.

...the big bucks go to"Global Warming Climate Change"...

That's right, WC! Did you send me a check this month for your carbon credits? Don't make Mother Gaia mad, send me a check asap, and a few pastries if you don't mind, that makes Mother Gaia very happy.

Al Gore, why are you so fat?

WC, I can't keep my hands off those tasty pastries, especially when I'm sitting in my comfy recliner with the windows open and the AC on counting my money from the dumb rubes environmentally conscious proletariat, it really opens my appetite.

Did you send your check yet?

Did I say "dumb rubes" out loud? I didn't mean it.

Please make checks payable to:

Al Gore Carbon Inc

217 Easystreet Lane suite: Penthouse

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Al Gore's fictional AIT now has to be preceeded by a warning in UK schools;

Disclaimer; the following has many inaccuracies and political bias. Children of an impressional age should be especially aware.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments

First something as simple as dirty snow.

Then a UK judicial warning on Gore inaccuracies.

And then the Chronical Herald piece on Canadian opposition party's disarray on Kyoto.

[Opposition Parties Unsure Of What Tack To Take On Environment File] CH

How about a pledge to adopt a policy of adversion to all Hoaxes and Scams ?? Despite what the media pushes.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/922729.html

OMMAG I'd rather be even a half wit over a denier twit.

Saskboy -

Don't you feel just a teensy bit dumb lumping folks who question AGW with those who deny the Holocaust? Apart from edging into Godwin's Law, don't you find it even a little bit insulting to the memory of millions who died in the camps?

Maybe not. AGW has become the new religion for the Left, and you're - unfortunately - one of many who've bought the idea hook, line & sinker. Perhaps you really DO believe sending $billions to China is good for the environment (or, better yet, "it can't hurt"). You might find
this link a bit useful in deprogramming yourself.

Or not.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

it's still the same old climate change that has been/will be going on for eons past, present and future. if you think the human race has any control over Mother Nature and can actually change what is/was/will be happening, then IMO you are delusional and think way too much of yourself.

This Canadian takes on a Yankee Flake;

Gore wrong on warming
Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Re: "The planet has a fever," Sept. 30.

I don't know if Al Gore specifically mentioned me as a "global warming denier" in his speech. The article implied he did.

I'm flattered to be mentioned, but I've always acknowledged warming occurred, I just point out there is no evidence humans are the cause. I've spent my career educating people that climate changes all the time and current changes are well within natural variability.

The article correctly reports I "branded Gore's 100-minute documentary an error-filled propaganda piece."

I'm not alone. James Hansen, Gore's own science adviser and political supporter conceded, with huge understatement, the movie has imperfections and technical flaws. The flaws are large enough to fail a term paper from any student in attendance.

There's no evidence humans are affecting the global climate. Despite this, Gore's ignorance pushes policies harmful to the planet and humanity. The world has cooled slightly since 1998 and experts expect continued cooling to 2030. Gore and others have stampeded world leaders into preparing for warming.

Dr. Tim Ball,

Natural Resources Stewardship Project,

Victoria.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

"There's no evidence humans are affecting the global climate."?

and he calls himself a Canadian. It’s kind of embarrassing when he does that.

American flake, Al Gore, is your Idol?

An Inconvenient Truth is full of lies. UK judge says so. UK !! That hotbed of Kyotoism.

The Globe's Dawn Walton is so pathetic.

She tries to spin/fear monger with the headline;

Dragonflies, open water reveal rapid Arctic change

But right at the end she has to (lawyer's advice?) put it in perspective;

[Back in Chesterfield Inlet yesterday, the snow was flying and the freeze was setting in. “It still looks normal,” Mr. Tautu said. He's not worried about a big melt, figuring the polar bears, other animals and people will adapt. Snow and ice, he said, will always be there. Still, he added, times have changed since his elders could read the weather better than any scientist.

I was taught about the weather when I was a little boy,” he said. “Nowadays we can't predict it any more.]

Don't feel bad, Mr. Tautu, neither can Environment Canada. They just feel bad because as the scam-of-the-century dies, so does EC "research" money.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wwarm1004/BNStory/ClimateChange/home

alby the asshat moonbat, fer cryin out loud get your head out of the sand for 1 minute and look at the really big picture...the universe, the galaxy. You and I are insignificant, nothing. Yet you insist on jumping up and down screaming that you are significant. what exactly do you hope to accomplish in your own little world? 'cause in the end that's all that matters...what did you accomplish?

"and he calls himself a Canadian. It’s kind of embarrassing when he does that."

Why alby cause he hasn't swallowed the Gore koolaid? I'll put my trust in a well educated man before I put any in the self serving bs spread by Gore and his ilk. Especially the hypocrites that believe you can buy your way out of the shat you leave behind. Like all lefty hypocrites you spew bs. Next time you demean Dr. Tim Ball use your real name if you dare!

I completely disagree with the black carbon - dirty snow argument.

As all of us in the colder climates know, dirty snow and covered ice ACTUALLY MELTS SLOWER than clean white snow and ice. The sand and dirt coverd snowbanks along the sidewalks melt much later in the spring than on your lawn for example despite being on the hot black pavement even.

The dirt acts as insolation layer and keeps the cold in the snow and ice. I imagine that in the Arctic, dirty snow and ice may not melt at all throughout the short summer.

Before refrigeration, in the old days of delivered to your door ice blocks in cities for you none electric "ice box", this ice was cut in blocks from lakes and other water basins and stored in warehouses HEAVILY COVERED with saw dust and/or hay to extend it's life span throughout the summer months...'Nauf said.

The sand and dirt coverd snowbanks along the sidewalks melt much later in the spring than on your lawn for example despite being on the hot black pavement even.

It couldn't be because the sand and dirt covered snowbanks are compacted and the snow on the lawn isn't? heh

A layer of soil on top can make snow melt slower ?

Yes. If it is an inch thick. (All our farmers would be out of business though)

Cjunk's post refers to a very, very thin layer of dust --- microscopic.

The sun's radiation heats up the dark particles much more than the high albedo snow. The warm particles then melt through the snow. Far, far too thin for any insullating effect.

I lived with this phenomena all my life. But trust the 'drive-bys' to try and muddy the snow.

"The sun's radiation heats up the dark particles much more than the high albedo snow. The warm particles then melt through the snow. Far, far too thin for any insullating effect."

There is no debate over this, it's clearly spelled out in the IPCC AR4.

There is no debate over this, it's clearly spelled out in the IPCC AR4
The IPCC says so!!!
Good thing there was no debate over the Earth being flat, either eh?

"Bryan at October 4, 2007 2:21 PM"
No Bryan, take what Ron in Kelowna said and then what I said and put it all together. To what Ron said I have no argument, a thin layer of black soot on snow will make that snow melt faster because the reflective properties of that snow have been reduced. The only way that black soot on snow doesn't make that snow melt faster is if that soot is thick enough to act as an insulator against the thermal radiation between the surface and the top layer of the snow.
This reduced reflectivity (albedo) is recognised by the IPCC. as a contributing factor in global warming when it says that black carbon adds a positive radiative forcing of 0.1 [±0.1] W m–2 on average to the planet. This equates to a global temperature increase of .075 degree C..

Now when applied to the original question that asked
"I wonder if the "models" accounted for dirt ... likely not, as gool'ol dirt just ain't as sexy as C02 or Ozone..."
The answer to that question would be yes, it is accounted for. The levels that are quoted in the article are way off

So what do you not agree with?

Albatros39a:

Why can the IPCC never be wrong?

Thanks ward, that was the point i was trying to get at...with little success apparently.

Doesn't appear we are getting an answer Bryan.

Posted by: ward at October 4, 2007 5:21 PM
How many more thousands of studies do you want before you're convinced? Since the IPCC AR4 was initially put out a few months ago, thousands of other studies carried out and published, polishing the data that the AR4 presented.
The only place where the IPCC fall short is that it's too conservative.

Soot is one of the few points I agree with the AGW folks. Melting snowpacks and glaciers seem much more likely to melt from soot deposits than from a half degree or so of air temperature. Similarly small changes in ocean currents can cause massive melts of sea ice. You can't explain meltig glaciers by half a degree. It makes me curious as to why the fixation on CO2.
Can man make the environment change? Sure, I'd say so, but not by very much on a global scale. CO2 emissions are way down the list of worries for reasonable people.
And, as I've noted before, since no industrialized country has made anything more than gestures towards lowering their output of CO2 then doesn't the whole argument become moot?

CNN weatherman knows his science; (click video)

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html

Video -- Al Gore debates;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

Albatross:

We are already learning that the data collection methodology and accuracy is suspect with regards to temperature. Junk in Junk out.

So they have done lots of studies. Again why can't the IPCC be wrong?

They ARE wrong !! Often !!

Mann's fake hockey stick graph is the most glaring example.

ward at October 5, 2007 12:21 PM
Ward why don't you learn the science behind the warming and you wouldn't make such laughable statements that clearly demonstrates ignorance. As I read the posts here it's painfully clear people are simply getting their global warming info from three sources.
1- Global Warming Climate Catastrophe - Cancelled!
2- The Great Global Warming Swindle
3- Bjorn Lomborg
All three of these are very badly flawed and are simply lying to the people. Too many deniers go no further than these sources and are willing to simply let a video they found on the internet tell them what to believe with regards to global warming.

www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/

Heh, when I first read that ling thought it said www.moonbat.com

So if i understand correctly, there are scientists that do not agree with other scientists. "There is no debate..."? Sounds to me like there IS debate over many things.
What do your puppetmasters claim was the warmest year in the last decade albatros39a? This is not a rhetorical question, i truly want to know. I think i read somewhere it was 1998, no?

Warmest years on record
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
What scientist's are you referring to that have actually done research on global warming? There are scientists (I'm being very generous calling them scientists) out there that have done no research on global warming and are growing rich by selling their PhD sound bites to the highest bidder.
Of course the 2007 numbers are still not in but it appears that 2004 is going to get bumped off that as 2007 may just take top spot.

ol' hoss: the term "moonbat" is a slang of "monbiot", so you are nearly correct!

"There are scientists... out there that have done no research on global warming and are growing rich by selling their PhD sound bites to the highest bidder"

Doubtless. Some of them may have even specialized in researching fruit flies, and never came close to studying climatology for their PhD thesis. And speaking of "scientists growing rich", it would be illuminating if albatros provided the technical school and climatology degree conferred upon the High Priest of AGW, Algore. You might have difficulties in ascertaining his scientific training, but at $100K a throw for AGW fearmongering, there's no doubt that Gore is growing rich with his shtick.

The NASA "heat list" was was debunked here, and reported on SDA in August.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

The following is a very brief glimpse of educated individuals who do not believe the debate is over...
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg:
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Colorado
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

I could go on and on...

I think any one of them would like to see your proof that the debate is over...
Have your credentials ready, though. They may find it odd that you can't even get the list of 10 hottest years on record correct...
I would be curious to know who stands to make more profit over this issue, Big Government who will be able to create a brand new type of tax from scratch? Carbon Offsetting companies (doesn't Al Gore have a stake in one of these)? Do you think they might be willing to spend billions of dollars hiring "scientists" who blindly say "YES, the debate is over!!! Humans and big business cause all our misery and suffering and will bring about the end of the world!!!"
I hear Al Gore alone makes $250,000 just for showing up to regurgitate his highly disproven propoganda video. And he won't even open the floor to ACTUAL scientists who want only to debate his claims...
Wonder how many above ACTUAL scientists make income like that selling their PhD's to the highest bidder? (i would really like to see your proof of this as well, otherwise it would be wise to be very careful what you accuse these people of)
BTW:
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939

Looks to me like we have been on a cooling trend since '98.
Recent NASA Research:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

I am just fanning the flames here albatros. I don't know anyone who denies temperatures are rising. But most i know ask why is the debate over, the science settled, etc. etc... Where was I when the undeniable proof was laid out for all too see?
Let's see your proof Dr. albatros (PhD)

oops - proof that you and i are responsible is what i am after here albatros
end the debate here and now

Best check your facts, particularly the those temperature records.

Of those names you have listed, that's a nice little list that you have, now were is their research on the subject. I'd be really interested for you to tell me what papers Tim Ball or Fred Singer have published on the subject.

I randomly picked one name out of you list, "Syun-Ichi Akasofu" who is one of the authors of "Atmospheric CO2 balance - The role of Arctic sea ice." Based on the text of that article he certainly doesn't belong on your list. Maybe it's time to double check the information you are trying to flog.

W Soon: You should read his article titled “Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings” in it he does anything but dispute AGW. What he’s saying is that if we continue to let the earth warm we will see a much faster warming as the oceans release CO2 in a positive feedback scenario.

That’s good enough, you’ve been shown the errors of you ways.

Really?

"The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu

"[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
- Willie Soon

Are these the words of men who think the science is settled and the debate is over?
I did not say any of the above are (what you would call) "deniers", merely that they do not believe the "science is settled" or that there is "no debate".

Read what i am typing here albatros - THERE IS STILL DEBATE AMONG SCIENTISTS!!!!
NOTHING IS SETTLED!!!

Show me where my temperature data is incorrect.
Show me where yours is correct.
Show me your published papers on the subject.

"That's good enough, you've been shown the errors of you[r] ways."

sigh

Once again, your superiority complex is hindering your ability to reason.

Nothing is settled albatros, not even your own mind.

Show me my errors again, i love it.

An interesting read, alby:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html

I think you will find a rather interesting quote from good ol' Willie Soon in there...
I know you are not interested in reading it, so allow me to share another error with you:
"Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

hmmmm...sounds like the evidence is in to me.
NOTHING LEFT TO DEBATE, right?

Or is he a stooge of Big Oil now too, living in one of many 10,000 square foot mansions he owns paid for by selling out his PhD to the highest bidder?

*a little off topic*
Cumulatively, how many detached properties covering how much earth do you think Suzuki and Gore own?
When was the last time you planted a tree?

What the AGW zealots don't - or won't - recognize is that "science" isn't a closed shop, demanding conformity of opinion.

Science is about - should be about - demanding answers to nagging questions, and not placing anything above debate or analysis. Those with contrary opinions should be encouraged to delve deeper and either disprove the current model, or reinforce it with unexpected results. Some age-old scientific principles still hold today; Newtonian mechanics are still valid at the macro level, but fall apart at the quantum level. However, if we'd only demanded fealty to the Newtonian model, the realm of quantum mechanics - to say nothing of the gains from researching same - would be a closed door.

In a world where legitimate skeptics are shouted down, had research grants rescinded, reputations smeared, and insultingly named "deniers", this isn't science. Call it enforced dogma. Politically correct propaganda gone mad. Para-scientific McCarthyism. Whatever.

But "science", it ain't. All one needed to hear was Suzuki storming out of AM640 Toronto when he was asked - politely - if he thought the scientific "debate" on AGW was truly over. Suzuki's hissy fit and storming off like a 3-year-old whose birthday cake fell on the floor tends to suggest the debate indeed isn't over, else it would have been much easier for him to remain and sell the idea on the "facts".

And to hold up Al Gore as the spokesman for AGW, a man without even a rudimentary Bachelor's degree in science, is laughable in the least. Sort of like nominating a fine arts grad or landscaper to lead the Federal Reserve; it's pitiful when you think of it. All you need do is follow the money to realize where Gore's bread is buttered, and it's obvious he has a very high financial stake in frightening the masses into believing in AGW.

mhb23re

Fantastic post mhb.

Bryan
Soon is basically saying that anthro CO2 is causing a positive feedback increasing the amount of CO2 released by natural sources like the oceans. He is in no way saying man made global warming isn't happening.

Akasofu on the other hand he isn't quite sure what to believe. He has been quoted in saying:
"Most people assume that period called the Little Ice Age is over, but what I can see, is that temperature has been increasing almost linearly at a constant rate of about 0.5° C, by 100 years, continuously; to the present. So I doubt that much of the increase over the last 100 years the IPCC says, of about 0.6°, is due to the greenhouse effect—that's what they say. Well, they assume. They have not taken the natural component; we don't know what they did!"
One look at the temperature record of the past 300 years will tell you the rate of warming has been anything but linear. He has also been quoted as saying that he likes to take the opposite side of the fence to promote scientific advancement and that he doesn't like the way the IPCC goes about it's business. In his article above he support the idea of AGW. So what is in this guys head, even he isn't sure and therefore not to be taken seriously. Perhaps he has retired for a reason.

Re: “Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades…”
Nobody is arguing those points. Nobody is denying the Medieval Warming period or the Little Ice age. What is of concern is the rate of change being seen, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the related implications. If these changes occur unchecked the temperature could easily surpass the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, but the current warming is. The global temperatures should be cooling, but it’s instead being overwhelmed by AGW.

“Cumulatively, how many detached properties covering how much earth do you think Suzuki and Gore own?”

I neither know, nor do I care. You will never hear me quoting Al Gore. Suzuki on the other hand in my opinion is doing a great job.

When was the last time I planted a tree? Well I suppose that would be in July when I planted two silver maples in my back yard. They both died. The other 23 trees that I planted on my 1/4 acre town lot over the past ten years are doing just fine.

mhb said it all !!

'Warming Alarmists' use Mythinformation.

Soon is basically saying that...
Willie Soon speaks for himself:
http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Soon_072903.htm

You do not speak for him, albatros

Syun-Ichi Akasofu speaks for himself:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Perhaps he retired because he had a long and distinguished career - nothing more. Are you trying to suggest he is a quack because he merely wants more research before calling the science settled?

Good lord albatros, clearly the science is not settled. It's ok to admit you are wrong once in a while. Get over yourself.

Bryan at October 7, 2007 12:59 PM
No Bryan, I don't speak for Soon, I read the source articles relating to the story.