sda2.jpg

August 6, 2009

The Sound Of Settled Science

Lagging just two years behind the blogosphere, the Washington Examiner reports:

Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.

Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist, and a team of over 650 volunteers, photographically documented 1003 out of 1,221 of the climate monitoring stations managed by the U.S. Weather Service. The results of this survey show that the temperature cited as proof of man-made global warming is laced with false biases in favor of alarmism.

“We found stations located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Watts said. “We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.”

The research team also determined that 89 percent did not measure up to the National Weather Service’s requirement that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating source. This means almost 9 out of every 10 stations are reporting higher temperatures because they are badly sited.

“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.

See for yourself at Surfacestations.org

Posted by Kate at August 6, 2009 12:35 PM
Comments

Doh!

Posted by: puddin n pie at August 6, 2009 12:51 PM

Better late than never?

Over the last few weeks/months, I have started to see a trickle of anti-AGW coming out of mainstream media sources. I know some on these forums have suggested the AGW house of cards is coming down. I fear one of two things: either this analysis is overly optimistic or, if it is accurate, it won't matter since inertia in favor of carbon taxes and cap-n-trade is so advanced, it won't matter.

In any event, I'm pleased to see this information trickling out. In Canada and the U.S. we still obstensibly live in a representative democracy and the politicians pushing destructive AGW policy may yet see retribution.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Must be a realllly slooowwww news day.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at August 6, 2009 12:55 PM

Ooops! Can't screw people over with articles being published like this. Sorry Goreacle.

Posted by: Sounder at August 6, 2009 12:57 PM

Let us hope that this is a crack in the dam so to speak, and soon enough a veritable flood of real journalism might occur, wrt AGW.

Re-reading that sentence I am now falling into fits of hysterical laughter.

Posted by: meshuggah at August 6, 2009 1:05 PM

wuwt should be compulsory ready for averyone over the age of 12. Go there and click on the ads - no matter how stupid they seem - each click is 5c for the most important blog (apart, of course, from sda) available.

Posted by: jlc at August 6, 2009 1:19 PM

What is important as Colin from Mission points out is that these studies are actually seeing the light of day in the MSM.

If the media can be turned then it will unleash a torrent of suppressed and pent up volumes of science and discourse that has been alive in the blogosphere for years.

The worm is turning and the MSM will have to cover their butts because they are complicit in the suppression of information, they will also crucify the advocates to deflect the anger that should be due to them.

I for one cannot wait since the APA has now said I am Mentally Ill as well as stupid ( per the AGW proponents ) in their efforts to arm the Greens and Politicians with Psycho weapons to re-educate the masses. See my Climate Blog for a comment and a link to the study.

Posted by: Illiquid Assets at August 6, 2009 1:33 PM

Vancouver Airport is used as a weather station, recording such events as the recent Vancouver heatwave temperatures.

Here's an image of that airport from 1937:

http://sst-ess.rncan-nrcan.gc.ca/ats-sat/hist/images/sea_island_airport.gif

Posted by: johnlee at August 6, 2009 1:35 PM


In Canada one of the weather monitoring stations is located beside the all you can eat buffet Mike Duffy frequents. Stay tuned as to what effect this has on the station.

Posted by: Frank at August 6, 2009 1:38 PM

Somebody had better tell the permafrost that it can stop melting. And also mention it to the governments of Arctic nations that since the ice-free Arctic they are preparing for won't be happening any time soon, there is no need to ramp up mineral exploration and/or military presence.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 2:14 PM

If I recall this all started because Watts was curious about NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen,Director, adjustment of 20th century temperature records.
Some motivation resulted from Hansen's underlings running an alarmist psuedo science blog with the like of Micheal Mann (of "Hockey Stick" fame).
IMHO the ground work for this hoax started in the 70's or earlier.....Margarette Meads eugenics movement referred to such an agenda. First they tried the Ice-Age Hoax, "Peak Oil", "Peak Food" and then "The Population Bomb" but nothing really caught on until a convenient El Nino wandered in.

Posted by: sasquatch at August 6, 2009 2:21 PM

Ice-Age Hoax, "Peak Oil", "Peak Food" and then "The Population Bomb" but nothing really caught on until a convenient El Nino wandered in.
Posted by: sasquatch at August 6, 2009 2:21 PM

What boggles my mind is how the purveyors of these discredited theories continue to be relied upon as experts for the current Armageddon flavor of the month (i.e. AGW).

Mark my words, once AGW is thoroughly discredited, and the human race has moved beyond it in the same way we moved beyond flat-earth theory, these same folks will be touting another catastrophic theory that will require government action. And, surprise, surprise, that action will somehow target western civilization's energy use as the primary culprit.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 2:28 PM

**Sniff**


these floatation devices I invented for polar bears are now redundant???

and here I thought I would become a rich inventor

Posted by: GYM at August 6, 2009 2:32 PM


John
**Somebody had better tell the permafrost that it can stop melting. And also mention it to the governments of Arctic nations that since the ice-free Arctic they are preparing for won't be happening any time soon, there is no need to ramp up mineral exploration and/or military presence.**

I think the Polar Nations have figured that out all by themselves....what with the NW Passage solidly blocked with thick multi-year Ice.

Currently 3 sailboats (warmist manned) are butt-picking in Tuk, awaiting the ice to clear so they can make a statement.
Further several freighters are swinging at anchor in Baffin Bay.....to take a non-existant short cut to Asia.....

Posted by: sasquatch at August 6, 2009 2:32 PM

Currently 3 sailboats (warmist manned) are butt-picking in Tuk, awaiting the ice to clear so they can make a statement.
Further several freighters are swinging at anchor in Baffin Bay.....to take a non-existant short cut to Asia.....
Posted by: sasquatch at August 6, 2009 2:32 PM

Hey sasquatch, any links for these stories? I'm up for a good schadenfreude-related laugh! ;)

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 2:38 PM

In fact the polar nations have not "figured that out". All of them are ramping up exploration and their plans for increased military presence, because they are smart enough to read the writing on the wall. Do you deny the facts presented in articles like the one below?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jWL8G87yQ3JpRDEw2BGAiGQ5u3Bg

What amazes me is that you, a conservative, would let your ideology get in the way of protecting our national interests. That's pretty far gone.

And I see you have no comment re the melting permafrost. All you can do is desperately point to a report that says monitoring stations could be better. Just because they could be upgraded doesn't mean they don't work.

Again... all of the signs (longer growing seasons, record-breaking temperatures in the high Arctic, and melting sea ice prove that you guys are wrong.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 2:48 PM

I hate to be a pessimist, but I don't think it'll make any difference, it's too little too late. I regularly post to other sites any time the AGW theme is touched on. I will post WUWT as a reference and instantly have multiple responses saying WUWT can't be trusted, it's not peer reviewed, he's not a real scientist, he's funded by big oil, he uses tricks and deceptions to make the data favor his predetermined outcome, etc. In one thread over on slashdot, I had a dispute with one poster who referenced three New Scientist articles. The first article stated that the sun's output hasn't changed since measurements began in 1978. The next article stated that the sun's output is variable. I asked him to explain how he could be linking to two articles from the same source that contradicted each other and I was modded down as a troll! It seems that when Al Gore stated the science is settled, what he really meant is the debate is settled, their minds are set and they won't be changing them now no matter how much contrary evidence you can produce. They have critical mass and momentum on their side, it seems carbon taxes and cap 'n' trade are inevitable. Even if you can convince people that AGW isn't true, they still support throttling the fossil fuel industries because "big oil is evil" and such.

Posted by: pete at August 6, 2009 2:53 PM

Amazing, or perhaps not, that you haven't mentioned Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall's comments concerning cap and trade. He said at the meeting of Canadian premiers that cap and trade seems to be the consensus globally and will likely soon be coming to Canada. Just thought I'd bring you up to speed.

Posted by: T at August 6, 2009 3:17 PM

This is starting to be like 2008, when it was clear to the right-o-sphere, anyway, and viewers of Fox News, that we were going to be able to honorably extricate ourselves from Iraq, leaving them with a real chance at democracy, even if the MSM was blind to the reality. The same with climate change. It is always the same with the left, they use rhetoric against logic. The universe runs on logic. One definition of rhetoric is language that sounds like logic, but isn't. I haven't heard the first non rhetorical argument for global warming.

Posted by: tim in vermont at August 6, 2009 3:25 PM

"And I see you have no comment re the melting permafrost" - John the Warmie

John, why don't you explain why the permafrost melt didn't realease all that methane during the Eemian, which was warmer than now. Or how about during the Holocene Optimum, which was warmer than now for a long time and the summers were longer in the Northern Hemisphere, and the summers came while the sun was closest to the Earth it its orbit and the Arctic Circle was much higher due to increase obliquity of the earth putting the sun more directly overhead? This was enough to melt the mile thick glaciers that used to be where I am before the climate "changed"

Look at the GRIP ice core temps, They were much higher than today during the HO, and remember that those temps have been smoothed and averaged over thousands of years due to loss of resolution, so there were certainly periods even warmer than those shown by the core, as well as periods cooler.

John,
I know that these questions are about science, so it is fine if you can't understand them and don't answer. We all know you get sort of lost and fuzzy in the head when the argument gets to specifics, so it is OK. We like you anyway.

Posted by: tim in vermont at August 6, 2009 3:34 PM

What does the rapper Eemiam have to do with climate change?

Seriously though, I'm not pretending to have a background in science, so I'm not going to scramble all over Wikipedia to confirm or deny you claims re these epochs. (Are you a scientist by chance?)

I'm simply stating that denial of climate change is silly when your lying eyes tell you that it is happening.

If you guys want to continue to make the case that humans are not behind it, fine. But to deny that glaciers and permafrost are melting, plants in the far north are growing far earlier and bigger than 20 years ago, and the arctic sea ice is shrinking more every summer, is just plain delusional. These things are not theories, but directly observable facts.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 3:47 PM

Clearly this "old" finding does not prove that there is (or is not) global warming. But it does prove that 80% of temperature data in the States IS unreliable.

Anyone care to throw their support behind salesman using unreliable data to sell their wares? C'mon there must be some US mortgage brokers reading this.

Posted by: Dave from Mississauga at August 6, 2009 4:01 PM

John, you're 4 years too late with your posts. Winters have been longer the last couple of years in the Northern Hemisphere, the arctic ice is expanding again, and there have been more cold records broken worldwide in the last two years than in the previous 10. It's not climate change, it's climate cycles.

Posted by: pete at August 6, 2009 4:02 PM

John,
The permafrost has been melting since the depths of the last ice age. Neanderthals with SUVs? I don't think so.

Posted by: DrD at August 6, 2009 4:03 PM

Guys/Gals. Don't bait John,T,and Brad Wall.Remember. One is an eco-alarmist,one a troll,and the last a politician.They are mentally delusional,and therefore ignore facts with ease.Not until the glaciers hit will they believe,and even then they will probably try to blame that on humans.

Posted by: Justthinkin at August 6, 2009 4:09 PM

I predict that the Global Warming scare will fade away quietly just like the panic over acid rain and holes in the ozone layer. We never hear about those issues anymore from the MSM. They'll just move on to whatever new theory can be concocted to promote a centrally-planned economy.

Posted by: Dennis at August 6, 2009 4:12 PM

"The permafrost has been melting since the depths of the last ice age. Neanderthals with SUVs? I don't think so." ... DrD

20,000 years now.

The alarmists like to condemn "doubters" as long as there are scientists who adhere to the global warming theory based on science because that's logical. Right? No. The fact is: scientists, who the alarmists place all their trust, are not in agreement. As a matter of fact, there's great division in opinion and so that's not science. It's a range of subjective opinion. That means unsubstantiated and unverified and that is a problem for all us doubters, John. Logical.

Posted by: Sounder at August 6, 2009 4:26 PM

"I'm simply stating that denial of climate change is silly when your lying eyes tell you that it is happening."

None of us here have ever said that the climate doesn't change. Where would you get that from? We just don't subscribe to human induced climate change.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 4:29 PM

It's funny that you would make a statement like that when most of the arguments from the posters here against human induced climate change are historical examples of natural climate cycles and events.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 4:31 PM

Uh, John. Let me help you out here. Most folks around here don't dispute "climate change." The climate, BY DEFINITION, is always is a state of change.

What we dispute is that man, through carbon dioxide emissions, is the sole or primary driver of climate change. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse in overlooking this subtle, but quite important distinction.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 4:35 PM

OK John, so you admit you know nothing. Fine. You don't know any climate history. You think that the Wikipedia is a valid source. Like I said, I know your head hurts when you think about this, but you said one thing that is easily checkable:

"to deny .... the arctic sea ice is shrinking more every summer, is just plain delusional"

No, it's not. It was low a couple summers ago, and it has been increasing ever since.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Who, exactly, is delusional?

Posted by: tim in vermont at August 6, 2009 4:48 PM

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Posted by: political junkie at August 6, 2009 4:48 PM

It's annoying living in a completely insane world.

However, it's always been this way. Religion being a prime example. It's always been only a minority of people devoted to reason and logic.

Always.

Posted by: Christoph at August 6, 2009 4:49 PM

You mean this comment T?

From http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Leaders+premiers+meeting+Regina+stress+operation+environmental+policy/1863526/story.html

"Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall acknowledged a North American cap-and-trade system does appear inevitable, but said the province and even some coal-reliant states feel that the proceeds from levies need to be reinvested in the technological solutions such as clean coal or renewable energy.

"Otherwise we're just moving the carbon around and using the proceeds of crime - this environmental malfeasance of emitting carbon - we're using the proceeds for something other than the problem in the first place. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me," said Wall, noting the province has adopted the federal targets for emission reductions."


So what exactly was your point T? Posters have been saying the same thing for a while.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 4:51 PM

"Seriously though, I'm not pretending to have a background in science, so I'm not going to scramble all over Wikipedia to confirm or deny you claims re these epochs. (Are you a scientist by chance?)"

He might not be, but I am. The information he quotes is factual and proven. Its documented in just about any general Geology course or text, and the posters here appear to have availed themselves of the info to refute your posts. You have a bit of catching up to do. This information IS available, but it appears that you are too lazy to go read them for yourself.

Sucks to parody the fraud that AGW really is, basing your conclusions on the "$ocial $ciences" rather than on real science. Besides, on WUWT a picture is worth a thousand words with regards to poorly placed climate measuring devices.

As a scientist I find it disturbing that some scientists would even consider the information derived from these poorly placed measuring devices as "gospel" and then use the information to have politicians develop policy that will affect your life and bottom line.

By the way - I wouldn't use Wikipedia for my "scientific" sources either, I sure don't for geological science, which these gentlemen are using. There are plenty of "peer reviewed" articles out there to read up on the information that the posters above refer to.

Posted by: po'd in AB at August 6, 2009 4:59 PM

Dennis, the reason the "panic" over acid rain and the ozone layer faded was because legislation has been introduced to phase out the practices causing the problem. (Not without resistance from those on the right however). It will take decades for those systems to repair themselves.

Again, climate change means weather patterns everywhere change, some are warmer, some colder. The prairies might have had a colder winter, but out here in BC, we've had the hottest summer on record, and the situation in the forests is dire. But neither of these are necessarily indicative of a warming trend.

But as for the Arctic... sorry guy, but it's melting. The sea ice may have covered a larger area this year due to lower temperatures, BUT it was thinner, and didn't last as long. The trend is towards warmer and warmer weather up there.

David Phillips, Environment Canada's senior climatologist notes that Ellesmere Island broke some records this year, with temperatures soaring to 21C, nearly 12C above normal for what it should be for this time of year.

Another researcher, Greg Henry, who has been studying vegetation in the far north for 30 years has noted that the biomass has increased from 2 to 5 times above ground, and up to 10 times below ground in the wetlands over that time period.

How exactly do you explain this if the area is not getting warmer?

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:02 PM

Colin:

This is what I see from these "Global Warming", no wait, "Climate Change" supporters (I use quotes to imply human-induced/CO2 driving). They try to make arguments that support their "Global Warming" views, but when you call them out, they switch the argument to "Climate Change" and try to mislead everyone into believing that YOU don't believe in regular climate change and that YOU are the fool.

Pretty dishonest if you ask me, and in John's case, very deliberate. Only a moron would think that we didn't believe in natural climate change/cycles.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 5:08 PM

Hey there po'd in AB,

As I've just pointed out, your colleagues who have worked in the Arctic for decades are telling you that the biomass has more than doubled.

Tell me why you think this is, or do you dispute their data?

As for my comments re wikipedia, my point was that just because I could gather up a few internet facts to support my position doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. You guys gather your info from rightwing sites, which are at least as suspect.

Again... the Arctic is getting warmer. Period. Every northern government on the planet knows this to be a fact and is preparing for the opening of the North West Passage. Are you saying that they just wasting their money?

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:10 PM

And really quickly... re "climate change". I'm saying that you guys are simply denying a warming trend which is easily provable by the fact that things are melting.

I guess it will be interesting to see what the new satellite date proves. Of course... the right has proven that no matter how many facts are placed before them, they'll still choose to believe whatever they want.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:12 PM

John, the Arctic was ice free and not due to anything man ever did, 800,000 years ago. The polar bear existed then as now and guess what: they are still here.

Frankly I am appalled by the lack of scientific knowledge that the general lay person who posts here or anywhere else on scientific matters. Some guy jumps up in a theater and shouts "fire" and you clowns don't even check to see if there is even any smoke, let alone a "real" fire. Like somone once said: there's a sucker born every minute.

We've been breaking records here in Alberta all summer long. To the coolest side of things. I think that global cooling would be more devastating to humans than global warming ever could be. Ask those who lived through the "Little Ice Age" circa 1350-1850. Good thing that the Industrial Revolution occured or the polar caps would be more extensive than they are today.

Living in a cold country like Canada, I would be more inclined to welcome a little more warming than cooling any day.

Posted by: po'd in AB at August 6, 2009 5:15 PM

T That is what Premier Wall said. He also said the money stays to fix problems with clean coal and stuff. Not finance roads as general revenue. Not buy carbon credits and crap like that. The giant fans have been around for years selling 'green power'. The vast base of the 15% premium is gov't and gov't financed. Sask Power has the data. Solar? We still grow things in this Province.

Posted by: speedy at August 6, 2009 5:16 PM

Folks, don't feed the troll. It didn't answer my question directly, but it's pretty obvious it's being deliberately obtuse. No need to feed it any further.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 5:17 PM

One of my Senators says that he has been planting on his farm here in Montana earlier and earlier lately due to "global warming". He is of course a liberal Democrat. Non-Senator Ranchers I talk to here in Southern Montana laugh at this, since springtime has been very late the last couple years. Our last frost was on about the 23rd of June this year, and the hay was a little stunted because of it.

Posted by: Mike Kelley at August 6, 2009 5:32 PM

Colin I am following the "Around the Americas" NW Passage Attempt on my climate site. Feel free to follow along.

Climate Heretic

The AGW proponents with their "OMG The Ice is Melting" mantras can chant/follow along too, it will be fun.

From the Crew Blog #55... "The ice chart shows some slight change but nothing really significant."

Posted by: Illiquid Assets at August 6, 2009 5:36 PM

Colin, what was your question? I can't find it. And dude... don't call me an "it".

Quoting Environment Canada's chief climatologist hardly makes me a troll. That's pretty much quoting the nation's highest authority on the subject. What have you got?

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:43 PM

Oh, but I like feeding TROLLS who believe this bunk.

John, do some reading and then come back for the book report:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGS-3VW7XG3-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e44ad4170ec186a6e96f5a91247c5970

This one is a good read, as it defines several cooler and warmer periods, post glaciation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-48C7F1C-6V&_user=10&_origUdi=B6VGS-3VW7XG3-4&_fmt=high&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F1991&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=28115130f6d058540286786f1bff61e4

What amazes this 30 year scientific veteran is the omission of what really drives the heating and cooling of this planet. It certainly isn't CO2. The Sun, 93 million miles away isn't even factoring into the scientific discussion, until recently, and is almost completely ommitted by lay people purporting to know more than anyone else posting here and who claim that man is the driver of climate change on this planet.

The "air-conditioning" on earth is carried out by ocean currents and air circulation as well as cloud and storm production, which I might point out IS driven by fluctuating heating by the Sun.

Any real scientist knows that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. So energy transfers accur throughout the world, keeping it at a modicum temperature depending on where you are in the latitudinal sense. It is an intricate sytem that as yet is not fully understood, but intriguing all the same from a scientific POV. The whole process is predominantly driven by that big hot star that rises every morning of every day.

Orbital fluctuations give us our "climate changes" in the form of 4 seasons, rainy seasons, dry seasons, monsoon seasons, whatever.

To think that man has any major impact on the global climate (not discounting some local effects due to deforestation and whatnot)vis a vis that hot star, is the height of human arrogance. We are but specks on this planet. If the Arctic has ever been ice free, it wasn't due to man. Period.

John, your local political party cannot affect the climate outside of your home or place of business. Only you do using the thermostat. To believe that, you would have to be one of the "suckers born every minute". What politicos CAN do and DO is affect whether you will survive whatever "they" decide is "best" for you based on the pseudo-science of AGW hysteria.

Its all a fraud and the sooner our political masters face up to the fact that the population doesn't believe anything they say or do on the subject, or has any scientific basis at all the better for us all. It's all about the money, control, and paying off those who brought them to power on the subject. Remember, these politicos didn't pass high school science or they wouldn't be where they are today.

Posted by: po'd in AB at August 6, 2009 5:58 PM

If I remember correctly, you where on this 2 years ago with posts Kate. Including pics.
If we can keep the web free we may have a chance against the political dictators as freedom fighters plus the enviromentalists with there luddite Religion of nature worship.
I figure the Islamist intrusion will end up in war.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at August 6, 2009 6:01 PM

po'd, what sort of scientist are you exactly?

Do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have accepted this theory have discounted the roll of the sun?

Do I really have to point out to you, a scientist, that nobody is suggesting that heat is being created by CO2, but trapped? Really?

And as for us specks not having an impact on the planet, dude. DUDE. I suggest you move to Chernobyl. Or Love Canal. Or maybe the floating garbage patch in the centre of the Pacific. Or go stare at the Antarctic ozone hole. Or talk to the cod fishermen in NF. Humanity has had a huge impact on natural systems. This conversation is silly.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 6:12 PM

John and T

Seems to me you two really aren't very concerned about man made climate change or you would just commit suicide. I mean after all, isn't it your duty to reduce your carbon footprints?

The stupidity never f*cking ends with you guys does it?

Posted by: Terry Anderson at August 6, 2009 6:23 PM

The MSM is releasing this information to help the Democrats.

Cap and Trade was supposed to be the tax that paid for ObamaCare without the Kenyan raising huge taxes on the middle class and breaking his promise to the contrary.

When the unemployment numbers come in around the time Congress sits again in the fall, the Democrats need to be able to say, "No, we can't afford ObamaCare, where will the money come from?"

The Kenyan gets to blame it on the House and the House gets to blame it on the Whitehouse.

Too much blame to go around?
Well, gee, it seems the data from the surface stations was GIGO and the AGW Cult weren't wrong, they were misinformed.

No Cap'n Trade, and no ObamaCare.
A lot of people will have some specific things to be very glad for next Thanksgiving.

I love it when the Kenyan fails.

Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 6:33 PM

"Do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have accepted this theory have discounted the roll of the sun?

Do I really have to point out to you, a scientist, that nobody is suggesting that heat is being created by CO2, but trapped?"

Ah, but CO2-driven global warming/climate change is still a theory, and a weak one at best since an increasing number of scientists have begun to poke holes in it. Do you honestly think that our scientists completely understand how our climate system works? Too many unknown variables, both external and internal. Too many relationships between forces within the system that we don't understand or know about. Is it wise to enforce economic-crippling legislation on account of a theory based on a couple decades of inaccurate data and computer models? Do you honestly believe that these tax schemes the politicians want to enforce are powerful enough to alter the climate?

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 6:35 PM

John wrote:

"Do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have accepted this theory have discounted the roll [sic] of the sun?"

They have done so explicitly — for example, "solar forcing" (their term for "the sun's causing this heating episode we claim we're seeing") is often regarded in the prime literature as being inconsequential.  See, for example, the latest IPCC report.

As for the "thousands of scientists" remark, so what?  Somewhere above 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition explicitly declaring their scepticism over human-induced global warming, but when those numbers are brought up, suddenly people on your side of the debate start remarking that it's "not a numbers game."

That's correct, it's not.  It's about verifiable scientific observations that are not open to ambiguous and mutually-exclusive interpretations.  Unfortunately, climate science isn't anywhere close to a real consensus on the scientific issues (as opposed to the faux consensus that is primarily ideologically-driven and conveniently ignores all the evidence against it).

And that's why this conversation is important.  Your dismissive, emotion-laden, anti-scientific response to it is what's silly.


Garth

Posted by: Garth Wood at August 6, 2009 6:38 PM

Quoting Environment Canada's chief climatologist hardly makes me a troll. That's pretty much quoting the nation's highest authority on the subject. What have you got?

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:43 PM

Are you referring to David Philips there John?
That would be the same expert that predicted a "hot and dry" summer here in the East and we have set all time new record low temperatures for July as well as record amounts of rainfall.
And 2009 is the 2nd year in a row for this sort of prediction screw up from Environment Canada.
As for the Arctic melting...I got my doubts dude...we just had a hi-hoe in to cast out the cattle bedding pack from the winter and there was a foot of ice in the MIDDLE OF JULY on the bottom of it.

Posted by: The Glengarrian at August 6, 2009 6:56 PM

"Are you saying that they just wasting their money?"

The govts are self interested. Do you dispute that most left of center govts have a huge economic and power-lust based self interest in global warming to be true?

Posted by: tim in vermont at August 6, 2009 6:57 PM

Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.
[SNIP]
“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.

I'll translate the above for those who are still pretending the even IS global warming, heat trapped by CO2 or not, anthropogenic or otherwise:

-There IS NO global warming!-

The surface temperature data, which is where the entire idea comes from, is now being recognized as completely useless.

You can climb down off that pulpit now.
Have a nice day.
(8^D)


Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 7:04 PM

all this controversy could have been avoided if the 'authorities' and 'decision makers' and 'experts' had taken the goddamn TIME to ensure 90 % of the stations were reporting properly instead of the other way around.

I got issues with those in power. this is the kind of thing that can rear itself up and devour the devotees.

Kate plastered pics of temp station parked outside A/C exhausts, hot tarmac, and all manner of wondrous locales years ago.

like the stand up comedian said about weather forecasts, whotf lives at the airport???

Posted by: curious_george at August 6, 2009 7:09 PM

Why most conservatives seem to be denying the claims that are being made about climate change:

1- Most of the claims about climate change are highly suspect if not demonstrably false.
2- Most of the biggest, loudest and most persistant proponents of climate change hysteria are apparently serving their own interests.
3- Most of the public who believe the stuff that comes from those proponents and is being repeated in the MSM are hysterical and ignorant of science.
4- The majority of the noise about climate change is being created by people who fall on the political left.

Good enough reasons to NOT believe a damned thing that comes from the camp of the Climate Hysterics.

Posted by: OMMAG at August 6, 2009 7:13 PM

po'd, what sort of scientist are you exactly?

I'm a geologist, John and a member of APEGGA and APEGGBC. Rocks don't lie.

"And as for us specks not having an impact on the planet, dude. DUDE. I suggest you move to Chernobyl. Or Love Canal. Or maybe the floating garbage patch in the centre of the Pacific. Or go stare at the Antarctic ozone hole. Or talk to the cod fishermen in NF. Humanity has had a huge impact on natural systems. This conversation is silly.

I believe that we were talking about AGW, not cod fish. Please stay on topic.

I believe that ozone is created in the upper atmosphere by interaction with solar particles. When the earth is tilted away from the sun during the winter months north or south, there is generally less production of ozone, thereby producing a "hole" (less ozone) over the poles. Lots more where that came from, sport. You're fun!

The following letter is a good read. From a geophysicist. Another scientist.


Any debate about global warming should take place in the scientific arena — not the political one, with sides arguing their points based on nothing more than misguided and speculative information presented as fact.

Global warming is caused by the sun and possible geothermal heat transfer. Greenhouse gases do not warm but are merely passive insulators that reduce the rate of cooling. Clouds provide about 77 per cent of this insulating effect, CO2 provides less than 10 per cent. Water vapour and other atmospheric components provide the remainder.

We should refer to the role of greenhouse gases as reduced global cooling, not global warming.

If we want to debate the role of CO2 in climate change, we must stay within the confines of engineering and geoscience practice. The parameters are quite simple.

The Earth radiates thermal energy approximating a black body with a temperature of 288 K. The CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical, and therefore does not have a permanent dipole moment. This limits it to just a single vibration mode of thermal energy capture that resonates with 14.77 microns.

At the current concentration of 386 p.p.m. by volume for CO2 in the atmosphere, the question for debate is how much of the thermal radiation within the band centred on 14.77 microns that is radiated by the Earth is already captured and how much is left to be captured.

Observational evidence from the notch in the thermal spectrum measured by the Nimbus4 satellite in 1970 demonstrates that over 95 per cent of the possible energy in this band had been captured when the concentration was 325 p.p.m. by volume. Theoretical projections based on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 content and increase in average global atmospheric temperature, using the MODTRANS facility maintained by the University of Chicago, show that at the current concentration of 386 p.p.m. by volume, 99 per cent of the available energy from the Earth has been captured.

Essentially the first 20 p.p.m. by volume provides over 50 per cent of the effect and each subsequent 20-p.p.m.-by-volume increase has a 20 per cent effect on the remaining energy. At 380 p.p.m. by volume, only 0.9 per cent of the energy remains to be captured.

The total greenhouse effect is about 34 C and CO2 is responsible for just 10 per cent of this or 3.4 C.

If we want to have a scientific debate about the effect of CO2 on global temperatures, the debate would be whether the effect of doubling CO2 would be closer to five per cent of 3.4 C or one per cent of 3.4 C.

The engineering debate would therefore be limited to 0.15 C and 0.034 C, and not about model projections of 2 C and 5 C as Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proclaim.

The other part of the global warming debate centres on melting ice from global warming caused by human emissions of CO2.

The sun heats the Earth and the Earth’s surface heats the atmosphere. It is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics for an atmosphere warmed by the surface of the Earth to send this energy back to the surface at a higher level than it was originally sent at.

It is easily demonstrated that changes to the amount of energy from the sun reaching the Earth’s surface can cause changes in the melting of ice during the polar summers. It is not physically possible, however, for changes in the insulating effect of greenhouse gases to add the energy necessary to melt any ice.

If by some chance this were possible (using the same type of premise that allows Superman to fly), it would still be impossible to explain the process that allows the stated changes in the amount of ice that melts from year to year. By its own admission, the IPCC states in the 2001 science report that global warming was 0.006 C per year. By volume the heat capacity of air is about 800 times less than that of ice so it would take 10.66 million cubic metres of air heated by 0.006 C to melt each cubic metre of ice.

There is not enough air in the whole atmosphere to do that, and certainly not in the thin layer of air adjacent to the ice that can transfer this heat. If somehow this actually took place, then all this heat would have been removed from the atmosphere and the global temperature measured would not show the 0.006 C temperature increase.

The most amazing thing about the whole global warming issue is that I can categorically state that it is physically impossible for a doubling of CO2 to have any more than a miniscule effect (far less than 0.1 C). And I can do so without contradicting a single scientific statement made by the IPCC, because it has never stated explicitly that CO2 causes global warming in any of its scientific literature.

All the panel has stated is that its models project 2 C to 5 C of global warming from a doubling of CO2. It never stated this as fact.

The IPCC also stated that if the Greenland ice sheet melted from global warming, there would be a dangerous sea level rise. It never stated that CO2 increases could cause ice to melt because that is physically impossible.

The causal relationship between CO2 and ice melting is nothing more than a political fabrication. It misrepresents the physical facts and enhances its case with well-orchestrated propaganda starring polar bears and hurricane Katrina — neither of which have anything to do with fossil fuel emissions or greenhouse gases.

To any of those who still think that there is a connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature, please visit http://icecap.us and read my Hansen Mars Challenge. Type Hansen in the search engine. You’ll find my contribution midway down the resulting list.

Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph.
Calgary

Reproduced from the Pegg March 2009

It would appear from this letter that CO2 and other GHG gases are actually "good" for the planet by capturing the heat radiated back into space (a cold place), or we would be freezing our butts off if not looking at a frozen wasteland for most of the planet.

Posted by: po'd in AB at August 6, 2009 7:18 PM

Terry, so by your logic, if I find a woman attractive, I should just go and rape her. No subtlties with you I see.

Oz, you're a Birther! Well my friend, there will be no convincing you of anything, so why not just go and create your own fake birth certificate. Have fun! http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

Chairman K, true that we don't fully understand how our climate systems work, BUT safe to say that if the atmosphere normally contains 3000 gigatonnes of CO2, and we add roughly 25 gigatonnes per year through the burning of fossil fuels, and said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you should naturally expect it to have an affect. So should we just sit back and do nothing? I say no, we should not. If we can reduce the amount we generate through regulation and taxation, go for it.

Garth, how I was being "emotional"? Was it saying "dude" twice? Again I ask, do you deny that the Arctic is getting warmer? Or do you accept this, but believe that it's merely not yet provable that humans are the cause?


Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 7:23 PM

Oz, you're a Birther! Well my friend, there will be no convincing you of anything, blither, pffle,...
~John at August 6, 2009 7:23 PM

John you're an idiot.
(now that the ad hominems are out of the way)
Barrack Hussein Obama is a Kenyan by dint of the fact that his father was a Kenyan.

The Kenyan is, no doubt, an American too, but how many Americans want to think about someone who has multiple citizenships being POTUS?
hmmmm?

Now, you can prove me wrong, John, about my assessment of your intelligence, by addressing the other points I have made.

And one more time:

-There IS NO global warming!-

That is what the Washington Examiner is reporting, above.

Another obvious truth soon to be reported next:

-There IS NO energy shortage!-

So we won't need wind turbines, or solar cells, or florescent light bulbs, or hybrid cars....

Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 7:35 PM

[Quote]They have done so explicitly — for example, "solar forcing" (their term for "the sun's causing this heating episode we claim we're seeing") is often regarded in the prime literature as being inconsequential. See, for example, the latest IPCC report.[/quote] Garth Wood...

But,But.. they [IPCC) have the AGW "Fairy Farts" that PING PONG and burn the Planet up...Nothing must come close to GHG (Green House Gas) Sarc off

The fraud is blatantly obvious to anyone who has actually been responsible for delivering Mission Critical Systems, on a date certain Schedule.....

Alternate Energy:
Surly someone must think that a SYSTEM turnkey is the only acceptable method for developing a proven technology.. Proof of Performance with ~ 6 months of driving a North American Grid for Wind or Solar.. not that easy

The typical role seems backwards in that everyone is building thier own system (Buy lots of Stuff) before a proven proto type has been defined...

Wait,, thats GE & California & the Gore Group selling Stuff to every idiot..

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at August 6, 2009 7:41 PM

po'd,

I am aware of the subject we're talking about. I brought up the other issues to point out how you cannot say with any accuracy that humans have no impact on the natural world. Do you still claim that we do not? (I think you're fun too!)

As for Ozone, do you deny the ability of CFCs to destroy ozone? It seems that you do. Do you believe any byproducts of industry are dangerous to humans? Would you run a generator in your home with the windows closed? Surely this wouldn't be harmful, and your death would be a mere coincidence.

As for the letter talking about how CO2 is good for us... clearly it serves an important purpose. But the whole point of this is that if it's helping to keep us warm now, it can over-insulate us if there is too much. Clearly this is the case being made by climate scientists.

I ask again... do you accept the findings of Environment Canada that the Arctic is warming up?

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 7:42 PM

"The Kenyan is, no doubt, an American too, but how many Americans want to think about someone who has multiple citizenships being POTUS?"

Er... clearly the vast majority who voted for him?

So I guess you refuse to believe the Arctic is warmer as well right?

I gots to split peeps. Been fun, if I complete waste of time for all of us.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 7:46 PM

So I guess you refuse to believe the Arctic is warmer as well right?

Warmer than what?
The thing about global warming is that it's G-L-O-B-A-L.

If you want to talk about local temperature you'll have to wait for a local temperature thread.

Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 7:50 PM

"complete waste of time for all of us."

Yeah, well if you come in here and can't answer any simple questions, or acknowledge proven factual errors in your arguments, then yes, it was a waste of time. Why don't you get one of your smart friends in here to debate us? Since all this science talk makes your head woozy.

Posted by: tim in vermont at August 6, 2009 7:52 PM

One wing nut wound up tighter than old broken watch.

John, you responded so quick to po'd in BC there's no way you read his post.
You're deliberately being illogical.
But do continue, as this always helps the more rational minded a great view into such irrational thinking now and again.

Posted by: ldd at August 6, 2009 7:54 PM

Colin

It’s a race to the finish line and BO and company have a healthy lead. I predict Cap’nTrade will pass the Senate and that’s the end of it. BO needs this to pass regardless of his health care debacle, and he will spend every cent of political capital he has to get it done. Once the tax is generating revenue for the government it will not matter what the consensus , science or the public says, the sitting government will say “we will not be able to eliminate the NEW tax”. Monster deficits and everything you can imagine will be cited as the reason they cannot revoke the tax. Rest assured though, the government will promise to reduce the tax as is possible; but, will be criticized by whomever the opposition is at the time as reckless, regardless of the temperature.
John

First, since I can assume you’re not a conservative by your comments do you care to comment on the correlation between your political belief system and your support for policy that will INCREASE taxes? Coincidence?

So long as your solution for your imaginary problem consists of a transfer of wealth from Red States to Blue, and from the West to the East(in Canada) you’re conflict of interest makes your position suspect at best. As you’ve stated today, you don’t know if GW or CC is manmade, yet you demand a man made solution.

Second, “You guys gather your info from rightwing sites, which are at least as suspect.” Proof or projection?

Finally, to answer your first question, how about sovereignty? The fact the Russians planted a flag on our land is just a little bit provocative.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at August 6, 2009 7:54 PM

I ask again... do you accept the findings of Environment Canada that the Arctic is warming up?
Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 7:42 PM

No sh*t sherlock! Been happening for about 20 thousands years.

E.Can. is packed full of GW's believers. So is many political parties, like the green party, so what? Their wrong as well. Voting puplic thinks so to, not one seat, not one...

Posted by: ldd at August 6, 2009 8:02 PM

It's interesting how many posters bring up red herrings such as the Love Canal. This is because the Suzuki's of this world keep spreading misinformation to the gullible.

Here are some of the results of an incredibly exhaustive study of over 6,000 former residents of the Love Canal area.

"Overall, from 1979 to 1996, Love Canal residents got cancer at about the same rate as people of similar age and sex in both Niagara County and in upstate New York. These comparisons are based on the actual number of cancers among the Love Canal residents (304 cancers) compared to the number of cancers expected if they had the same cancer rates as Niagara County (332) or upstate New York (325). We found that some types of cancer were somewhat higher among former Love Canal residents (e.g. kidney, bladder, and respiratory) compared to upstate New York. Other types of cancer were somewhat lower. Additional comparisons are in the full paper."

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/investigations/love_canal/cancer_study_community_report.htm


Posted by: political junkie at August 6, 2009 8:06 PM

Okay, one more, because I can't let this stand...

Idd, if you look at the time stamp on my comment, it was 24 minutes after p'od.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 8:07 PM

Smell that? That's the smell of John being PWNed by po'ed in AB and it burning so much, so brightly, that in his subsequent posts was unable to address what po'ed said.

Posted by: Johann at August 6, 2009 8:11 PM

Posted by: Indiana Homez at August 6, 2009 7:54 PM

Are you addressing me Indiana Homez?

I think one of two things has happened:

1. You have incorrectly cited "Colin" in your response, when perhaps you intended to address someone else.

2. You have incorrectly interpreted one of my posts above, in which case please point out which one, and I'll attempt to clarify my point.

In fact, on the political spectrum I am a conservative, tilted heavily towards a libertarian bent.

Colour me confuzzled. ??

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 8:13 PM

*shaking head....no hope there folks, sometimes just have to declare it a lost cause.

Posted by: ldd at August 6, 2009 8:18 PM

*shaking head....no hope there folks, sometimes just have to declare it a lost cause.
Posted by: ldd at August 6, 2009 8:18 PM

Hence, my don't-feed-the-troll remark back at 5:17.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna) at August 6, 2009 8:19 PM

Roh-roh

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/08/nsidc-20090805.html

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 6, 2009 8:32 PM

Lest we forget...

The theory is about AGW. The use of the term "climate change" is an attempt to save the AGW hypothesis in the face of falsifying evidence.

RIP AGW.

Posted by: Wild Thaing at August 6, 2009 8:59 PM

Thanks, po'd, for the great comment (7:18 pm). It is agonizingly frustrating to see how they have taken a tiny bit of valid science - namely that CO2 captures energy - then ignore the fact that this effect is, practically speaking, close to saturation with respect to how much more heat can actually be captured by increasing CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 has pretty much done all it can do as far as heating the earth. Warming from human-produced CO2 is a minor effect and will always be a minor effect. Of course I know that the model-builders assume feedback mechanisms, and start with some formula along the lines of ΔT = ΔTc/(1-f), with f some feedback factor (assumed to be positive and close to unity for religious reasons) but any scientist that has worked in a system this complicated knows how difficult it would be to accurately model the feedback effects. Plus the Earth has a history, if the climate were so unstable we would know it by now.

However, po'd, don't expect science, reason and logic to change to change the mind of John or others like him. The AGW zealots are fueled by religious emotion, and in many cases greed.

Posted by: rian at August 6, 2009 9:28 PM

To repeat something that is blatantly obvious.....

From yesterday:

"It's not about science or facts ..... it's about creating opportunities for scumbags to fleece the public."
Posted by: OMMAG at August 5, 2009 7:02 PM

If it was just science there would be little discussion outside of people who actually know and care about science and research.

Since it is about something else entirely .... we have these idiot hysterics to deal with.

Posted by: OMMAG at August 6, 2009 9:28 PM

Hey Po'd in Ab..... Great commentary along with relevant supporting references.
These moonbat dolts are so stuck on stupid, there's no hope for them, but there have to be some that aren't so far gone, that critical thought and reason are still not a foreign concept.
The tide is turning.
Please don't be a stranger to this site. Regards.

Posted by: Snagglepuss at August 6, 2009 10:05 PM

rian: thanks! Unfortunately there are quite a few within my own profession who are convinced somehow, that AGW is real and that "we should do something about it".

The part that really concerns me is that the "scientific process" has been debased through all this. Political science has replaced real science.

Like the H1N1 flu "pandemic" there is a huge industry out there that feeds off the creation of the "crises", big egos and large research grants (usually government funded) are at stake. It's a long climb down from a publicly stated position on AGW.

The unsung heros in the AGW debunking are Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.com) and Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org (debunked the Hockey Stick Graph)and even the unsung researchers at surfacestations.org, who tracked down and photographed thousands of surface temperature stations in the US and worldwide.


Her's some new info on ice ages:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/


Posted by: po'ed in AB at August 6, 2009 10:21 PM

Okay we all feed the trolls from time to time....

T, John etc have shown themselves to be unarmed men in a battle of wits.....

"There is no honour to be had in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

This year the is little evidence of warming in the arctic.....4 metres of Ice at the North Pole and until recently temps below freezing....

What I always found amusing was the portrayal of Disco Bay, Greenland choked with floating slush, growlers and Ice-bergs was evidence that the GIC was melting.....
Ice bergs ONLY calve from "TIDE-WATER GLACIERS".
A tide-water glacier is one which moves out into tide-water---to be subjected to tidal forces which inevitably cause fracturing.....
Glaciers only move when they are GROWING....
If the glaciers were receeding there would be no ice-bergs because the terminous of the glaciers would be up on the beach.........
A few days past...a loudmouth warmer was holding forth and stated that Antarctica was melting and that reports to the contrary were ficticious because there is no-one there. There is NOTHING at the South Pole----NOTHING----(according to that dude.....
Faith is a scary, wonderous thing.....some don explosive belts.....

Posted by: sasquatch at August 6, 2009 10:22 PM

"Chairman K, true that we don't fully understand how our climate systems work, BUT safe to say that if the atmosphere normally contains 3000 gigatonnes of CO2, and we add roughly 25 gigatonnes per year through the burning of fossil fuels, and said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you should naturally expect it to have an affect. So should we just sit back and do nothing? I say no, we should not. If we can reduce the amount we generate through regulation and taxation, go for it."

Then you are a brainwashed fool. To enforce legislation based on an unprovable theory about a system we don't fully understand is irresponsible and dishonest. Not to mention that these tax schemes being sold to us have nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions but about the redistribution of wealth.

Our climate system isn't some closed system and the forces influencing it aren't constant. That's why it is not safe to say that the CO2 we pump out is responsible for the warming trends. It can't be proven.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 6, 2009 10:36 PM

While the troll from BC (J) has disappeared, I won't allow him to debase this good part of the country with his moonbat ways, there are too many out here anyways for our own good (and Gordo seems to be joining the moonbat legions too, carbon tax, HST "will improve the economy")...........but I digress.

Yes, Bc just had a nice warm spell, and yes, rsome temp. records were set over a period of three days. Now, temperatures are below normal, go figure!

But the real bit of gravy here, is, statistically speaking, which has more impact upon our recent cliamte/weather.....three days of warm? Or, three months of bitter winter here in BC? Here in Victoria, we had snow on the ground for a month, utterly unheard of here, and in the Nanaimo area, the snow lasted for 7 weeks.

Notice how Johnny boy didn't want to address the frozen NW passage, or the shipd stuck in it, or those gallant British neophytes that tried to sled to the North Pole and test the thinning ice, only to get frozen out, and be evacuated before they froze to death!

Damn FACTS! They get in the way of fairy stories

Posted by: DanBC at August 6, 2009 10:54 PM

after reading all that nonsense from toilet, I have to go to the John!!

Posted by: GYM at August 6, 2009 10:56 PM

sasquatch at August 6, 2009 10:22 PM
Here, since John et al have us talking about local phenomena, is my local anecdotal evidence against the unfounded religious belief in AGW.

After the 3rd flight of Canada geese flew over our house here in the Calgary area today, my wife said, "Well I can't tell if they're going South or not." I says, "It doesn't matter what direction you see them flying, they fly landing patterns, and they aren't supposed to be in the area for about another 2 months."

You see, the geese winter up North and if the Arctic was unseasonably warm, they wouldn't be 800 miles south at this time of year.

We had frost on August 10th the last 2 years running.
I've never seen anything like it.
I predict the same this year, if not earlier.

Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 11:15 PM

correction: the geese summer up North

Too much Grey Goose tonight.

Posted by: Oz at August 6, 2009 11:26 PM

sasquatch: those 'bergs in Disco Bay do come from the glacier (tide water) emptying into the Davis Straits at the town of Illusiat, Greenland, about an hour's chopper ride to the south (the current flows north up the coast).

That glacier moves at an incredible rate off the main ice cap (about 1.0 meter an hour) out into the ocean. The glacier supplies all the 'bergs that float north up the Davis Straits and then south past Nfld.

The stuff in Disco Bay are probably grounded 'bergs. Impressive, as the water is 1200 feet deep right off the shoreline. The 'berg that sank the Titanic is believed to be from the same glacier. I saw 'bergs there that had doughnut holes in them that you could fly two Bell 215's side by side, through the hole with room to spare.

How do I know? Been there, took the pictures.

What surprises me is that even though the arctic was ice free and forests of conifers existed there during the Eocene,approx 45 million years ago.

(http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140125?cookieSet=1&journalCode=earth)

people get so exercised if the same "might" be happening today. If it does, Canadians will get used to a warmer climate than they have today. I doubt that will happen in our life time, as the feeling is that we are into a cooling trend of the cyclic post-glacial warming that has gone on for the last 12,000 years.

Posted by: po'ed in AB at August 6, 2009 11:29 PM

Well it all boils down to the Conservative government accepting the Cap and Trade that the US government is going to impose upon their citiczens. Even though it is all fear-mongering, Canadian politicans do not have the backbone to state the scientific facts, such as the data is all wrong because of the location of sensors. I will vote for the first politician that states that Global Warming is just a new religion.

It will never happen though, Harper doesn't have the will to stick with the facts, Biffy and Chow [good-by] Jack will state that our 2% of carbon imprint is what is causing the world to be destroyed and the Green are just folloewrs of the new religion called Global Warming.

They must hate it when for the past eight years the temp has been getting cooler. We already won ... we should actually release more carbon into the air for the plant life to improve and to warm up the weather [if that is even possible.] One would hardly know this is August .... feels more like October.

Posted by: Clown Party of Canada at August 7, 2009 1:29 AM

John:

I'm simply stating that denial of climate change is silly when your lying eyes tell you that it is happening.

Well, I quite agree with the converse. The whole point of the original post is that the temperature stations that are providing the raw data scientists are using (and, for example, there are more of these stations in the US then there are in all of South America) are - please listen, John - SITUATED IN PLACES WHERE THEIR TEMPERATURES ARE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE SOURCES LIKE AIR CONDITIONING EXHAUSTS, ETC. If these stations were often placed 100 yards away from these heat sources, their temperatures would doubtless be much lower. Have you ever stood beside your air conditioner's outside heat exchanger? Try it, and you'll see it's considerably warmer there - and that's for a home unit, not an industrial size unit cooling a whole building. And most home units are surrounded by grass which provides cooling, while industrial units are surrounded by concrete which absorbs heat and then re-radiates into the environment, again producing inflated readings in the immediate area of the sensor, with much lower readings available just a few meters away. That's what our "lyin'" eyes see - what do yours see?

Posted by: KevinB at August 7, 2009 1:49 AM

Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna

sorry for the late reply.

Yes I was addressing you, but I missed the ? when you said "better late than never?".

Anyways, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just saying that I think the horses have left the stable regardless of the science ect...

And don't worry, nobody will mistake you for a lefter. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at August 7, 2009 9:44 AM

John, regarding seeing the warming with your own eyes, I assume you're referring to record melts of the arctic ice witnessed in the mid 2000's. As pointed out several times, the scientists who disagree with the AGW theory believe that the sun is the primary cause of the increased temperatures, as we went through a particularly high-output cycle in the '90s. As is normally the case with our climate, the effects of the warmth are felt after, not during. Witness summer, which typically has it's hottest days well after the solstice (usually third week of June). The winter month of February is the coldest here, yet the winter solstice is the third week of December! Even more astounding, Lake Ontario's water temperature peaks in September, which is even further removed from the solstice. Considering the delay we witness in this heating cycle, is it not conceivable that we likewise see a delay in the effects of the suns' solar cycles, such that the maximum amount of ice melt occurs after, not during the solar cycle? The ice has been rebounding nicely in the arctic, as witnessed by your own eyes, so are we calling for a new ice age now?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 10:55 AM

KevinB wrote:
"Well, I quite agree with the converse. The whole point of the original post is that the temperature stations that are providing the raw data scientists are using (and, for example, there are more of these stations in the US then there are in all of South America) are - please listen, John - SITUATED IN PLACES WHERE THEIR TEMPERATURES ARE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE SOURCES LIKE AIR CONDITIONING EXHAUSTS, ETC."

Not to belabour the point, but if only 11% of the stations are reliable (prior to NOAA bias adjustments for ill-situated stations), we should see a marked difference in the temperature series between those reported throughout the US and those deemed good or best by Mr Watts and his volunteers.

Alas, that is not the case. Instead, both the year-to-year and smoothed data are nearly identical. (See page 3)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

This refutes Mr Watts hypothesis entirely.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 1:19 PM

I keep writing to tell you guys that Environment Canada has reported a 3C increase over the past 30 years. That the plant mass of the Arctic has more than double. And that northern nations are preparing for an ice free Northwest Passage.

So far the best you can produce to counter this is that it was cold where you live, and that some ships got stuck in the ice. These are isolated incidents, and simply do not counter the trend towards warm weather.

Now, everbody knows that the Arctic was once a warm place, and that it very well might be again in the future. If it took a few thousand years to warm up, human populations could adjust. The concern however is that the warming rate will occur over a century, which will not allow for easy adaptation.

Right now we as a country are experiencing the effects of climate change in many harmful ways. The pine beetle for one. This critter wouldn't have survived winters 50 years ago, but now it's spreading slowly across the country, and will cost us tens of billions of dollars. That's just one example.

Again, I ask you guys. Do you honestly believe that the Arctic is not warmer than it was 30 years ago, despite the fact that numerous scientific bodies + Environment Canada claim that it is?

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 1:45 PM

Payn Attention,

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
FROM
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Why do the data sets from surface temperature stations disagree with the satellite data?
Because the surface temperature data is FUBAR.

What is the entire AGW house of cards built on?
The surface temperature data, that's what.

-There IS NO global warming!-


Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 1:49 PM

Do you honestly believe that the Arctic is not warmer than it was 30 years ago, despite the fact that numerous scientific bodies + Environment Canada claim that it is?

Posted by: John

Again with the local weather, eh John?

Let's look at the local weather at say....Mars.

The spacecraft also observed a gradual evaporation of carbon dioxide ice in one of Mars' polar caps, pointing to a slowly changing Mars climate.

"They way these polar pits are retreating is absolutely astounding," Mustard said.

But like the rockfalls, researchers were unable to account for the gradual climate change.

"Why is Mars warmer today that it was in the past, we really have no way of knowing why," Malin said.
FROM
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050920_mgs_update.html

John, in your studied opinion, is the current warming on Mars due to the SUVs, the industrial factories the SUVs were built in, or the cow farts?

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 1:59 PM

pete wrote:
"...the scientists who disagree with the AGW theory believe that the sun is the primary cause of the increased temperatures, as we went through a particularly high-output cycle in the '90s."

No.
The sun is the primary climate force on the planet, but the output variation in total solar irradiance is only 0.3% between the highs and lows of the 11-year solar cycle.

As the graph shown at http://tinyurl.com/lgrael indicates, the sun was in a solar-minimum phase in approximately 1996, the demarcation of Solar cycles 22 and 23.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 2:03 PM

Oz,

That article is 12 years old. Here is a recent NASA link:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 2:05 PM

"Again with the local weather, eh John?"

Honestly guy. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that because I'm talking about the entire Arctic, I'm focusing on something too local? The Arctic is kinda big you know. Or maybe you think talking about earth is too local?

Speaking of Mars, seeing as all we have of that planet is grainy images, I don't think you can use it for your argument.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 2:18 PM

That's strange, John August 7, 2009 2:05 PM.

I never would have thought that 12 years had passed between September 2005 and July 2009.

My abacus must need new batteries.

I'll task a pass on that NASA link, John.
As long as NASA employs Hockeystick Hansen they have zero credibility.
NASA was caught fudging their numbers, John.

Are you suggesting that because I'm talking about the entire Arctic, I'm focusing on something too local? The Arctic is kinda big you know.
~John

Yeah, but is the Arctic the globe?
No.
You are therefore talking about a local phenomena, not global warming.

The Antarctic is getting colder, John.

The satellite data says we have stasis, neither warming nor cooling, but if there is any trend, the trend is cooling not warming.

all we have of that planet is grainy images, I don't think you can use it for your argument.
~John

Yeah, I can use it for my argument.
Do you think that temperature is measured with visual imaging, John?
You're a funny guy. lol

Mars is getting warmer.
Is it anthropogenic warming, John?

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 2:44 PM

Payn Attention, don't try and trivialize the variable output of the sun by expressing it as a very small percentage. The average amount of radiation received by our atmosphere's upper surface is over 1300 Watts per square meter. So your tiny 0.3% amounts to over 4 Watts per square meter. That's what is received at the outer surface of our atmosphere. What's the total surface area of our atmosphere receiving this extra 4 Watts per square meter? That's a lot of extra Watts being pumped into our atmosphere. And that only accounts for the variations in brightness. What about the changes in the solar winds that cause variations in cosmic rays? What about Solar ultra-violet output?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 2:56 PM

I was referring to this url you posted, which is clearly dated from 1997:

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

And no. The Antarctic is not cooling. Huge ice shelves are calving off of the continent, and glaciers are melting faster.

Melting:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070606-antarctica-melt.html

Melting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm

And finally, while some areas have cooled down, the average temperature has warmed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica

I wouldn't look to a science fiction author for your facts. Micheal Criton is for entertainment purposes only. (Jurassic Park isn't real either, sorry!)

I suppose you will now argue that these two areas are merely "local".

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 2:57 PM

Grainy images of Mars, John? Like this?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 3:02 PM

I fall back to my original question... is Earth getting warmer or not?

You guys seem to not know what you're arguing.

On one hand you seem to be claiming that temperatures are not rising, and on the other, you claim that the warming that is happening is probably due to the sun.

Is this the "just make as much noise as possible" approach to arguing and hope that nobody notices how stupid your position is?

So again... are we warming or not?

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 3:05 PM

John = John Cross with an attitude ?

Could be. It happens, when one realizes they we're taken in by a scam/hoax.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 7, 2009 3:42 PM

-There IS NO global warming!-

Oh, and John, ice shelves calve because they are growing, not melting.

The mean temperature of Antarctica in summer is -15 to -35C, in winter it is -40 to -70C.
Water freezes at 0C.

Ice shelves and glaciers calve because it is colder, it snows creating a greater mass inland, gravity makes the ice move toward the sea which is lower, the weight inland pushes the edges out past the supporting land, having no land to bear the weight they then break off and float away.
Twit.

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 3:43 PM

Does a BBQ skew the wx thermometer to the upside ? A vehicle radiator ? Asphalt ?

Why did Hansen violate his own guidelines? Agenda? So his bud Gore could make a cool Million - and counting.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 7, 2009 3:46 PM

So basically you guys are dead certain that Mars is warming up? A planet of which we know a fraction of a fraction of what we know about earth? And that's your arguement?

Wow. Just wow.

Ron... what are you talking about?

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 3:47 PM

The Pine Beetle. Let's see, now.

If a, say 2C, GW rise in temp caused the beetle to munch more, then as you travel south from BC to WA, OR, CA - you will notice more beetle killed trees as it is significantly warmer down south. Right? WRONG.

Have driven this route many times - less dead trees where it is warmer. So what the hay gives !?

Some forestry people here say it is because the Americans we're more prone to let non property threatening fires clear out the older, beetle prone trees - and the beetles.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 7, 2009 3:54 PM

John, pay attention. Current solar cycle is a low, it's getting colder. 90's was a high, it was getting warmer.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 4:00 PM

So Johan, as our newest troll, thinks that Watts Uo, Surfacestations, and Climate Audit are "right-wing". I guess in the self-limited mindset and vocabulary of an utter moron, that might appear to be true. In the real world, we call these people scientists, statisticians, and purveyors of common sense over cynical doomsday profiteering. As I wrote to a colleague recently:

"There is no evidence – none – to support the idea that 'global' warming, presupposing there even is such a thing given the recent data regarding the El Nino Southern Oscillation etc, is a result of human activity. What we have now is not, as I have heard it dismissively described, a cherry-picking of data to support skepticism, but in fact just the opposite: there is now an overwhelming body of evidence against the theory; it just isn’t getting publicity because, I am convinced, of the now-massive and unstoppable money machine around AGW."

So John, next time you parrot some outdated crap here at SDA, remember you are talking to people who are used to doing their own thinking, and doing so damned well. You are not in our league. Go preach your water-cooler chitchat where it belongs: at the water cooler, where other bored listless drones will likely nod at your babbling and do, as I suspect you have, exactly nothing about it anyway.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:04 PM

Oz, honestly guy. That you can sit there smuggly pretending to know what you're talking about is astounding.

I can just see it now. A bunch of scientists who've spent their careers studying climate change, read what you've just written and say "oh! we never thought of that! Let's give Oz a grant!"

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 4:04 PM

Check out The Hudson Bay Company wx data. Over the centuries, there is, has been and always will be decadal temp swings. Has been happening since time began. Even before Man lit his first fire.

(Note: Dr Timothy Ball already has done the above - thoroughly !!)

Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 7, 2009 4:05 PM

John, you have no idea what you're talking about. Were you aware for e.g. that the head of the IPCC is a railway engineer? Bet not. Did you know James Hansen has been caught fudging his stats? Bet not, What might you make of the 30,000+ scientists who've signed on at the Petition Project saying they are certain the issue is really a non-issue? Is it because they're all "right-wing", whatever the f*ck that means to a tiny-minded demagogue like you, or that there might be a chance they are concerned there really is no issue?

Grow up, shut up, leave us be,go quote dated Wikipedia crap to the converted, where you'll be sure to get those willing ennui-driven nods of agreement you crave.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:10 PM

So basically anyone who questions your little rightwing circlejerk is a troll? A troll is a guy who talks about doing your mom at the CircleK Michael.

So Michael, I ask you again... do you refuse to accept the evidence that the Arctic is warmer now than it was 30 years ago?

Simple question, and yet not one of you will answer it.

As for "money-machines". Dude... the people who stand to lose most here are energy companies. If people were to turn down their thermostats, drive more fuel efficient cars, or switch some of their sytems to renewable energy sources, they will lose billions.

It is is very well documented that the real dough being spent here is by these guys who fund everything from "thinktanks" to PR firms, to blogs and other various experts.

As for scientists purporting the climate change theory solely to secure grant money... are you effing serious? These guys could all make loads of money in other fields if they wanted. It's laughable to argue otherwise.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 4:13 PM

Michael, please don't ask him to shut up. Ask him to put up. Tell him to put up some real arguments with real facts. Not just hearsay and regurgitated media talking points. Make him find flaws in the excellent work Anthony has done. If he's willing to stand his ground and debate this subject for a week or more, we need merely prove every one of his arguments to be false or simply hearsay without any supporting facts. Once we've destructed every myth he's been fed as truth, a light might come on at the end of it all.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 4:16 PM

"oh! we never thought of that! Let's give Oz a grant!"
~John

If you're suggesting I can be bought the way those dirtbags were, you're out of line.

And no, they never thought of that because it would interfere with their grant money to have their ginned up crisis evaporate.

Those "climate scientists" never dreamed they could afford so many hookers and so much blow before in their lives.

You know what the icing on the cake is, Johnny boy?
Increases in CO2 follow temperature increases, not the other way around.

These guys could all make loads of money in other fields if they wanted. It's laughable to argue otherwise.
~John

When this AGW scam is done, the last "climate scientists" who are still on the bandwagon won't be able to get a job flipping burgers at Rotten Ronnie's.

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 4:19 PM

Oz, I don't know what you do for a living, but clearly you should become one of them thar scientitians. You could sure learn everyone a thing or two about CO2.

Can you explain why increases in CO2 follow temperature increases? At least provide a link perhaps? (I won't hold my breath for your explanation)

Pete, I've handed you guys a few links from respectable publicastions such at National Geographic that quote real studies. I've quoted Environment Canada's chief climatologist. What have you produced other than hot air?

Do you accept the evidence that the Arctic is warming or not. Answer the question. Just say "no John, I do not accept the evidence". It's not that hard.

Thanks for this guys... I'm going to be working this weekend to make up time talking to you retards. I guess you can be happy about that at least.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 4:30 PM

Pete and Oz:
I would like to answer, but it appears as though my comments and links to your analysis have been tied up in 'moderation' for about 90 minutes now.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 4:33 PM

Precisely the kind of low-minded filthy knuckle-dragging remark I expected you'd follow up with, John. Got you right where it hurts, didn't I, shitforbrains? Watch that b.p. John, you're headed for a stroke.

Barring that bit of good fortune for the rest of us though, I'll just ask this: what are YOU doing for the environment, John? In detail, please. I have never owned a car, lifelong transit user. I have worked for an environmental NGO, I have canvassed for Greenpeace like a good little puppet. I have been turning down teh thermostat, and so has everyone I know, since the 1960s, John. Big effing deal - but nobody was trying to make a million bucks fronting an organization, or a film full of bullshit, back then, John. Nobody thought they were doing anything out of the ordinary, and nobody except lunatics would have suggested it was because of IMPENDING DOOM. I have news for you John: you're a puppet. Worse: a puppet of a parrot.

I would get infinitely more satisfaction out of finding out what a planetary hero you are than asking you to attempt the futile exercise of refuting the stacks of data weighing against AGW. to it, John: I'm sure we are all (yawn) waiting with bated breath.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:34 PM

John, I've answered your question several times, you choose to ignore it. As for the "money-machines", were you aware that Al Gore founded a carbon-credit selling company? Do you know that his net worth has increased by close to $100 million since he started this CO2 crusade? The environmentalists are waging a war on pollution, and one of the big polluters they hate are the oil companies. The socialists are waging a war on the capitalists, and one of their biggest enemies are the big oil companies. Socialists and Environmentalists working hand in hand to save the world and save mankind. Lets assume that everything the IPCC says is true. According to the IPCC, it's really bad, and if we don't do something immediately, it's gonna be really, really bad. Why is it that every solution being proposed involves a tax to try and reduce emissions? A tax isn't going to save the planet. If it's as bad as they are trying to make it out to be, there should be no other option but an almost complete ban on fossil fuel except where it's a matter of life or death, and some serious investment in nuclear, here, there, everywhere, and as fast as possible. The kind of efforts and sacrifices made to win the second world war. But a tax? That's when I first thought something smelled funny.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 4:37 PM

You WORK for a living John? For who, the frickin' WWF?

Piss off, you little toad, damn right I'm happy. DO that overtime, stop being a whiny panty-wetting loser.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:38 PM

+1 to pete - actually several lionized Prophets O' Doom (tm) are saying we're already far too late to prevent total ecological catastrophe (hardehar!) - so why should we stop doing what we humans do so well (survival) anyway? Party time, Guinness on me!

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:41 PM

You done already John? Nothing more to say? Used up your store of handy-dandy epithets to sling at "right-wingers"?

Retard!

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:47 PM

John and Payn Attention, it's time to put up. Here's an article that I would like you to read. When you're done reading it, please provide your proofs/arguments as to why it's not true, and I should instead believe the IPCC.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 4:49 PM

+1 on everything you said too Oz. But best to bar in mind we are dealing with a no-lobes here, has never had an original thought and incapable of ingesting anything that isn't inline with the canon of Correctness. A True Believer of the lowest masturbatory self-flagellating White Man's Burden variety.

So boring really in the end, limp and befuddled, hardly any fun at all - bye John (sound of lint being flicked off my collar).

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 4:52 PM

*sigh*

Michael, dude. Read the line. I didn't say i was doing your mom. I said a troll is the sort of person who does that. Trolls don't quote National Geographic. Did I really have to spell it out for you?

It's great to hear that you don't drive, and that you take the loser cruiser. I'm happy for you. I drive my car to work everyday, because I can't spare the extra 30 minutes it would take to catch transit. So hey... i'm a bit of a hypocrite.

What I want out of this is the following. I want to see top down regulation that forces industry plan for the future. I want options when I buy vehicles. I want to see an end to urban sprawl, and see our cities be designed smarter. I want to see improved loser cruiser service. This sort of thing is only possible once we recognize that we have a problem. Otherwise, of course it mostly makes sense to stick with status quo.

With the exception of a few fanatics, most people don't expect change to occur in the next few years, but we are saying that we need to start changing the way we think now, so that in 20 years you see some radical new technologies. That's it.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 4:54 PM

As I noted before, I have been trying to respond, but with limited or no success.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 4:54 PM

WTF.
It seems if I actually refute something, 'moderation' kicks in.

let's try this

Oz wrote: Why do the data sets from surface temperature stations disagree with the satellite data?
Because the surface temperature data is FUBAR.

So you're saying that Watts has wasted all this time by trying to verify a correlation between the placement of USGS monitoring stations and accurate temperature measurements, when only satellite measurements are to be trusted? I think that's called moving the goalposts.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 4:59 PM

OK part two:

...but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity. FROM http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm


Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 5:03 PM

Part three:

jumping ahead 8 years:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/

and to June of this year:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Note the decadal (per decade) trend for global, northern and southern hemispheres at the bottom:
DECADAL TREND= 0.124 0.190 0.058

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 5:05 PM

Pete, I've just gone back through your comments, and nowhere that I can see do you directly answer the question, "Do you accept the evidence that the Arctic is getting warmer?"

You've said something about it getting colder, which I guess may be your answer, but it doesn't really address the issue of the evidence suggesting warming.

As for the cosmic rays... again, I'm confused. If you are arguing that it's getting colder, whey are you putting forward a theory re cosmic rays warming the planet. Wouldn't this also be something you disagree with?

That weirdness aside, I don't know... maybe cosmic rays do contribute. Maybe it's a number of reasons that include cosmic rays, solar output, and who knows what else, BUT we also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AND we are dumping 27 gigatonnes into the atmosphere every year.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 5:09 PM

John, you're pretty thick I'm thinking. The arctic went through a decade of warming. It has been undergoing cooling for the last three years now. Solar cycle 24 seems to be screwed up, was just reading how solar scientists are saying cycle 24 appears to have been aborted completely and 25 may be beginning. Don't know what this holds for the future output, but for the last two years output has been extremely low compared to average. Interestingly, the last two years have seen extremely harsh winters and mild summers around the world. Snow in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, South Africa. Record cold snaps in Chile and Argentina, Australia, China, and more.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 5:25 PM

"Maybe it's a number of reasons that include cosmic rays, solar output, and who knows what else, BUT we also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AND we are dumping 27 gigatonnes into the atmosphere every year."

27 gigatonnes doesn't mean anything if you can't quantify or measure the direct effect it has on the climate system compared to the influences of other forces.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 7, 2009 5:27 PM

So you're saying that Watts has wasted all this time by trying to verify a correlation between the placement of USGS monitoring stations and accurate temperature measurements, when only satellite measurements are to be trusted? I think that's called moving the goalposts.
~Payn Attention

No.
Watt's didn't waste his time.
It was worth the entire effort just to show that the USGS data was so corrupted as to be useless.

The discrepancy between the satellite data, which agrees with the weather balloon data, and the USGS data is now explained.
(incidentally, we've known the USGS data was bogus for 2 years, now it's official, I won't even mention the now completely discredited Mann Hockeystick which the Kyoto Protocols were based on)
oops I just did- grin

The edifice of the AGW global warming hoax is built entirely upon the USGS data.
There is therefore NO GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.

(and, Payn Attention, as you've discovered through trial and error, the spam filter flags any post with more than 2 URLs as probable spam)
-hope you had as much fun as I think you did-
8oD

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 5:32 PM

Part four:
Payn Attention, don't try and trivialize the variable output of the sun by expressing it as a very small percentage. The average amount of radiation received by our atmosphere's upper surface is over 1300 Watts per square meter. So your tiny 0.3% amounts to over 4 Watts per square meter. That's what is received at the outer surface of our atmosphere. What's the total surface area of our atmosphere receiving this extra 4 Watts per square meter? That's a lot of extra Watts being pumped into our atmosphere. And that only accounts for the variations in brightness. What about the changes in the solar winds that cause variations in cosmic rays? What about Solar ultra-violet output?

No Pete, a variance of 4 watts per square meter is very small compared to 1365 watts/m2 average. This is the total, and includes ALL wavelengths. You contradict yourself here, and if you look at the graph closely you can see the changes in the solar wind (associated with solar flares) are recorded intricately.
Here's an interesting article that fills in the gaps: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
I assume you neglected to mention CMEs because of their relatively rare occurrences, and the difficulty in measurements.

Onto Watts.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 5:34 PM

Chairman Kaka,

In fact it does when you know that CO2 traps heat, and that we have dramatically increase the amount of it in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. Adding 27gigatonnes every year to a system that normally boasts 3000gigatonnes is quite a lot.

Pete,

I am in fact a bit thick, but it's not about me. As I've pointed out, the chief climatologist of Environment Canada disagrees with you. He says it's warmed by an average of 3C over the past 30 years, which appears to be independent from the solar cycle. (but I thought you were focusing on cosmic rays... what gives?_

Perhaps you should apply for his job?

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 5:35 PM

absolutely right, Kaga. It's worth noting that early in earth's history, such as during the Carboniferous, CO2 concentration levels were TRIPLE what they are today, yet the temperature was only a few degrees higher. This is a rock solid example of how flaky the CO2 forcing theory is. Why wasn't the earth scorching hot desert during this era?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 5:43 PM

John, you keep stating "he says it's warmed by an average of 3C over the past 30 years". First, please provide a specific link, as I would like to read his statement in the context it was made. Second, how did the temperature 30 years ago relate to the century average? ie was the average temperature 30 years ago cold compared to the average? In which case a rise of 3C over 30 years doesn't mean much of anything if 30 years ago was 1.5C colder than average. That just means we're seeing a cycle of fluctuations up and down. You would need to show that the last spike we had was the hottest it's ever been since we started keeping records. By the way, as someone else pointed out, Hudsons Bay Company has an extensive record or temperature recordings dating back three centuries or more. If this is going to be the main point of your argument, you need to reinforce it. Show me that the last 5 years average Hudson Bay temperatures are higher than at any point in the last 300 years of record keeping, and I will concede you a point.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 5:51 PM

Thanks Oz, my multiple urls seem to have been the problem.

To note, however: the UAH lower troposphere measurements matches balloon-based readings, and ground-based trends, according to the data.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 6:02 PM

Alrighty Pete, but you're going to dismiss it out of hand because it's CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/06/ellesmere-hot-july.html

Consider this though... CBC isn't actually allowed to just make up quotes, so safe to say that he actually did say these things.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 6:03 PM

John - you're not a bit of a hypocrite. You're a compete hypocrite. You are part of the problem, a much bigger part than I am, as you acknowledge.

The difference between us is that I am certain that there is no problem. So enjoy your weekend, the driving (30% of greenhouse emissions in Vancouver caused by cars - BTW had you heard the whole greenhouse theory has been completely dismantled by atmospheric physicists in Germany? didn't get much press did it? No blood, no lead), all of it. The fanatics you refer to include Sir James Lovelock and Hansen BTW.

pete, CO2 in the Devonian was around EIGHT times higher than industrial times, and obviously we had huge diversity flourishing and all the rest of it.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 6:10 PM

Consider this though... CBC isn't actually allowed to just make up quotes, so safe to say that he actually did say these things.
~John

What a howler! You nearly made me spill my drink.
Oh, John, you really are a neophyte.
Stay gold, Ponyboy,...stay gold.

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 6:20 PM

"In fact it does when you know that CO2 traps heat, and that we have dramatically increase the amount of it in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. Adding 27gigatonnes every year to a system that normally boasts 3000gigatonnes is quite a lot."

No John, you can't assume that it has any effect at all. The weighted impact of the extra CO2 on our climate system may be a minute fraction compared to the weighted impact of the other forces.

Maybe I'm not explaining my point enough. You have, for example, 3 forces acting in a system, none of them are constant. The weight of the effects of forces 2 and 3 are 10,000x the weight of the effects of force 1. Then it's safe to assume that variances in forces 2 and 3 would have a larger impact on the system than force 1. Smaller variances from forces 2 and 3 would also affect the system more than larger variances from force 1.

That's my beef with the CO2-induced global warming theory. CO2 may be rising in the atmosphere, but we can't quantify the weighted impact it has on the climate system compared to the other forces. And there are a LOT of forces involved.

Posted by: Chairman Kaga at August 7, 2009 6:30 PM

Oz, find one example of a made up quote by CBC. One. I double-dog dare you.

And do you deny that this guy said this? Really?

And Michael, why do you not drive or turn down the thermostat, or canvass for GreenPeace if you don't think there is a problem?

As for the Devonian.... yeah, sounds like a great time to be alive. Swamps, giant insects everywhere and an estimated average global temperature of 30C. Sounds peachy.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 6:31 PM

You know what's confusing about "global" warming as a concept in its entirety? It's supposed to be GLOBAL, but it clearly isn't. There was a hot week in Vancouver - but nowhere else in the country. The Antarctic Peninsula might have had some warm times - but aggregate ice mass in the Antarctic is increasing. Dr. Fruitfly had an episode of The Nature Of Things many months back where he pointed out that the warming Antarctic Peninsula was causing decline in the Adelie penguin - but that five other species were booming. What the ever-loving f*ck is your POINT, David? Never heard of species boom and decline cycles? Does this sound like looming ecological catastrophe? Thought you had a science degree of some sort. But then, this is the same guy who (until recently, possibly as a result of my pointing out its idiocy in his own myspace site) had a Suzuki Foundation web page talking about how "June 2004 tied 1969 as the second-warmest on record" in Vancouver - the single most pointless use of statistics I've ever seen in my life. Luckily Google has cached it: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:3Zji7xlyAxAJ:www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange07130401.asp+david+suzuki+second+warmest+june&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a.

So: we've established I think that the warming isn't global, right? So what exactly is it? I'm sure either John or some other semi-informed person can tell us in lavish detail with ample statistical evidence. I'm sure they know that even the IPCC is now saying that evidence of AGW needs to balanced using our latest understanding of the ENSO. John - over to you.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 6:32 PM

John, it's called simple acts of thrifty conservation that I learned at my Mommy and Daddy's knee. Now you know. Next!

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 6:34 PM

P.S. you are over the mean global temp in the Devonian by TEN DEGREES, John - it was 20, not 30. No more lying, Johnny!

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 6:35 PM

Oops, I guess I didn't bother addressing the question of why I don't drive. None of your fecking business, John-John. Nothing to do with the AGW scare, obviously I would hope, since I could have been driving decades ago. Why do YOU drive, John? so you can destroy the environment, make life impossible for people's children? You bloody bastard!

Next!

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 6:39 PM

Oz, find one example of a made up quote by CBC. One. I double-dog dare you.
~John

Well, Slick, I don't know how young you are, but Jean Chretien was basically incoherent in 2, count'em, two official languages and the CBC changed his quotes all the time over the course of 40 years to prevent Canadians from see what a goof the guy is.

change = made up

If you think that any of CBC's made up quotes are going to be searchable on the internet, they aren't because they fixed ole Screwface's talking points, then you're every bit the neophyte I took you for.

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 6:44 PM

Good work John, you've provided a relevant link to the article you keep quoting. First off, if you read the article, it's not the head of environment Canada that states the average 3C increase. It's Greg Henry, "a researcher who has studied plants on the tundra on eastern Ellesmere Island for almost 30 years". And it's not backed up with any record of temperature measurements, just his one statement. I have no doubt that he's noticed an increase in biomass since he started working up there 30 years ago. Historical data from Hudsons Bay Company reveal cycles of 30 to 40 year lengths of warming and cooling across the arctic where they had trading posts. The 1910's -40's were a warmer period. The 40's to 70's were a cooler period. The late 70's to early 2000's were a warmer period again. Here's a reference. Also, here's a partial record of temperatures for your perusal, please note the variance from one decade to another

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 6:50 PM

Michael, it's funny that you told me to watch my blood preasure, when if you look at our respective comments, it's pretty clear that you're freaking out a bit. Might want to watch you don't blow a gasket.

As for whether or not I'm "lying"... don't be a such a douche. I'm not lying, I'm pulling numbers from websites like this one:

http://bit.ly/16wxMu

In fact there are a number which note the Devonian to be that hot.

But for a second, let's say you're right, and it was 20C. Compared to our current 12C, that means it was bloody hot either way. In fact, large parts of the planet would be unlivable for humans.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 6:50 PM

John: this artilce might peak your interest, as well as others posting here. I just love the subject of geology.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

I posted this artilce yesterday and I feel that you have not read it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Our climate is cyclical, John. You have asked me if I don't believe whether our Environment Canada position that the Arctic is warming. frankly, you haven't posted the data or a link to it to back up your contention.

Personally, I don't care if the Arctic is warming and I did post that if it is then Canadians and others will have to adjust to that happening. The warming is not caused by humans. Period. if anything it would be a good thing.

Posted by: po'ed in AB at August 7, 2009 6:54 PM

Hey John, does this CBC fraud count?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 6:58 PM

or this?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 6:59 PM

My bad. I stand corrected. He did however say:

"At this time of the year, you should see highs of about perhaps maybe closer to about 8 C, and these are temperatures that are, you know, 12 to 15 degrees warmer than normal," he said."

So I think he's down with the fact that the Arctic is getting warmer.

Again... just ignore the fact that all Northern governments are preparing for an ice free Arctic.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 7:03 PM

okay, so you want to pick a single day's temperature record from one tiny area and use it as proof of global warming? I can quote you 100 record setting low temperatures this past winter from around the world, because it was a record setting winter just past. Does that prove we're entering an ice age?

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 7:07 PM

So a 20 degree mean would be unlivable for humans, eh? How do you suppose it was for your ancestors in the last ice age, John? Unlivable?

Nope, they left Africa and spread across the glove. You don't know much about humans, do you?

Freaking out - you wish. :D

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 7:12 PM

That image... papers manipulate images all the time. They took one they had in their file, and changed it to reflect what everyone knows to be true. Have you ever been to Toronto? On a hot summer day, that's the colour. Do you deny that?

As for the video... yeah, that sucks. But they still didn't make up a quote. And really... you see this sort of bullshit from every single news organization. Every one of them. The National Post in Canada is notoriously the worst.

Posted by: John at August 7, 2009 7:14 PM

...or rather, the globe. Heh - must be time to go home, nice and early. Ah, Friday. Done with this thread and done with this guy. Pffft, as we say. Try not to destroy too much of the environment on the drive home, DUDE.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at August 7, 2009 7:15 PM

That image... papers manipulate images all the time. They took one they had in their file, and changed it to reflect what everyone knows to be true.
~John

Fake, but accurate.
Where have I heard that Leftist concept before.

Papers manipulate images all the time, you say?
Yeah, we know that.

Perhaps, John, you should peruse Kate's SDA "Not Waiting for the Asteroid" series.
People want truth, not what the gatekeepers think should be true from their rarefied twisted little viewpoint.

You're done, John, if you think that manipulation is acceptable.

Posted by: Oz at August 7, 2009 7:27 PM

Pete wrote: "John and Payn Attention, it's time to put up. Here's an article that I would like you to read. When you're done reading it, please provide your proofs/arguments as to why it's not true, and I should instead believe the IPCC."

I've quoted from the press release, http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=59890&CultureCode=en

and from the original article, http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf,
rather than Mr Watts' rather breathless "...is a nightmare for the champions of the silly CO2 toy model of climatology..."

Although capable of affecting sunlight after five days, the growing aerosols would not yet be large enough to collect water droplets. The full impact on clouds only becomes evident two or three days later. It takes the form of a loss of low-altitude clouds, because of the earlier loss of small aerosols that would normally have grown into "cloud condensation nuclei" capable of seeding the clouds.
Q: But are they looking at the same phenomenon? We can observe jet-created clouds (condensation around particles) and the dissipation is relatively short (on the scale of minutes or hours). Normal low-level cumulus have a longer lifespan of hours or days (Jiang et al (2006), Aerosol effects on the lifetime of shallow cumulus), and yet Svensmark is observing a loss of cloud-forming particles 7 to 8 days after the Forbush decrease event.

The team identified 26 Forbush decreases since 1987 that caused the biggest reductions in cosmic rays at low altitudes, and set about looking for the consequences.
Q: Is the data cherry-picked in that only the biggest FD events were selected? Wouldn't the data be better served if a correlation was found for almost all FD events (allowing, of course, for some statistical variance)?

When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events, and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world. That explains, according to the DTU team, the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles.
OK, that would supply a mechanism for the warming and cooling cycles during solar minima and maxima, but does not adequately explain the long-term global warming phenomenon.

Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on
cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the
air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans.

Rather inconclusive with only 26 events examined and an indeterminate causal mechanism.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 7, 2009 7:57 PM

"The concern however is that the warming rate will occur over a century, which will not allow for easy adaptation."

WTF John, I thought we had 7 yrs from the release of the documentary!

"Again, I ask you guys. Do you honestly believe that the Arctic is not warmer than it was 30 years ago, despite the fact that numerous scientific bodies + Environment Canada claim that it is?"

That's not the point John, although it's not "settled" if I accept your premise can you please prove it is human induced? Can you also explain how a sin tax in Canada will change that? And please don't say we need to be a leader because that is an opinion.

"I am in fact a bit thick, but it's not about me. As I've pointed out, the chief climatologist of Environment Canada disagrees with you. He says it's warmed by an average of 3C over the past 30 years, which appears to be independent from the solar cycle. (but I thought you were focusing on cosmic rays... what gives?_

Perhaps you should apply for his job?"

So your saying that PMSH is infinitely more qualified to handle the economy than Iggy or Layton because they're not economists; or, are you saying that the economists were correct in last year’s market prognostications?


"I want to see top down regulation..."

This comment sums up you motives nicely. You demand answers of people (yes or no pete?) yet you don't answer my question from yesterday: “First, since I can assume you’re not a conservative by your comments do you care to comment on the correlation between your political belief system and your support for policy that will INCREASE taxes? Coincidence?”

Anyways, don’t take this personally but F*CK “top down regulation” period. For a while I couldn’t figure out if you’re being disingenuous or if you’d drank the Kool-Aid, but you repeated desire(on this and other threads) for “top down regulation” betrays your swindle. Tell me John, in your perfect world what end of “top down” do you find yourself in, the top or bottom?

Btw, I’m leaving now, I look forward to your response if it’s there tomorrow.

Oz

Obviously you're not aware of the theory that life on Earth started on Mars. So, you've been debunked, clearly AGW on Mars and Saturn are GWB's fault.

Pete

"According to the IPCC, it's really bad, and if we don't do something immediately, it's gonna be really, really bad."

The only thing worse than the eminent world wide catastrophe is three-eyed fish. Science aside, the most damning proof of the AGW fraud is the reluctance of AGW supporters to support the proven 0% Carbon emitting technology.


ABC-ya

Posted by: Indiana Homez at August 7, 2009 8:02 PM

Payn attention, please pay attention:

Radius of Earth: 6371km

thickness of atmosphere: 8km at poles, 17km at equator.

lets use a radius of 6380km to calculate the atmosphere's surface area, keeps it simple. surface of a sphere:4 pi r squared

this yields a surface area of 511 million square kilometers (rounded down). Divide by two, since only half has the sun shining on it, gives us 255million km sq.

1 km squared = 1,000,000 meters squared.

4 Watts per meter squared = 4million Watts per km squared.

255,000,000sqkm x 4,000,000 W/sqkm = 1,020,000,000,000,000Watts

with me so far?

1 Watt = 1joule/second, and it takes 333joules to convert a gram of ice to water, so

1,020,000,000,000,000Watts/333joules per gram is 3,063,063,063,063grams/second
that's over 3 trillion grams of ice per second worth of extra melting power being added. put it into kg, it's 3 billion kg of ice per second potentially being melted. That's what your 0.3% increase will get you.

Posted by: pete at August 7, 2009 9:11 PM

Global Warming: Biggest ponzi tax scheme ever.

So currently the world ships it's recycled garbage to third world countries, where workers toil in toxic environment-because their government are corrupt tyrants, for pennies a day, and we need to carbon tax the rest of the productive countries to help the third world continue to do this? And China? Biggest polluter of all.
They'll not be in the Koyoto agreements. Easy to see the koyoto beneficiaries will be only too happy to keep that conveyor belt of money going. Better than any food for oil scam of days gone by thanks to the UN GW alarmists piling on the hype with lies.

Posted by: ldd at August 7, 2009 9:38 PM

One just knows a certified naive fool is in the room when they keep referring to the CBC as the source of their knowledge.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 7, 2009 9:39 PM

**"The Kenyan is, no doubt, an American too, but how many Americans want to think about someone who has multiple citizenships being POTUS?"

Er... clearly the vast majority who voted for him? **

Obama won with 53 % of the vote. So, 3% elected him. Hardly a "vast majority".

Posted by: iggy2shoes at August 8, 2009 6:09 AM

Thanks for the info! I linked to this post on my blog.
Annie Kate

Posted by: Annie Kate at August 8, 2009 6:59 AM

Last one, Pete.

You failed to account that of the solar energy reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere, roughly 30 percent is reflected back into space, about half is absorbed by the land and oceans, leaving about 20 percent that is absorbed by the atmosphere.

By your calculations, that puts your potential energy budget at 612.6 kTonnes/sec. Of course, that 0.3% is the difference between the solar minima and maxima and is available only for short periods of time every 11 years (see the sinusoidal wave pattern of the solar period). Considering that the current volume of ice on earth is approximately 25000000 cubic kilometers or 25000000000000 kTonnes, well, you can do the math. Regardless of the vast (numerically) amount of energy received during solar maxima, 0.3% is still 0.3%.

That's it. I've provided proof against the assertion that arctic ice is recovering, data that the lower troposphere is indeed warming, commented on a draft paper that has yet to be published, corrected your misconceptions about the spectra of solar output and demonstrated how Mr Watts hypothesis is invalid, which was the original topic.

And yet, you still have not commented on any of these, other than to change topics and move the goalposts: so much so that you remind me of a certain 'Pete' that was booted off of Pharyngula for persistent and obstinate use of Creationist talking points.

So, play your "but, but..." game with someone else, and free up some bandwidth for others who might have something to discuss.

Posted by: Payn Attention at August 8, 2009 12:31 PM

i think that it was calculated waaaaaay back in this thread, that there isn't enough air on this planet to "melt" ice at the rate you propose, or at all. It is thermodynamically impossible. But facts, well they are just inconvenient, eh? keep digging.

in another article: it was shown that if there wasn't a land mass to anchor the ice at either pole, you wouldn't have much in the way of ice, except as a seasonal event, and sea levels would be generally higher than they are today. so, how high is the water now, eligia? artic ice can melf or form, but you haven't explained why the sea level is roughly the same, have you?

Posted by: i can read too at August 8, 2009 2:05 PM

More on the subject:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

Posted by: po'ed in AB at August 9, 2009 6:16 PM

sorry, Payn, but I would have to disagree with many of your points. There is a variance of output between solar cycles, not just between minimum and maximum. Also, when calculating the 0.3% energy increase, I increased the amount RECEIVED by 0.3%, not the amount output by the sun, so you can't reflect an additional 30%, since the reflection has already been accounted for. You also can't discount the amount absorbed by land and oceans. From an engineering standpoint, ie lump matter discipline, think of the earth as a closed system. Extra energy is extra energy. Whether it is initially absorbed by the atmosphere, water, land, or whatever makes no difference. It's still an increase of 0.3% of the energy being inputted into the system. The atmosphere interacts with the oceans and the land and the ice. Energy is constantly being transferred back and forth. Also, I'm not just talking about an energy difference between maximum and minimum. There are variances between cycles. Some cycles output more than others. Please google Maunder minimum. A particularly long stretch of low solar activity has been found to coincide with the Little Ice Age. Please explain why a theory that multiple back to back low solar cycles caused a "little ice age" can be so readily accepted, but it's impossible that the sun could now be the cause of the slight warming trend experienced in the 80's and 90's?



That's it. I've provided proof against the assertion that arctic ice is recovering, data that the lower troposphere is indeed warming, commented on a draft paper that has yet to be published, corrected your misconceptions about the spectra of solar output and demonstrated how Mr Watts hypothesis is invalid, which was the original topic.

And yet, you still have not commented on any of these, other than to change topics and move the goalposts: so much so that you remind me of a certain 'Pete' that was booted off of Pharyngula for persistent and obstinate use of Creationist talking points.


1. I must have missed your proof against arctic ice recovering, can't seem to find it above. Perhaps it got caught in the filter?

2. I didn't see your proof of the lower troposphere warming, only a comment about it.

3. Yes, you commented on a paper. You didn't disprove anything, merely asked a few questions that will hopefully get answered with more research. The point of referring you to the paper is to show you how many variables are still not accounted for in the current global warming models. With so many unknowns, how can anyone come to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is the cause of the warming trend we witnessed?
4. You didn't correct any misconceptions about the spectra of solar output. You linked to an article about TSI which backs up the assertion that variance in solar output may be responsible for the Little Ice Age! But nowhere does it state that the measurements of solar radiance include ultraviolet, radio, electromagnetic, or other types of energy outputted by the sun.

5. Finally, your "proof" that refutes Mr Watt's hypothesis is provided by the NOAA, the very organization which is supposed to be in charge of the stations, so it's in their best interests to come to the conclusion that they're not complete screwups. But the fact is, they've been fudging the numbers. They're regularly showing temperatures higher than what the NASA satellite temperatures are showing. Please review this.

Don't know what pharyngula is, and wouldn't bother to argue creation vs evolution, a complete waste of time because it's impossible to prove 100% either way.

Posted by: pete at August 10, 2009 10:43 AM
Site
Meter