Freeman Dyson, on one reason why "global warming" is a misnomer:

"As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming."

This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger."

Another logical explanation for why the Arctic rather than the Antarctic is undergoing disproportionate change is that the northern hemisphere generates so much airborne pollution that gets absorbed by arctic snow and ice that it reflects less light from the sun and causes warming.

Or, it could be that NASA and company have been frigging with the numbers for 30 years.

Occam's Razor says disinformation campaign much more likely, given the political circumstances.

To all you skeptics out there, if the prediction that there is a 50% chance that most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear THIS SUMMER, while you still think there will be:
1. no consquences?
2. That Al Gore is full of BS

Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that global warming is a liberal, commie, socialist, environmental leftist hoax?

North pole ice conditions in 1987.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/NP%20ice%201987.jpg

Fire fire pants on liars.

That's interesting. I notice that CBC's National weather a few days ago showed Canada in all red tones as well, even where it was, say, 23 degrees. I don't recall that particular scheme before.

Hmmm.

Busted!

Jamie Hansen, come on down!

Canukguy , ahem ...... yes , yes , no . How many offsets do I win ?

Canuckguy

I guess you missed the story about the GIANT UNDERWATER VOLCANOES under the arctic ice then, huh? Or the much smaller volcano under the ONLY part of Antarctica to be losing ice (the rest is gaining in mass/thickness of ice.)

I guess you missed the story about the lack of ANY warming since 1998 then, huh?

I guess you missed the part where NASA et al quietly announced global warming was "on hold" for 15-20 years while a "natural cycle" (unlike when it gets hot) takes place (confirming what that Russian scientist claimed while all the Kyoto Kultist ridiculed him.)

I guess you missed NASA's head liar, James Hanson, claim in a paper he co-authored that the world was going into an ice age. That was in the 1970's.

Believe what you want (I don't care if you have ritualized sex on trees to worship Mother Gaia.) Just don't ask me to F***ing pay for it.

has anyone noticed that the great white north is mostly orange and red when temps exceed 20 degrees c.

by the way. temps will be 1.6 degrees c cooler in 2030.

Well, canuckguy, since the possibility of that event happening is essentially zero, short of an astronomical phenomenon, your questions answer themselves. So glad to see you admit you are part of generating an environmental hoax.

As to Musicman, the concentration of CO2 is indeed rising by about 1/2 percent annually, but neither you nor the IPCC have demonstrated that humans are responsible for all of that increase, let alone that it has the impacts and distributions that you claim it does. Moreover, if your last statement is true, then the real object of your global warming campaign should be the elimination of soot, not the elimination of CO2.

Are you people even remotely capable of mounting a credible, defensible argument?

Canuckguy, to your questions: 1. No 2. Yes

"Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that global warming is a liberal, commie, socialist, environmental leftist hoax?"

No, no doubts. Your assertions are wrong though. Although I'll admit the global warmers fear mongering* is very good for the wallet, (govs too), but "natural cycles" banished to the trash bin is cool eh?

* I love that phrase 'fear mongering'. It's at the top of every leftards vocabulary, applicable to everything. Saves a lot of talkin'.

Sounder,

"It's at the top of every leftards vocabulary, applicable to everything. Saves a lot of talkin'"

Saves a lot of thinking, too.

Canuckguy - let's rephrase your question and see your answers

To all you AGW supporters out there, if the prediction that there is a 50% chance that most if not all of the antarctic ice will increase THIS WINTER, while you still think there will be:
1. some consquences?
2. That Al Gore is not full of BS

Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that anti-global warming is a conservative, capitalist, oil-backed, globalisation, right-wing criminal activity?

Don't worry, I am not really expecting an answer that makes any sense, so please feel free to spew!!!

Oh, Vitruvius, in your capacity as DJ, any chance of "Fancy Colours" by Chicago?

You know what really pi&&es Suzuki, Hansen, et al off is the fact thay they have to spend millions, if not billions, fabricating evidence, holding conferences, buying air-time, buying research, etc,etc, etc.

Then along comes a few guys (who by definition according to the lefties) aren't even qualified to speak on the subject and somehow, just somehow, they manage to poke holes so big in the whole damn shebang that not even Bill Clinton could/would fill it.

So, assuming no political interference (as we know that would never happpen) than that must mean the AGW crowd has the dumbest bunch of scientists that mankind has ever assembled on a single topic.

Fire.Them.All

Sorry- I don't mean to steal the HRC thunder, but it just kinda fits!!

There should be research dollars re-deployed to search for the leftard gene so we can eliminate it.

As an interim measure, we can ban leftards from all positions where thought, eithics, integrity and/or honestly are required.

Now that we hear Mr Harper saying big emitters must come on line (USA, India and China), or what's the point. Even though this makes sense, he gets called hypocritical by envirobureaugeeks from Europe, who cynically ensured they complied with Kyoto before ever signing on. It's like they insist we tank our economy, and egad, don't use nuclear power, even though they do and have increased their emissions under their corrupt cap and spend (taxpayers' money) schemes. Then they threaten to put protectionist tariffs on North American goods (not China though, as they play their switcheroo game - well they're the worst, but they never agreed to anything, or didn't have to).

It's amazing these clowns can be such hypocrites themselves. Forget it Euroweenies, we're not afraid of your protectionist talk, you want our raw materials (we take the emissions hit though, how convenient), you're not going to guilt us into electing socialist rose coloured glasses types (Dion, Obama). Unbelievable - China can grow emissions drastically (already #1 24%), while Canada, at 2% (oooooh look, per capital is high - can you spell tundra idiot), must shut down their economy. No talk of the real cure, developing new energy technology, no talk of China getting on board.

This dog won't hunt.

June 20, 2008, 23:59 UTC; the summer solstice. Days in the Arctic are already getting shorter. Shorter days means cooler temperatures for those having trouble following.

http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm

The current sea ice extent. I do not think that there is much chance of all the ice disappearing any time soon.

As one who sees graphical data maps regularly, I'm very wary that a data picture can tell a thousand lies to the untrained eye. This is a great example of how to graphically skew data presentation to achieve the desired effect.

In this case the data maps were talored for public consumption of proof of AGW and to hide data discrepancies between the two models. Looks like enough proof to me for a congressional hearing on future budget funding.

Another point to ponder.

The satellite record of Arctic ice extent dates back to 1979. In layman's terms, that is 29 years. There are sports franchises older than that. Heck, there are still people living with their parents who are older than that.

To speak of record lows, or record highs, when we know about 29 out of 89,000,000,000 years seems a bit presumptuous.

FoxNews has indeed reported that scientists have discovered evidence of high volcanic activity under the arctic waters. They claim that this occured in the late '90's.
Now, I'm just a country boy but, if I remember my high school physics/chemistry/geography correctly, I think I got this all figured out.
Volcanic activity is hot. Really, really hot. Hot magma meets cold water. Water heats up. Ice submerged in water in turn heats up and sometimes melts.
I stand to be corrected so if any of you experts out ther wish to contradict what I have said, I would appreciate your comments

Sorry Malcolm Cross, you're wrong. The volcanic activity simply means the "theory" of heat melting ice will have to put on hold, until global warming resumes, in about twelve years.

If if wasn't for us virus humans, there would obviously been much less volcanic activity, because we are responsible for ALL warming, so must be responsible for increased magma.

C'mon you should have known that.

I agree with most of the points made here debunking global warming and highlighting aspects of the scam -- but the message doesn't seem to be getting out. To me the information published on WattsUp, Motl's site, etc. are very important considerations in the AGW argument, but the mssg. does not seem to get through to MSM or the general public. Why is that? Except for a few brave columnists, media all telling a different story (from this one) -- I think I read another global warming fear story just yesterday. I would have thought that with serious challenges such as the one reflected in the comments from Freeman Dyson alerts re 20-year cooling, etc. media would by now at least begin questioning the validity of AGW. At this point, I think it won't matter what new research turns up, the media/and AGW profiteers will not be changing their tune any time soon. I think trying to get profile for questioning AGW is a lost cause. I think it is a combination of the AGW agenda being pushed and mass hysteria -- people believing because the mssg. has been repeated often enough. I think it is a very sad commentary on our society.

Some fascinating comments and observations re global warming hysteria and political manipulation here: http://tinyurl.com/4f8u63
(Wall Street Journal discussion forum)

CanuckGuy, come back when it actually happens, and bring with you a reason to ignore the volcanos, which just happen, by sheer coincidence, to coincide with the beginning of the drop off in arctic ice.

You could also bring an explanation of why Antarctic ice is growing. There are some studies which suggest that increases in southern ice are precursors to ice ages, sheilding the oceans from sunlight, cooling them, increasing the albedo of the planet, but why am I wasting my time talking to somebody who considered a prediction an accomplished fact?

"...most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear (sic) THIS SUMMER..."

(Canuckguy)

Scary stuff indeed. Maybe Canuckguy should go back and re-read the news releases. There is no way all the floating ice in the Arctic will melt this summer, unless you mean all but 6 million sq. km.

Regards, BRK

"...most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear (sic) THIS SUMMER..."

(Canuckguy)

Scary stuff indeed. Maybe Canuckguy should go back and re-read the news releases. There is no way all the floating ice in the Arctic will melt this summer, unless you mean all but 6 million sq. km.

Regards, BRK

Warwick: You said "I guess you missed NASA's head liar, James Hanson, claim in a paper he co-authored that the world was going into an ice age. That was in the 1970's."

Can you back up this statement with the actual title of a paper that he co-authored?

cgh: Yes, as I have pointed out in the past, we are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2. As long as we are pumping out twice as much as is showing up in the atmosphere, there is no doubt that we are responsible.

Regards,
John

Ummmmm....so tell me, John, if only half of what we pump out shows up in the atmosphere,where is the other half going? Just curious.

All right, I missed that volcano story, not really an issue if it is just a few burps. Considering the massive area of ice involved and the volume of water under it, , a few active volancos would have a paltry effect.

Also, I did mean “if” as in “if the prediction comes true”--- then what would you lot think. And note that there is only a 50% chance the prediction will come true but whatever, a hell of a loss of Artic ice is impending, much more than normal.

I predict there will be a collective eating of hats from you hardheads by the end of summer.

Hate to tell you guys. but ice disappears every summer even in the summer. I worked up on the Arctic coast in the mid 1980's. A CBC film crew came up from Toronto to film all the ice but was shocked to find that there were no icebergs. They wanted to make one but did not have the know-how.

We laugh at Americans who come to Canada with skis in the summer but many southerners are delusional about northern conditions.

Canuckguy, I will just assume that you mean a lot more ice will melt than the average of the past 29 years. Because 29 years of satellite data is all we have. 29 years is the entire historical record of Arctic sea ice extent. 1979 is the first year we know about.

What about the 22000 scientists on the petition acknowledging there is no evidence that man is causing GW?

Canuckguy, you miss the point. Very few people would argue that the Earth has not been undergoing a period of warming over the last two centuries, although it seems to have slowed or stopped for the moment.

The point is that the science is not settled; that it is possible to question those who claim that it is settled without committing a crime against humanity, as so many of them would have you believe; and that climate models are based on incomplete data, assumptions, and unknowable variables.

Embrace those who seek the truth; question those who claim to have found it.

Color? What Color? Is somebody discriminating against those of us that are Color Blind?

Is this AGW debate only open to the visually elite.. Cut funding to the Bastards

Color? What Color? Is somebody discriminating against those of us that are Color Blind?

Is this AGW debate only open to the visually elite.. Cut funding to the Bastards

As long as we are pumping out twice as much as is showing up in the atmosphere, there is no doubt that we are responsible.

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross 2008 7:23 PM

welllll, no John, there is doubt, even if all that we were pumping out showed up, cuz some of that may be geting eliminated through natural processes and there may be other sources that are adding to the CO2 count, like in the past before the Hummmer was invented and the CO2 rose to higher counts that it is today ( or so the scientists say)

I don't know the facts, and YOU don't know the facts, and Hansen is a hypocritical liar!!!

We have warming right now because it's summer. I predict there will be serious cooling in November.

Strangely they are getting the exact opposite south of the equator.

The climate on this damn planet is like an elevator out of control. I think it's the movement of the planet around the sun and the spinning on it's axis, in part. Also the variable activity of the sun's nuclear furnace that is mostly to blame for this phenomenon.

However, I predict that neither the warming nor the cooling will last unless the earth stops spinning or the sun burns out.

There is also the cloud density and ocean currents to consider, but they are far too complicated for ANYONE to figure out.

I think there are small local weather patterns in some areas of the planet where there is heavy industry, but that affects just that local area where there is large population density along with a lot of black top, buildings with air conditioners and a zillion cars buzzing all about.

Again, that affects those local areas and is nowhere near enough of a force to compete with those other phenomena I mentioned. Nut, that won't stop until the eco zealots have us all living in caves and tents and eating tofu paste and grass.

But then, there will so much urine and feces strewn about everywhere that we will be suffocating and dying of various diseases that there will be no big hospitals to help with because we will be in the woods and the hospitals will all be closed due to the pollution they create with their air conditioning and so on.

But before any of that happens I have no doubt that many of us will be forced to use our legally registered rifles and shotguns to change the minds of the eco idiots who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Okay, there, I feel better now.

GYM: Well, let me again present my analogy. If you consider the atmosphere to be a bank account and the CO2 the dollars in it, then the various sources and sinks can be represented by different peeople who share the bank account. Some put money in, some take it out. At the end of the year we note that we have put in $7 and the bank account is $3 higher than it was at the start of the year. So the key question is what would be the level in the bank account if we did not contribute our $7?

Regards,
John

Theory ,as I understand it, dictates that the temperature profile relative to altitude will change in specific ways due to the CO2. The temperature profile has not behaved as predicted by the models, that is, the warming is more pronounced at the surface as opposed to the upper troposhpere. The nonconforming profile indicates most of the warming is due to factors other than infrared absorption by CO2 (such as: heat island, land usage, measurement bias & solar).

@ John Cross - So, you maintain that CO2 levels are driven by linear response?

Yea or nay?

Tenebris: both linear and non-linear responses of course. There is obviously a linear response between anthropogenic and "natural" CO2 molecules (i.e. a sink will take only X number of molecules and it does not matter if they are of anthropogenic origin or not).

Now, let me ask you a direct question. You start a bank account with $100 and people put in and take out money all year long and you put in $7 and at the end of they year the bank account has $103 in it. Would it have increased past $100 if you had not put in your $7. Yea or nay?

Regards,
John

John Cross - why the persistent attempt to get people to agree to your faulty analogy. The earth's climate is NOT a bank, inputs and outputs are not independent and definitely do not have a linear relationship.

You have previously stated that we do not need to know all the detailed relationships affecting CO2 sources/sinks to be able to estimate man's contribution. What a load of hooey!!

How, can you possibly claim, that you can accurately isolate and characterise one variable from a poorly defined yet extremely complex system? What manner of math and science allows you to do this?

You are basing your asumption upon the utterly incorrect linking of correlation to causation in order to claim scientific fact. While this linking may allow you to make some interesting statistical statements, to extend this to scientific conclusions is wrong, and you should know this.

Any reasonable scientist would say: we have some correlated data here that indicates a relationship between man-made CO2 and overall Co2 levels in the atmosphere (e.g. there is a big arrow pointing this way). However, we don't understand the overall system that controls CO2 levels. Thus it is essential that we undertake to accurately characterise this system BEFORE we make any conclusions about why CO2 is increasing.

Now, I will say that we can never fully characterise such a complex system, so at some point we will have to say that we know about as much as we are ever gonna know, and here are our conclusions (with error bars that clearly show our uncertainty). However, we are clearly NOT at this point (e.g. we updated a major mechanism wrt ozone, what else are we missing?)

The fact that you, and most of the AGW crowd, skip this most fundamental of steps and claim certainty in man’s culpability is a very clear indicator that you care not for the scientific process. Thus, you have no scientific credibility!!

But I will answer your question anyways. Yea. The reason being is that the bank is able to lend out money based on its assets (and pay interest on your account). Had you not include your 7 dollars, the bank would not have had enough assets to make that stupid sub-prime mortgage. But because you put in your 7 dollars, they made the mortgage. However, the lendee didn’t even make a single payment so the bank had to foreclose and lost money. So because you put in your 7 dollars, there was only 103 in the account. Had you not put in your 7, there would have been a 105 (as all their other mortages went fine ).

flyboy - as the AGW crowd will tell you repeatedly, local events cannot be used to infer anything about global climate - you have to look at the big picture (preferably their big picture).

I dont give a rat's derriere why you can't figure this out, only that you can't!!

Don't crashland when you come down from that high!

Canuck Guy @ 3:23 ...Artic ice will disapear...
========================
Some of the letters have already disappeared. You could be right.

flyboy, the point has been made for years and all agree on this, including all of the advocates of AGW; weather and climate are not the same thing. If you knew anything aboutleague tables you would understand there is not the slightest significance to a temperature record being set in any given locality.

Sorry John, your argument still doesn't hold water, or carbon dioxide. Human emissions are still trivial compared to natural CO2 exchanges. Until you can 1 quantify them and 2 show how they vary, you cannot make the claim that all of the excess CO2 is of human origin because you have not established whether rising CO2 is a cause or an effect of another process.

Frenchie77: If you are claiming that my argument is based on correlation is causation then you do not understand my points.

However I like your example. Now could you please identify the following parts from your extension to my analogy in the area of CO2 sources and sinks.
1) a mortgage
2) the sub-prime mortgage
3) lendee

and then identify the following processes:

1) lend and pay interest
2) foreclosure
2) the mechanism to decide which mortgage to fund and which to not.

Regards,
John

cgh: I don't think your really understand my point since the points you raise are no relevant to it. It does not matter what the sources and sinks are - as long as we are producing more than what is showing up in the atmosphere we are responsible for the rise (in the sense that if we did not produce so much CO2 the rise would not be taking place).

Regards,
John

John Cross and Tenebris, there's no need to get all excited about the CO2 and how much we are all pumping out.

I just go back to the measurements. There is no -reliable- measurement that shows anything at all, increase or decrease, that can't be explained by -normal- temperature cycles. There used to be farming in Greenland, then later there was skating on the canals in Holland, now maybe we are heading for some more farming in Greenland. Or hell, maybe the skating again, we really can't tell what's going to happen.

I want to see a measurement that shows this to be a problem. A reliable measurement mind you, not something taken from a thermometer next to an air conditioner in front of an asphalt parking lot, with a barbecue.

Flyboy, I just saw your little whinge about mountain ice. Sorry dude, wrongo.

You know how "hot" California is this year, right? Lots of fires, drought, end of the world and stuff.

Friend of mine climbed Mt. Shasta last week. It is solid ice from the base camp at ~9000ft all the way up to the tippy tippy top ~14,000ft. This is the West Face we're talking here, not the shady side. They were crampons and ice axes the whole way, excepting the odd talus slope.

That ain't Noah you're looking at, that's Algore. Its people like him that give demagoguery a bad name, know what I mean?

John Cross – OK, I admit, it was a mistake to answer your analogy question – I see that now!! It will only cause uselss discussion of a non-relevant topic.

I also admit that I may have mis-understood your points, please clearly explain them again. You have me confused because you say, again :

as long as we are producing more than what is showing up in the atmosphere we are responsible for the rise (in the sense that if we did not produce so much CO2 the rise would not be taking place)

It is rather clear to me (and anyone reading this) that you are linking correlation to causation.

In other words, we estimate what we produce, we observe the data – the two data sets seems to match and the guilty party is found. If we didn’t produce it, the data would not show a rise.

Thus, according to you : correlation = causation!! How else could someone possibly interpret your statement?

I have a prediction. If the Arctic ice does not disappear this year, if in fact the opposite were to occur, the multi-year ice started to grow; all these head in the sand warming types would simply pretend that they never said anything on the subject and that they had in fact always been worried about something else.

Something like, Oceania has always been at war with East Asia...

John Cross is right, Hansen published no such paper and making unsubstantiated claims like this only allows the environazis who want you to freeze in the dark to score points. Cross picks his targets well. It shows that all the time when they don't answer a point you make, it is because they don't have an answer, because when they do, the thread gets flooded.

Hansen developed software which was like a primitive climate model that was used by scientists who thought we might be in for a cooling, and BTW, it is not as if they have been proven wrong. Just look at the Southern Hemisphere where Global Warming since the 80s has been exactly zero as far as we can measure, and where sea ice extent has been growing to record (ok, since we have been measuring it, which is something like thirty years) levels.

the problem becomes that CO2 was highest when there were no humans.

and on a closer time frame CO2 was higher in the pre industrial revolution as was the temperature. CO2 tends to lag temperature rises , they are the effect not the cause.

human success is a result of global warming. otherwise the glaciers would have us trapped somewhere around Turkey in the great boreal forests .

John Cross,
Your Analogy would have us believe that, if you are at the bottom of the Ocean, only the Surface .00000001 of water is responsible for your drowning.

Voodoo Logic… Indeed.. If we humman's can be seen to have an effect on the Surface, no matter how trivial, we are responsible for all drownings!

Frankly if I was at the bottom of the ocean I could care less if the ocean surface increased or decreased 3 feet....

That why we need metrics!

"Now, let me ask you a direct question. You start a bank account with $100 and people put in and take out money all year long and you put in $7 and at the end of they year the bank account has $103 in it. Would it have increased past $100 if you had not put in your $7. Yea or nay?

Regards,
John"

Not enough information to say. If you start with $100 and and with $103, but your cash flow is $100,000, your $7 is only 0.007% and not stastically significant. If your cash flow is $10 then you may be right, but you really should know where the other $4 went. Your analogy then fails in that we don't necessary have a PERFECT accounting of the sources and sinks that you would get with a bank account.

Frenchie77: Busy time at work today so I will delay in giving you a more detailed description - will post more tonight. However if you want to see a classic correlation is causation fallacy please read Tim's post.

Phillip: no, your parallel is not correct, but we can use your example to create an appropriate analogy. The ocean has a number of sources and sinks. Over the year, we add enough water to raise the sea level 7 inches, but we observe that the actual change in the sea level is an increase of 3 inches. Would we still see the increase of 3 inches if we did not add the 7 inches?

Regards,
John

John Cross @ 10:19 - ...- will post more tonight. However if you want to see a classic correlation is causation fallacy please read Tim's post

Ummmm, John, to be clear here - it is YOU who is arguing correlation=causation here, definitely not me

Further, you really aren't gonna argue this with me anymore are you?

Charlotte, NC, temperature hits 123-year low

http://www.charlotte.com/news/story/695929.html

settled science = oxymoron

AlGore = scummy thief

get it???

what fools.

AGW sales must be slumping. Take heart John Cross, as flyboy has pointed out, summer has finally arrived here in BC.

OK Cross, explain me this:

If CO2 levels are higher (which is true,) what is the cause? Is it because we emit more or because we cut the forests down (which the earth needs to filter out CO2?)

Do you ever wonder why the green luddites go after factories in the developed world (which have emissions controls and scrubbers) but not third-world rainforest clear-cut's (or filthy third-world factories in China, India and the rest?)

There are two aspects to higher CO2: More emission and a diminished ability for the earth's lungs to filter it. Why have your lot only focused on part? Politics? Bias? Lies and propaganda (see Maurice Strong and his comments)?

And, if the little ice age ended in the mid-19th century (fact) then isn't the warming since then only getting us back to baseline? Isn't colder than "normal" the very definition of "ice age"?? Since we have had alternating hot and cold periods in the past, what makes you think we have any idea what a "normal" temperature is anyway?

Explain Einstein. But note this: what do you think the consequences are going to be if GW is wrong? What credibility will the green movement have when it's cried wolf so many times? Who will listen when they finally have something to back up their hysteria?

If people really cared about the environment, they wouldn't be focusing solely on the socialist dogma and giving the third world total passes for their over-breeding and their destruction of rainforests. The green liars actions speak volumes about their real agendas.

Canuck Guy et al,

My understanding of it is that the sun warms the earth, and that the sun itself has natural cycles which peaked (temperature wise) in 1938 and again in 1998, making the 20th century the warmest since the medieval warm period. The sun has now reached a solar minimum and shows no sign yet of starting into the next cycle. If this theory is correct, then the world will continue cooling.

My understanding is that natural CO2 production lags warming, and is therefore more effect than cause. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. It may have some small effect but not much in comparison to methane, water vapour, etc.

My understanding is that the Global Warming industry is now just that -- an industry with billions of dollars riding on a few not-very-convincing theories and public hysteria. The repeated accusations that the UN and western governments have fiddled with the numbers to support their theories does not lend them credibility. The fact that all of the 'warmists' I have met are also devout followers of some form of communism (including national and international socialism) reduces the credibility of these theories even further. The hole in the ozone layer was a known and measurable problem, not a partisan debate. Ditto acid rain. Ditto smog in our cities, invasive species, over-fishing, and a host of other problems which are now ignored because the urban left is devoting all its political energies to one half-baked theory.

I expect that dirty ice does in fact melt faster than clean ice, especially in the Arctic. Conditions around Tuktoyuktuk were very unusual when I was there last summer. Unusual winds had pushed a lot of ice close to shore where it melted rapidly (but not rapidly enough to avoid serious navigational difficulties). Normal ice cover came back this past winter, and since most of it is fresh it will not have much soot on it, if any.

The situation in the high arctic does bear keeping an eye on. It does not justify multi-billion dollar tax hikes on what may be the eve of the long anticipated Greater Depression, which (if it comes) will itself be the result of a communist inspired switch to debt-based paper money.

John Cross, according to the information at the following website, mankind's contribution to "greenhouse gases" (ALL greenhouse gases, including water vapour) is 0.28%...so in your analogy, it would be mankind submitting 28 cents, not 7 dollars.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Compare this to what the US EPA says about "greenhouse gases" where they DO NOT include a discussion about water vapour as a greenhouse gas.

epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

My questions to you would be:

1. Is water vapour indeed a "greenhouse gas"?
2. What is the TOTAL contribution of water vapour to the "greenhouse effect" and what is the TOTAL contribution of CO2 to the "greenhouse effect" (both expressed in percentages)?
3. If water vapour is a "greenhouse gas" and plays a significant role in the "greenhouse effect", why are folks trying to control CO2 and not water vapour?

If in fact the man's contribution is only 0.28%, then I'd like to follow that up with another question as sort of corollory:

If 10000 people were throwing eggs at you, why would you only complain about 28 of them and, of those 28, take away the eggs from only 4 of them and give those eggs to the other 24?

Thanks...that'll help me understand the whole global warming hysteria so much better.

John, you have made it clear that you are incapable of even understanding the arguments that you pretend to refute. I don't know what shadows you are boxing with, but you clearly are out of your depth when the debate calls for critical thinking.

I have a challange for you. I am not expecting you to take it, I don't think you will even understand it, but here goes anyway.

Just suppose, for the sake of argument only, that the Earth warmed since the depths of the LIA naturally, and no fossile CO2 was vented to the atmosphere by human activity.

What would happen to CO2 levels in that case?

What if the warming didn't happen, and glaciers that were growing in Europe for example, and crushing villages, etc, continued to grow? What would the world look like today?

The reason I think John Cross won't answer this is because he is too invested in his own belief system to even consider these questions, yet you can't possibly understand climate unless you do. How can you know what we are causing if you can't know what conditions would be like without us?

It is like arguing evolution with a fundimentalist wahabi. There is just no point. All you can really hope for is to display his ignorance and limited intellect to others, who may have an open mind on the subject.

John Cross's view on climate can be summed up in musical form here, it takes about a minute or so before King Arthur gets on to the subject of the climate that Cross beleives in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCtselIX4yg

A law was past many a year ago here
That July and August cannot be to hot!
There never was begot
A more congenial spot
For happy ever aftering than
Heeere in Camelot

I other words, John is a "flat climater" He believes that the mile thick ice sheets which covered Canada just a few thousand years ago are as distant in the past as dinosaurs or the birth of the Moon. Since they went away, Earth has been set like a thermostat on the perfect temperature.

alot of words wasted on john cross.

meanwhile, worldwide sea ice coverage remains constant:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What, we are not free to waste words now? I disagree with what you say sir, but I will defend until mildly uncomfortable your right to say them.

Frenchie77: The typical “correlation = causation” argument takes the form of we have this observation and this phenomena. The observed parameter is increasing as is the phenomena so someone argues they are linked. For example saying that increasing CO2 is causing global warming because CO2 levels and temperatures are both increasing is a correlation = causation fallacy.

But in the example I give, we are dealing only with the observations. Thus the observations are the phenomena, not linked to the phenomena.

To provide some more details about my argument, I claim that there are various sources and sinks that may be known or unknown but that we have accurate measurements about atmospheric CO2 levels and anthropogenic CO2 production. From those measurements we observe that we produce more CO2 than is showing up in the atmosphere.

The various sources and sinks are important to the over all carbon cycle but not to this argument since they essentially cancel each other out (we know this from the fact that all the recent changes are less than the anthropogenic component released into the atmosphere).

If we were not responsible for the recent rise, then we need to postulate another mechanism that is currently being suppressed by the anthropogenic CO2 production but would somehow not suppress itself if allowed to come into effect.

Regards,
John

Eeyore: First, I disagree with the site you link to that claims that the anthropogenic part of the greenhouse effect is 0.28%. The site has a number of errors on it from numbers that they are not able to back up to papers that they have not understood. I can go into this in much more detail if you wish (here is a start, check out the title of their Reference 4).

In regards to your questions here are some answers. My answers to 2 & 3 may see somewhat vague but the questions as you put them are not easily answered.

1) Yes – water is the most important Greenhouse gas.

2) That is hard to say since there is an overlap between the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O. But, depending on a number of factors, and assuming that you are talking about the existing Greenhouse effect, then between 33% and 11% is caused by CO2.

3) The residency time in the atmosphere is very different for H2O and CO2. Water will be removed through rain or other methods in about 1 week. CO2 takes on the order of centuries. Also the main factor in governing the amount of water in the atmosphere is the air temperature. This is not the same for CO2.

Regards,
John

Tim: I have no reason to not answer reasonable questions except that in many cases I do not know the answer. However I can make some guesses for your questions.

In regards to the first, I would guess that CO2 levels would rise a small amount.

In regards to the second, if we were still in an ice age then Canada would be under a mile of ice and there would only be a much smaller area that would be suitable for human occupation.

But let me make a couple of points. You appear to wish to throw insults at me and accuse me of not understanding an argument. Instead of the insults, why don’t you just quote some examples.

For example above I say that the authors of a site do not understand what a paper says – that is because I have read the paper and I see what their flaw is and I am prepared to defend my point of view.

Finally, you say that it is a useful exercise to “expose my ignorance” to others. I suspect that there are only about ½ dozen people still following this discussion, but I generally find a rational argument a better tool for persuading others as opposed to calling your opponent ignorant with a limited intellect.

Regards,
John

Phillip: no, your parallel is not correct, but [quote]we can use your example to create an appropriate analogy. The ocean has a number of sources and sinks. Over the year, we add enough water to raise the sea level 7 inches, but we observe that the actual change in the sea level is an increase of 3 inches. Would we still see the increase of 3 inches if we did not add the 7 inches? [/quote]

John Cross,
You analogy has a fatal flaw in that you did not provide the parameters of the Sea. These little riddles are annoying, but I will be nice

My answer to your question MUST be YES. We would still see an increase of 3" as a result of adding any amount greater than 3 "

Why: Your Sea only holds 3", at which time the rest runs down your leg.

John,

Your AGW Project is missing the following basic components of a scientific process.

1. A Mission Statement RE: Global Warming

2. The Identifiable Science necessary to accomplish the Mission

3. The Verification process that drives and determines that the Mission has been completed

Until you can provide proof that AGW has those basic components. "YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE"

John, science is all about making observations, gathering and analyzing data.

To say that the observations are the phenomena is a gross miscarriage of science (unless of course, you are dealing with the quantum nature of things in which the observations become part of the phenomena). I find your statement deeply disturbing and truly hope this is just a quick brain dump onto the keyboard rather than your actual outlook on science.

Further, you still are making the correlation = causation argument.

You change the wording a bit, and try to disguise it, but that is what you are doing.

Your final paragraph is where you truly show that you have the process backwards.

Again, let me remind you that it is the AGW crowd who are putting forth the “theory” of man-made CO2 increases causing global warming. Thus, it is not up to the skeptic crowd to “postulate another mechanism”, it is up to the AGW crowd to show that there are no other mechanisms. You can only do that IF you understand all the other sources/sinks/processes that affect CO2. You clearly admit that we do not, and thus you cannot conclude that it is man’s influence on CO2.

Otherwise, you could make any ridiculous statement you want about any type of correlation and say "this rock keeps tigers away.” This type of science belongs in the Simpsons, not the academic community.

John, I quote you: "In regards to the second, if we were still in an ice age then Canada would be under a mile of ice and there would only be a much smaller area that would be suitable for human occupation."

However, we are, in fact, currently in an ice age. Ice ages are defined by permanent sheets of ice existing on the planet. Ice ages are divided into periods of glacial, and interglacial periods. Glacials signal an advance or growth of the ice formations, while interglacial periods are defined as a retreating of the ice. Our current interglacial, known as the Holocene, is currently 10,000+ years old.

Frenchie77: I agree that science is about observations and gathering and analyzing data, but that does not change my point. In this case the discussion we are having is about CO2 concentrations. These are know and measurable. Perhaps it would help if you would please identify what you think is being correlated and what you think is the causation mechanism under discussion.

I suspect that part of the problem is that you are trying to expand the argument. My point has been that we are responsible for the recent increase in CO2. Thus I have said nothing in this discussion about the theory of CO2 increases causing global warming.

I do find your last comment curious where you say it is up to the AGW crowd to show that there are no other mechanisms. You seem to be saying that the AGW crowd must prove a negative. Science can not do that of course. Or in simpler terms, how would we know we have identified all mechanisms?

In any case, that is not how science works. Science presents hypothesis which are based on sound scientific principles and then objections to it are raised. However the objections must also be reasonable and grounded in science. The argument that I present does not depend on the number or type of sources or sinks (provided they follow known physical and chemical principles).

For example if you are interested in monitoring the rise of water in a lake, it does not require a detailed knowledge of all the water inlets and outlets to be able to monitor the change in level.

I observe that we are producing more CO2 than is showing up in the atmosphere. From this I make a deduction that if we did not produce any CO2, then there would not be any increase. That much is simple logic (if I have X and I take away Y then X will decrease).

Regards,
John.

Pete: I don’t think anyone misunderstood what I said, but you are of course correct. Point taken (and I hope you will be equally diligent in pointing out misnomers that others make).

Regards,
John

This is where the error lies:

"For example if you are interested in monitoring the rise of water in a lake, it does not require a detailed knowledge of all the water inlets and outlets to be able to monitor the change in level."

To monitor is one thing, to determine causation is something entirely different. For the first, no such detailed understanding is necessary, for the second, without knowledge of all the inlets and outlets you have no idea as to reasons for changes in the water levels.

John - stop the spin!!!

Dataset 1 = Man Made Co2 emissions
Dataset 2 = C02 presence in atmo

There is a corrlation and you are saying that this equals causation, i.e. man is causing the increase in dataset 2.

This correlation = causation is critical to your argument because you then postulate that any increase in temperate is due to increases in Co2, which are thus man's fault.

You then say : You seem to be saying that the AGW crowd must prove a negative. Science can not do that of course. Or in simpler terms, how would we know we have identified all mechanisms

John, please stop the spin!! - I said, nor implied, no such thing.

If you follow the scientific process, and are advancing a theory, it is critical that before you say "this rock keeps tiger away" you have made a good scientific stab at ensuring that any other scientific explanation isn't just as, or more, likely. Maybe, it's the fact that there aren't any tigers in Moose Jaw that is keeping them away!!

Again, this is where your argument falls down as you say we don't need a detailed accounting of all sinks/sources.

You state: ...the argument that I present does not depend on the number or type of sources or sinks (provided they follow known physical and chemical principles)

OK, fine, that is your choice. But then your argument isn't following good science, thus I'll not bother to try and argue with you about this anymore.

BTW - science generally tries to ensure that any observed phenomena is equated to a known physical and chemical principle. Otherwise it presents a very attractive enigma that garners a lot of scientific attention (or UFO nuts).

"...From this I make a deduction that if we did not produce any CO2, then there would not be any increase....."

(John Cross)

Logically you seem to think you are on infallible ground, but as I pointed in earlier discussions, there is a possible mechanism for increases in CO2 to be partially a result of natural forces.

I'll not try to explain to you another time, but for other readers, John is wrong. And the reason he is wrong is that he assumes one big interconnected carbon cycle for the globe, but there is no reason there cannot be local carbon cycles which are at least partially independent of each other.

Regards, BRK

In the bank account example, there are both known and unknown depositers and "withdrawers"...mankind is just one of those who are depositing and/or withdrawing.

If "mankind" puts in $7 and "Process X" puts in $12, while "Process Y" takes out $16, then we have a $3 increase...but is mankind responsible for all of the increase or is "Process X" or are we jointly responsible?

John, until you define the contributions and reductions of all players, you can't say we are responsible for all of the increase. That is simplistic and misleading.

The most you can say is that mankind is contributing to the increase but you cannot reasonably state how much we are contributing...unless you guess or assume.

As for your earlier response to me, can you please provide me with a link to a reliable source of information that identifies how much of a role that water vapour plays in the greenhouse effect? If it plays a significant role, then surely to goodness someone has studied this in detail...otherwise, how can they make any claims as to how much of a role that CO2 plays? Sorry, but I'm not going to rely on your estimate.

By the way, somewhere between 33 and 11 percent? That's a pretty big gap...terribly big to have people claim that the science is settled.

And to revisit my (revised) corollory question that you didn't answer...why should we ONLY complain about the 1100 people throwing eggs AND THEN only confiscate the eggs from 300 of them and distribute those eggs to the other 800? How does this help to stop people from throwing eggs at you?

Why John Cross is wrong:

Let's explain this using the lake analogy. John thinks atmospheric CO2 is "one big lake" with rivers running in and out (sources and sinks). However, what if Johns "map" of the rivers and lake is incorrect?

What if the "Anthropogenic" River first runs into a smaller lake, lets' call it "Buffer" lake, connnected to the "Global" lake by a small channel. Assume the Anthropogenic river starts to increase in flow. Assume also the channel between buffer lake and global lake is small so the level in Buffer lake starts to rise.

However, assume also the sediments bordering buffer lake are parched and can soak up a lot of water. So the increase in hydrostatic head at buffer lake causes an increase in the rate which water flows from Buffer lake into local groundwater reservoirs. So some, BUT NOT ALL of the increase in the Anthropogenic river show up in global lake.

Let's assume at the same time, that there are also increases in a river that flows directly into "global lake". Call this big river the "SST" River.

Johns sees the level rising in global lake, which is mostly due to SST River, but assumes it is the lakes response to Anthropogenic River. Why is he wrong?

1. He assumes Anthropogenic river is directly connected to global lake. He's measuring the flow change in Anthropogenic, but doesn't know about how the increase is being mostly soaked up by Buffer lake.

2. He's not measuring SST River flow. He suspects it might be changing since the level in global lake doesn't quite respond according to his calculation on the flow of Anthropogenic River, but for all he knows SST River could be decreasing. But SST river is too big to measure, likewise "Volcanoes" river and likewise the outflows from Global lake "Amazon Jungle" River and "South Ocean" River. In the end though, the lack of measurement on SST River and others are just a smokescreen that prevent John from seeing the relationship between the Anthropogenic River and Buffer Lake. The bottom line for John's wrong interpretation is he doesn't know about Buffer Lake.

And even if you showed him the real map which includes Buffer Lake he still wouldn't believe you.

Regards, BRK

"I guess you missed NASA's head liar, James Hanson, claim in a paper he co-authored that the world was going into an ice age. That was in the 1970's."

I don't believe any such paper was ever written. Do you have a source? There were newspaper pieces about planetary cooling 30 years ago, but nothing scientific.

Actually (from a quick google search) it seems there were some scientific journals predicting cooling in the seventies, there were also more papers predicting warming in the 70's as well.

I didn't read any of them (for or against) as most of that science is out of date and probably irrelevant.

I would also agree with you that using the argument that: "it's the same folk who predicted ice-age who are now predicting warming and thus it's a crock" is not a very strong approach, it sure ain't scientific.

After all, it is possible that scientists change their mind and recant earlier theories. In fact, this is what science should do on a regular basis, as it is the scientific method.

So, if everyone who is skeptical of AGW would stop making this weak argument would that then mean AGW exists?? I guess maybe if you're not looking for the truth!

However, I will stick to my guns that "the path of least resistance" here is to just keep assaulting the "science" being used to promote AGW with better science, not an altogether difficult task!

Frenchie77: you say:

Dataset 1 = Man Made Co2 emissions
Dataset 2 = C02 presence in atom

OK, if that is what you are defining as correlation and causation, then fine. However it is not the usual correlation = causation argument since it is a fact that if we add CO2 to the atmosphere there will indeed be CO2 in the atmosphere.

In regards to proving a negative – you said (direct quote) ” it is up to the AGW crowd to show that there are no other mechanisms. You can only do that IF you understand all the other sources/sinks/processes that affect CO2.”

To me that says that before we can proceed we must show there are no other mechanisms and identify all the sources and sinks. Again, how do we know that there are no other mechanisms and that we have identified all the sources and sinks. If you are interested in following scientific principle then you must know that the above is not acceptable. You can not show there are no other mechanisms!!!

In regards to my point about sources and sinks – I have not violated any scientific process. The basis of my argument is not that we have accurate accounting but that X-Y gives you a number less than X (for any real positive value of Y). That is not so much a scientific argument but elementary logic or math.

Regards,
John

Eeyore: You say ”If "mankind" puts in $7 and "Process X" puts in $12, while "Process Y" takes out $16, then we have a $3 increase...but is mankind responsible for all of the increase or is "Process X" or are we jointly responsible?

Excellent, we are almost there. Now, what would the level be if we did not add the $7 (i.e. if there was no anthropogenic input).

By the way, somewhere between 33 and 11 percent? That's a pretty big gap...terribly big to have people claim that the science is settled.

I am not being evasive, but as I said above, to narrow it down more I would need you to provide more definition to the question. Please be very specific in your question. Also bonus points for identifying who has said “the science is settled”.

Finally, you comment that I didn’t answer your question. Well, I note that you have not responded to my comment that the site you linked to is incorrect. Did you read reference 4a?

Regards,
John

Brian: THANK YOU!!! You at least have read enough of what I have written to understand what my point is as opposed to some others above who don't understand it but still insist I am wrong.

Surprisingly I also agree with part of your assessment. You wrote “ However, what if Johns "map" of the rivers and lake is incorrect? Well, yes if I am incorrect then that would mean that I am probably wrong. And what if the tooth fairy decided to give out carbon sinks instead of a quarter. That would mean I was probably wrong as well! Any situation can be covered by a “what if” scenario. But in science what is important is what you can observe and prove. So, can you show something definite in regards to your what if scenarios (hopefully better than your Siberian factory example)?

Regards,
John

Wow ... 3 posts (I have John Cross blocked ... thanks to killfile). Push marketing not working that well John Cross?

John Cross:

Realistically, I'm not claiming my "local CO2 buffering" effect is large. However, a realistic example would be the emissions growth in the Ohio valley being somewhat buffered by the young forests in appalachia downwind, which respond to local increases in CO2 by growing quicker.

Some parts of the global carbon cycle, like the Atlantic ocean, don't see the full effect of emissions growth in the Ohio valley because of this local buffering.

Regards, BRK

[quote]However, I will stick to my guns that "the path of least resistance" here is to just keep assaulting the "science" being used to promote AGW with better science, not an altogether difficult task! [/quote]

Frenchie77,
You are correct, but remember when you enter this mode that you must kill the “Snake” Absolutely no reason to be kind & Considerate

A Law:
"All Current entering a summing Point MUST equal the current leaving the same summing point".(This “only” means one can't claim the tooth fairy or a hidden phenomena is responsible for missing data) The application must consider reasonable orders of scale.

John is avoiding the path that good science dictates for a reason... I think he wants to violate the LAWS of physics and replace them with probability schemes.

His analogy’s would have you believe that we can ignore >50% of possible sinks (unknown to him) and focus on the (less than)50% that he has data. That is like claiming "The Meaning of life" can be found in one's left nostril

Ural: So a polite, reasonably presented (albeit it vigorously defended) view point is such a danger to your world view that you must censor me? So be it – it is of course a free country.

Regards
John

Philip: Unlike Brian who has considered my argument and has come up with reasonable comments, you still don’t understand. My argument does not depend on what the specific sources and sinks are. It does depend on the total CO2 in the atmosphere (and whether this is increasing) as well as the anthropogenic CO2 being produced.

Essentially I am saying that X – Y is a number less than X (which is pretty self-evident) and you are saying that we do not know the mathematical formula that gives us X. How we get X is not relevant as long as we are fairly certain about the value of X.

Regards,
John

"...Surprisingly I also agree with part of your assessment...."

(John Cross)

I think it's time to admit there are subtleties to the carbon cycle which make your X+Y-Z=T calculation simplistic to the point of being erroneous. Take the plunge John; immerse yourself in the healing balm of recanting.

Regards, BRK

Brian: Before we go jumping into bed together, I think your point is not impossible but it is not supported by any evidence or data (or even reason). So I would classify it as one step above the hypothesis that the tooth fairy did it.

Regards,
John

"...but it is not supported by any evidence or data (or even reason)..."

(John Cross)

I disagree with you. The concept of local buffering of CO2 is one that deserves study. And maybe it will be studied. Luckily for the sake of progress, science is not directed by closed-minded people like yourself (or James Hansen).

Regards BRK

Brian: Not closed minded at all - just skeptical which is a good and necessary part of science. Consider the following in regards to your Ohio example:

- most CO2 is released at a high temperature (or from smoke stacks) so it will mix vertically automatically reducing the "local buffering effect" drastically.

- the atmosphere is also in a constant state of rising and sinking which will cause more mixing.

- in terms of plant physiology, there are several limiting factors that will reduce CO2 uptake (nutrients, moisture, etc).

- keep in mind that CO2 uptake is also a function of light so it does not take place 24 hours a day.

- a reduction in temperature will of course slow down the reaction.

and so on and so on. So, by all means, investigate local buffering effects, but please don't assert it is significant unless you can back it up.

Regards,
John