Drought? AGW.

Floods? AGW.

Cold, snowy winters? AGW.

Warm, snow-free winters? AGW.

More hurricanes? AGW.

Less hurricanes. AGW.

The mother of all unfalsifiable theories, AGW continues to lumber along, perpetuated by fraudulent science, stuck-on-stupid politicians, and an ignorant citizenry.

Southern Alberta is expected to receive 100mm of rain by fri.

I have hoped and prayed for global warming to kick in but to no avail.

Its very discouraging how these climate "scientists" tug on our hearts with predictions of warm winters and summers only to see record cold and record snow and record rain and record...

I'm stating to become skeptical.

Don't believe your lyin' eyes, bud, that there is DROUGHT that's coming down from those black skies.

Cjunk...just for the sake of 'da proof' I was going to ask you for a juxtaposing link to the AGW purple piffle about droughts.
But Colin 's summary covers the problem well enough.

Due to all this standing water the mosquitoes are so numerous in the evenings it sounds like I'm at the World Cup.

Not quite bluetech, Colin missed warm, snowy winters ;)

Seen any animals gather two-by-two?

Earthquakes? AGW
Dirty diapers? AGW
Big weeds? AGW
Lost your Job? AGW
Pants don't fit anymore? AGW
Car broke down? AGW
Drunken neighbors? AGW
Screaming kids? AGW
Dog ran away? AGW

and the list goes on and on....

One must be a scientist in the ilk of Suzuki and Gore before being able to understand the difference between a "dry drought" and a "wet drought".

The average unwashed citizen cannot grasp concepts that are child's play to the vast majority of scientists.

Manitoba's fields are in worst shape than Scratchassawan's, we've got socialists floating in them.

Well, sure, Soccermom. Of course, I was thinking those as well, but don't those go without saying?

;-)

Oh, and you forgot:

Dogs and cats living together? AGW.

Colin, you can also substitute Bush/Harper for each of those problems as well, hahahaha!!

Hmmm, 40 years. Isn't that the cycle length for something? Oh, yeah! The Maunder Minimum!

This was a 40-year period when extreme cold weather prevailed in Europe. It also coincided with astronomers watching the sun and not seeing many sunspots! I read that we aren't seeing many sunspots right now - for a year or so.

I'm digging out my longjohns, 'cause even I remember 40 years ago, winters in northern Saskatchewan were f/n cold! Like -50 C to -60 C cold. Saskatoon (in the south) had daytime highs of -30 C.

Now governments want to tax us on our fuel consumption, to combat "globull warming"? Great timing ass****s!

soccermom: "Lost your Job? AGW"

:sigh: I don't know why we send out memos if you're not gonna read 'em. Job loss is due to Bush and/or the Jews.

Yes Kathryn, each of those problems could also be caused by Bush/Harper/Jews, LOL

Ask anyone who works for Ducks Unlimited about the Parairy pot-hole country. This is the breeding ground for over 70% of North American waterfowl.

These birds are 100% reliant on the melt and rain water retained in the 10s of 1000s of dry-land prairie sloughs and pot holes for their breeding environment.

In most of recorded natural history this region goes into 7 year wet and drought cycles. Currently the Prairie waterfowl populations are at a 25 year high.Prairie wetlands are in good shape and it's expected there will be a bumper crop of waterfowl young this year.

All of this was accomplished by hunter funding and land owner conservation co-operation, there were no sightings of Al Gore and the Carbon Nazies during this wetland preservasion/maintenance, no government climate tax was needed, nature and real conservationists doing very well without thank you.

bluetech:

A sample ...

http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/adaptation-options/theme-assessments/water-drought

Hell, plant rice! :)

Yeah, I got another flood warning yesterday, this one for Western Manitoba. To paraphrase Johnny Cash:

How bad's the drought, Mama?
Five feet high and rising.

The greens blame bush and the jooos, I blame Al's incessant tee pee creeping.

We had a couple of days of 'warm' and sunny. Just enough to hatch the mosquitos. Of course they will drown to-day and there are not many meal handouts, but I have the feeling if we ever get warm.

Oops! Environment Canada predicts a "warm dry" spring.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/01/canada-spring-outlook.html

It must have been an April fools day joke.

Don't forget terrorist attacks. That's due to AGW as well!

About 10 years ago, I was dating an environmentalist-type woman, who made a living from the oil patch. She attended a seminar, hosted by Agriculture Canada(I think), that focused on the need for more irrigation projects. The main thrust of the seminar was that persistent drought conditions would lead to all of southern Alberta becoming a semi-arid zone, within a decade or so. Apparently, no land south of Red Deer will be able to produce crops, without irrigation.

I questioned the validity of such bold predictions, and was laughed down, as being far too unsophisticated to understand weather models. Man, I should have had my head examined for dating that drunken swine. Regardless, she and her friends were wrong.

But, don't forget that volcanoes are due to the over exposure of female mammary glands.

There has been almost 10 inches of rain in this neighbourhood this spring so far. A few miles south of here, it is approaching 12 inches. Other areas to the east have had even more.

Out here on Vancouver Island the ski hills on Mount Washington are going to be open for Father's Day skiing. That's never happened before, so all that snow must be Global Warming too...

Do these climate scientologists enjoy being ridiculed? If not, then dump the computers and go back to observations (what a radical concept).

"perpetuated by fraudulent science, stuck-on-stupid politicians, and an ignorant citizenry."

perpetuated by fraudulent science, stuck-on-stupid politicians, and an educated citizenry.

There fixed it for you. After all if you want to pull a real scam you need people who are educated. They fall for anything if it appeals to authority.

Just out of curiousity, how much crop in the ground, do some of the regular's here have planted?

We had a whole rotten summer last year (eastern Ontario) just like you poor lads are getting this spring...some guys didn't get making 1st cut hay 'til September in'09...the wheat was polluted with fusarium...mold on the soybeans...on and on the misery rained down.

It's been pissin' rain and bloody cool in the South Okanagan since April...we're a frakkin' desert! Oh Yah! AGW affects isolated areas like that! Let's see...Okanagan to Teulon...that's pretty isolated, 1500 miles +/- (that'd be 2000 kms for all you Trudeau-ites) But It's been hot in Southern Ontario so the Globe MUST be warming!

Frakkin Gore!

dp said: "The main thrust of the seminar was that persistent drought conditions would lead to all of southern Alberta becoming a semi-arid zone,"

Not to go too far off topic here, but southern Alberta is already a semi-arid zone and already uses a lot of irrigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliser%27s_Triangle
(current weather notwithstanding).

The seminar may have been about increasing the use if irrigation in the area, but your ex clearly misunderstood southern Alberta's climate if she thought it was going to 'become' semi-arid.

I can't tell you how much I miss the hot dry summers.

Short term predictions have nothing to do with the science behind climate change and AGW. When could you ever count on the weather being correct? I know where I live the weather has been more random and unusual than 10 years ago, hotter summers, more extreme winters.

Travis- Only the extreme SE portion of Alberta is classified as semi-arid. The seminar in question was predicting that area would expand as far north and west as Red Deer. That's a big expansion.

Where are all the scientists now, who were predicting the droughts for the prairie provinces, as they studied their models of Global Warming, and now are strangely silent as facts now appear to speak for themselves, rather than depend on egocentric scientists and sycophants whose scientific work has been proven to be nothing more than musings in respect to Global Warming as they foisted their unproven theories, as scientific fact, on innocent and unsuspecting world citizens.
Unfortunately we will not hear from Al Gore in this respect, as he appears to have gone incommunicado from the media, as they attempt to contact him in search for answers to his extra marital dalliances, which have led to his recent divorce from wife Tipper. The public is not buying the story advanced by his cohorts, the proponents of Global Warming in the scientific community, that his impending divorce, is another casualty of Global Warming, unfortunately and inadvertently which they failed to predict by study of their models.

http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100611/wpg_wheat_100611/20100611/?hub=WinnipegHome

The accuracy of short term predictions HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOUND SCIENCE AND PILES OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW. You'll need to make the logical connection between admitted inaccurate predictions and the climate trend of the last century.

The accuracy of short term predictions HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOUND SCIENCE AND PILES OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW. You'll need to make the logical connection between admitted inaccurate predictions and the climate trend of the last century.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/our-own-extinction-is-forecast-but-hes-going-by-dead-reckoning/story-e6frfhqf-1225881064383

Our own extinction is forecast, but he's going by dead reckoning

WE humans are about to be wiped out in a few decades. The grandchildren of many of us will not live to old age.

Hear it from Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University and the man who helped eradicate smallpox.

"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he told The Australian this week.

"It's an irreversible situation." Blame global warming.

So there you have it folks you won't have to worry about drought, we're all gonna die anyway!

I'm glad the AGW types are so upbeat about our chances of survival. THE PLANET IS SAVED, HUMAN SPECIES WILL DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES...all 6 billion will by actuarial tables and current medical standards be dead in about 100 years.

Now if we cremate the remains with about 3 cubic meters of gas each; we will expend approximately 18 billion meters of natural gas; thus contributing to more CO2 output. But we won't have to worry nobody else will survive.

And that folks is the HORRORSCOPE for today, brought to by our sponsors: Drought, Pestilence and Death.

And BTW, have a nice day.

By God, the AGW people are depressing...

But fortunately, I am geographically located "just beyond Hope, BC".

Psalm 97:1

The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad!

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

"the climate trend of the last century."

OK BJT but would that be the warming trend or the cooling trend or the cyclical trend of warming then cooling then warming then ...

So, BTJ, what climate trend or other real world observation will falsify the AGW hypothesis?

BJT,

I recall a few years back when Toronto was experiencing a hot, dry summer, all we heard about on TV and the MSM was how this weather was proof positive of global warming, and how we could expect much more of this in the future.

Since then, the weather has gotten cooler and damper. So now the AGW crowd is telling us not to read much too much into recent weather trends.

This is typical tails I win, heads you lose reasoning.

Joe: You sound confused. There is one global trend over the last century, and it's a warmer one.

"So, BTJ, what climate trend or other real world observation will falsify the AGW hypothesis?"

Huh? That's what I asked anyone who denies the mounds of science behind AGW.

"I recall a few years back when Toronto was experiencing a hot, dry summer, all we heard about on TV and the MSM was how this weather was proof positive of global warming"

May I ask why you are relying on 'TV and the MSM' for a complete and accurate understanding of a scientific issue?

"Since then, the weather has gotten cooler and damper. So now the AGW crowd is telling us not to read much too much into recent weather trends."

Who is 'the AGW crowd'? Climate trends are not proved by future predictions, they are proved by examining the past and present. Making predictions is the next step, and is subject to MUCH more uncertainty...in the magnitude of hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of times more uncertainty than historical records and real time observations.

This is a matter of people not putting the time and effort in to aquire a broad and deep understanding of a scientific issue, rather, relying on the easiest, laziest method...sitting infront of the TV and watching simple minded summaries, generalizations, and dramatizations...and then expecting all predictions, both given and self-invented, to be completely accurate.

dp - you'll have to be a little more speicific about what you mean by the extreme southeast corner.

The common definition of semi-arid is 250-500mm or precipitation and scruby vegetation, which is most of southern Alberta (and those parts that aren't semi-arid are borderline). Here is a precipitation map of the province for reference:

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sag6434/$FILE/onl_s_1_twp_annual_normals_19712000.gif

Not to worry we have a brilliant group of condescending parasites called the G20 meeting in Toronto soon. They will figure out a way to get more of our money to solve this impending crisis.

Because it hasn't been linked in a while, here are 760 things caused by AGW.

BTJ, it is essential that any hypothesis be falsifiable to conform to the scientific method. AGW, does not contain this essential element of science. If you can never prove it wrong then it is religion or philosophy. Currently, climate science relies on questionable statistics and inaccurate modeling alone. At best, the 'science' is in its infancy.

TYPING IN ALL CAPS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOUND SCIENCE NOR DOES IT CONFIRM THAT THERE IS ONE SINGLE SHRED OF SOUND EVIDENCE OF AGW.

BJT have you even looked at statistics?

It was warmer in the 30s, cooler in the 60s, warmer in the 90s, and has been cooling lately. What's more all of those temperatures fall within the statistical norm, so maybe I'm not the one confused here.

Most of southern Alberta and Sask. are part of a semi-arid region known as Palliser's Triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliser%27s_Triangle

BTJ, tell my you ain't out here pushing the AGW Ponzi scheme ?

All your so-called AGW scientists got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, manipulating data, lying about the tree rings, hard-coding their software, and trying to silence their critics thru the state-run media.

BTJ said;" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOUND SCIENCE AND PILES OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW."

Can you provide a few links where we can find this Sound Science and piles of evidence to support AGW ?

Plus, can you explain why the ice caps on Mars are melting also ? Last consensus I read there were no SUV's on Mars.

Plus plus, can you explain why every Politician and Scientist who supports AGW also owns a carbon-trading company ?

,

I recall back in the day that there was a "famous" weather predicting rock hanging on a rope or chain somewhere in SE Alberta. It was pretty good at telling the weather.
If it was wet then it was raining,
if it was covered in snow, it was snowing,
if it was moving the wind was blowing, etc...

Always figured it was cheaper and as accurate as the weather folks at Environment Canada.

"If you can never prove it wrong then it is religion or philosophy."

Why can you 'never prove it wrong'? Please explain further?

"Currently, climate science relies on questionable statistics and inaccurate modeling alone."

Questionably stats? How much of all the stats are questionable? Climate science is apart of just about every biological study there is. The climate is a huge piece to understanding the tiniest microbe to the biggest animals to plants to geography to genetics. There is data in the form of true climate science (satellites and mapping tools), there is tree ring data, ice core data, fossil record data, historical records data, chemical records data, real time observations, etc.

You're getting caught up with the predictive aspect of the issue, which is the most uncertain and inaccurate part by hundreds, thousands of times.

BTJ,

How arrogant are we, with our microscopic size lifespan of a mere 75 years or so to know how the earth weather and climate patterns based on "I know where I live the weather has been more random and unusual than 10 years ago, hotter summers, more extreme winters."?
How do you know, this has never occured in the past? In your area? The Earth is billions of years old.
We have only about 1000 years of data collected from different branches of science from astronomy to Geology to tree rings to ice core samples from thousands more years back that corolates to the fact that climate has always changed. Temps up and down. Trends that move in thousands of years with mini trends of 40~50 years within them and those are the ones WE notice.

Now, the AGW is all based on computer models with many of the hard facts cited above left out.

I might agree with you that since the last ice age, the world's temp trend is going upward but there is no solid evidence that man has been causing it or even amplifying it.

I'm 51 years old and remember the late 60's early 70's being pretty much like it is now and the trend will continue to cool for a while until the sun spot activity resumes depending on intensity of it. (Google solar minimum). Take note that if sun spot activity does not resume soon we might ba actually entering a mini ice age similar to the middle ages. There is solid historical data to corrolate this. The Bilderberg group talked about global COOLING just last week in their annual meeting. They are worried about it's impact on world food production.

My Grandfather told me that in 1931 it had been so warm that winter, without any snow that the ground did not freeze and they could not pull the lumber logs out of the forest that year. Back then, they called it "mother nature". The warmest year on record in the past 150 years is 1932 with 1998 a close second with 0.1 degree F cooler. 1998 was the year where sun spot activity peaked, so was 1932. It has been regressing ever since 98 with 0 sun spots since last year. This might well explain the half century patterns of upward then downward.
Could it be that what you have been noticing in the past 10 years is just natural result from a warmed up environment (The oceans warm up during high solar flare activity) "conflicting" with a new colder atmospheric trend which should "calm" at the mid point? 1972 to 1976 were severely cold and snowy with no extremes nymore just colder overall. That's what I mean by mid point.

"Watts up with that" is probably the premier non bias web site in the world on GW/CC. I suggest you check it out.

You know, Travis, I had this argument about 10 years ago, and the specifics are getting a little foggy. I don't want to argue about precipitation maps. The gist of it was, the semi-arid area was predicted to expand, dramatically, in the prairie provinces, and the only cure was to spend billions on irrigation projects. It was nothing more than a scheme to make a bunch of soil scientists, environmental scientists, and their associated companies very, very rich.

A soil scientist I used to work with, who was based in Lethbridge, used to make most of his money from writing reports for irrigation projects. The work seemed to be drying up, so to speak, and he moved to Edmonton a couple of years ago. He got himself another little government contract, since there seems to be no limit to the money available for environmental studies.

"have you even looked at statistics?

It was warmer in the 30s, cooler in the 60s, warmer in the 90s, and has been cooling lately. What's more all of those temperatures fall within the statistical norm, so maybe I'm not the one confused here"

Why yes I have joe...

"For identifying past large-scale changes
in temperature at the Earth’s surface, however, the homogenized data sets currently
available provide highly reliable information back into the nineteenth century and
show unequivocally that the world has warmed considerably over this period."

www. springerlink.com/content/74731m62483l72m7/fulltext.pdf

" tell my you ain't out here pushing the AGW Ponzi scheme ?"

I'm sorry...'Ponzi scheme'? Just what are you talking about? Please, you're gonna have to do better than diving directly into politics with a reference to a scam invented in the '20s.

"All your so-called AGW scientists got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, manipulating data, lying about the tree rings, hard-coding their software, and trying to silence their critics thru the state-run media."

You believe too much of what you're told. Go figure it out for yourself rather than rely on what some biased opinion said.

"Can you provide a few links where we can find this Sound Science and piles of evidence to support AGW ?"

See above.

"Plus, can you explain why the ice caps on Mars are melting also ? "

No...why...does the climate on Mars influence the climate on our planet?

"Plus plus, can you explain why every Politician and Scientist who supports AGW also owns a carbon-trading company ?"

Well, first off that's a ridiculous statement..obviously NOT EVERY Politician and Scientist who acknowledges the proof of AGW OWNS a carbon-trading company.

If you're referring to Al Gore, maybe it's because he's a Politician...same reason for why he owns(ed) an oil company. Are you surprised by Politicians getting into business? They do it with every other one.

The company I work for just finished putting in about 20 miles of irrigation pipeline just west of Medicine Hat . So far I don't believe they've used the new lines to irrigate . We've been trying to finish the cleanup for over a month now . Some of the ground is so saturated that I couldn'tgo on it with a dozer with tracks that are twice as wide as normal . I managed to clean a couple of miles up on Tuesday , but just barely fished when this rain started . It'll be another week or more now til we can get back on it . One thing though , the native grass sure is coming back nice on the thirty or so miles of abandoned canal we reclaimed .

BTJ- The root cause of all these errors lies in the method of predicting trends, namely: extrapolation. This method of calculation is the most inaccurate, yet it's the most widely used by today's scientists. This type of observation can have inaccuracies that expand exponentially with distance from point of origin. Tracking a trend, be it warming or cooling, using data gathered over a 10 year span, is only reliable for around 5 years forward. The smallest input error will amplify itself, causing abberations like the hocky stick graph.

I mean the proponents of climate science have never allowed for any set of real observations or tests that will disprove the hypothesis.

For example, when Einstein proposed his Theory of General Relativity "he predicted that the world line of a ray of light will be curved if it passes near a heavy mass like the sun. He predicted the exact curvature that would be experienced by a ray of light that must pass near the sun to reach the earth. Such rays of light from stars were observed in the eclipses of 1919 and 1922 and Einstein’s predictions were duly confirmed." (http://library.thinkquest.org/27608/scripts/aview.php3?id=40).
That is science.

In contrast, everything proves AGW and nothing disproves it - too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry (see Kathryn's list at 3:01).
That is religion/philosophy.

cantuc- They're reclaiming canals? Sweet, that should make work for some people for a good long time.

'There is no debt so surely met
as wet to dry and dry to wet.'

Old Wiltshire folklore.

I wonder why Gorezuki didn't pick on something easy to explain like the 4000 yr old cycle of floods and drought?

Oh right - there was no BIG MONEY in it.

Terry:

"How arrogant are we, ...to know how the earth weather and climate patterns based on "I know where I live the weather has been more random and unusual than 10 years ago, hotter summers, more extreme winters."?

Do you really feel that way about human beings? Human beings are amazing Terry...look what we've done with nature. We are able to look at the world and discover amazing amounts of information. I made that as just a general observation..I obviously do not rely on that alone to form my opinion.

"The Earth is billions of years old.
We have only about 1000 years of data collected"

The earth has only been stable (as in tectonic plates fully formed and cooled and not being bombarded with asteroids) for about a half a billion years old. We have much more data than 1000 years...we have information about climates millions of years ago..and pretty good idea of data as far back as 10,000 years.

"Now, the AGW is all based on computer models"

So is most of the technology around you...only PREDICTIONS are based solely on models...historical data and real time observations are not. Computers are used to do math these days...period.

"there is no solid evidence that man has been causing it or even amplifying it."

Yes there is...since the Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising, adding to the greenhouse effect. People can figure out how much of the CO2 is from our emissions because the Carbon atom in CO2 that comes from burning plant material (oil and gas and coal) is different from that of other sources. The greenhouse effect is a well known process that insulates the lower atmosphere. The lower atmosphere has been warming more and more rapidly since a short time after the industrial revolution, while the upper atmosphere has been cooling. This, along with the fact that the sun has been in a 'slumber' so to speak, negates the possibility of that sun being the cause.

""Watts up with that" is probably the premier non bias web site in the world on GW/CC. I suggest you check it out."

I checked it out. You couldn't have sent me to a more biased, unreliable site...I'm sure it's the premier GW/CC denial site for those who seek opinion over fact. It's a blog by an ex-weather man and Fox News employee with a noted bias towards denial of AGW...common Terry...admit when you're really not knowledgeable on a topic.

The REAL information, the stuff that people actually studying this issue day in day out release, is in scientific journals, research papers, texts/books by researchers, etc...no opinion websites.

First time in 30 years I have had my furnace on in June and the global warming nut bars are still talking about a long dry hot summer. This is really funny, we only have about 10 weeks left, how dry can it get now?

"For example, when Einstein proposed his Theory of General Relativity"

That's a completely different topic...it's observable in real time...climate by definition is historical.

"In contrast, everything proves AGW and nothing disproves it - too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry (see Kathryn's list at 3:01).
That is religion/philosophy."

If technological advancement took off and in 20 years the planet was storing carbon with no net emissions, and the climate continued on it's path...then it's proved wrong..and we've make huge technological advancements, likely created a sustainable, more reliable, more abundant energy plan, we've made life better (as technology most often does) for people, eliminated most forms of pollution...what's the bad in that again?

If people discover that CO2 and our emissions are actually unrelated to climatic variables (namely the greenhouse effect)...then it would be proven wrong.

If we keep increasing emissions and the climate stabilizes relative to recently...there's a good chance it's proven wrong.

The point is though...we are behind in technology..we are using old methods with small tweaks to materials...we have archaic social structures and interactions still...we've been using the same general energy plan for decades and decades, resources are being faster than our technological advancements are keeping up with. We need to start to create, invent, have new ideas, advance. Look at how quickly humans advanced when individual freedom was closest to a reality...in the US and other western countries 80+ years ago. We've made some incredible advancements since, sure, but comparatively not so much. Now a days too much effort goes to fighting for a piece of the pie, rather than going out and making one, with ideas, reason, creativity.

Computer models are not good enough. The models must be proven correct through real observations.

The models did not predict the current temp plateau. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21473
"Energy Secretary Stephen Chu recently spoke on global warming to the scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory—and told them we don’t understand it. “We don’t understand the downward trend that occurred in 1900 or in 1940. We don’t fully understand the plateau that’s happened in the last decade,” he concluded. "

The models did not correctly estimate arctic ice volume. http://www.vancouversun.com/Scan+Arctic+dispels+melting+gloom+Researcher/3158192/story.html
"Part of the problem with ice forecasting is that it based largely on data from satellites. They are good at measuring how large an area is covered by ice, but tell little about its thickness — which can measure in mere centimetres in the case of new ice, or metres in the case of ice several years old."

Real world observations tend to disprove the computer models. I suspect this is because nature is too complex for even the most sophisticated computer. Until scientist better understand cloud formation, currents and the Sun and other natural cycles, the AGW hypothesis is purely a speculative science.

BTJ
you really should get off your computer and go back to your gore/suzuki shrine and sulk.
did you not read the leaked emails? i did. the information that is being manipulated by govt sponsored "climate" scientists is staggering.
heres a little taste of what your missing. REAL scientists (you know, the ones not being paid by either big oil or big govt) have shown that water vapour is responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect on the planet. while CO2 is the next largest component, its contribution is around 4%(i rounded up for you). of that number about 3% is man made. add these numbers to the energy absorbtion spectrum and you will find that they have almost identical patterns, meaning that their effects cancel each other out (paraphrasing like a SOAB of course). though they dont match perfectly, it means that there would have to be an enormous amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere to make any change at all, significant or otherwise. right now CO2 PPM is roughly 380, decades ago it was roughly 270.
now lets look at a little comparison. the cambrian period played host to some of the worlds largest mammals ever, meaning that there was a mass abundance of food available, more than even now. the PPM in that period was around 7000PPM and life thrived, so i see no worries about starvation, do you?
and lastly, it has been proven that increases in CO2 are an effect rather than a cause of global temperature cycles. sorry.
now please go back and watch inconvenient truth. why? because Al said so.

"You're getting caught up with the predictive aspect of the issue, which is the most uncertain and inaccurate part by hundreds, thousands of times."

Yeah, and the most certain and accurate part is using hindsight to somehow blame what actually happens on AGW, no matter what that ends up being.

Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing for awhile.

Oh, and umm, I think you've confused this board with something full of leftists.

"Now a days too much effort goes to fighting for a piece of the pie, rather than going out and making one, with ideas, reason, creativity."

That's the government hands-off mantra most of us are condoning here.

Einstein's mathematical models were able to predict a future event with astonishing accuracy. AGW's computer models can not predict anything, anywhere, anytime with accuracy.

Ugh, not the old Precautionary Principle shtick. Spending money (trillions in carbon pricing and green energy) on a speculative problem is insane when there are actual problems to be solved. There is great harm in promoting inefficient, unreliable and absurdly expensive wind and solar over fossil fuels and nuclear. Ask Spain since their green energy subsidization is partly responsible for their for dire economic problems.

BJT, please indulge us with which journals you have read in the past year, and your scientific qualifications to interpret those journals. Thanks.

LC Bennett: Well said. Using the precautionary principle means that we should nuke Iran ASAP ... funny how enviroleftists only use the principle when it fits with their plan.

Forget discussing AGW with BJT. You can't argue with someone who has got the new religion. No amount of counter evidence will dissuade the latest Marxist scam.

"Computer models are not good enough. The models must be proven correct through real observations."

You are not understanding the concept of climate history and climate future. We can observe past climates and current trends through observable data. We cannot do the same for predictions, they require mathematical equations to determine the probability of potential outcomes.

"Einstein's mathematical models were able to predict a future event with astonishing accuracy."

Again...completely different subject...Einstein's models dealt with singular physical forces and forces in a vacuum (outerspace), where gravity is not a factor and forces/variables can be singled out.

" Spending money (trillions in carbon pricing and green energy) on a speculative problem is insane when there are actual problems to be solved."

Again, you're not understanding this. NEW TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS are good..their great! We need NEW TECHNOLOGY..new energy sources, now materials, new processes...we've been relying on the same old stuff with minor tweaks. It's not a speculative problem...the real problem is we don't find better, more efficient, cheaper ways of doing things like we should be. Resources including oil are getting scarcer, landfills are filling up (the local one here can be seen from the highway above the forest in between) and life for billions of people could be so much better.

Stricker:

""Now a days too much effort goes to fighting for a piece of the pie, rather than going out and making one, with ideas, reason, creativity."

That's the government hands-off mantra most of us are condoning here."

What the heck are you talking about. You, my friend, are confused. The pie IS the government and every industry that is tied hand to hand to government...the making your own pie is the individual creating ideas and value with his own knowledge and reasoning. That's real conservatism...the individual.

d_abes:

Which journals? Really? I just read articles I come across or search out using Google scholar or my Alumni online database. I have a B.Sc and work as a technical/scientific consultant. I've taken courses on reading and evaluating scientific articles, I've done critiques, I've assisted in research.

"No amount of counter evidence will dissuade the latest Marxist scam."

What counter evidence...I'm still waiting for it. I've given a summary of the evidence for AGW above..does anybody wish to question it specifically? Or is everyone at the level of using ambiguous name calling and blatant ignorance?

"I have a B.Sc and work as a technical/scientific consultant. "

In what field?

My major was Plant biology and earth/ocean science...I've taken geography, geology, hydrology, animal and plant biology, physical and biochemistry, and soil and forest management.

I work in the foresty industry...we manage forests and cut down trees.

Without the possibility of accurate predictions the science is worthless. Every branch of real science requires that a hypothesis be proven by experiment, observation or correct predictions. AGW can not unilaterally declare that they are relieved from this burden of proof. If it is too complex to model correctly then it should not be used for public policy.

Wherever did you get the idea that technology has not advanced? It may not have advanced in the way the environmentalists wanted but it has advanced. Coal, nuclear and oil have all become more efficient and cleaner. There is a big difference between coal plants from the 50's and the newest ones - more MWs, pollution controls, water recovery. In the oil sector their is new horizontal drilling techniques (Bakken, for instance) and injecting CO2 into old fields to enhance oil recovery. Nuclear is developing smaller plants and types that use far less fuel (breeder reactors).

I am afraid that you are either uninformed or misinformed about both the scientific method and energy advancement.

wattsupwiththat.com

I don't see any of the 'warmers' here at WUWT...

You know why?

Because they would get blown out of the water...

*snip*

Actually, BTJ, I did provide two cases where the models were wrong - Arctic ice volume and current temp plateau. In addition, M&M broke the Mann Hockey Stick and the Briffa Tree Rings, both of which were used to eliminate the MWP in an attempt to prove unprecedented warming. The record of past temps are in dispute and so are existing ones due to UHI, station culls and homogenizing bias.

AGW has not accurately proved the past and the present so it certainly is unreliable to predict the future.

"What the heck are you talking about. You, my friend, are confused. The pie IS the government and every industry that is tied hand to hand to government...the making your own pie is the individual creating ideas and value with his own knowledge and reasoning. That's real conservatism...the individual."

Precisely. I am not confused. You're just either lost or preaching to the choir.

If you're in here saying you believe in AGW and that individuals who also believe in global warming are perfectly capable of creating value and ideas with their own knowledge and reasoning, then I have no reason to argue against you.

The fact is that most proponents of AGW do want use AGW as an excuse to make the pie a whole lot bigger.

If envirowhackos would just friggin devote their lives to find an efficient alternative sources of energy (because they care so much) instead of deciding they need buckets of government subsidies to dump into non-solutions, then that would be just fine with me. Believe in whatever you want. Just don't expect me to fund it because you cite 'overwhelming evidence' which is never, ever, anywhere to be actually found.

Not called for Gord.

LC Bennett above says it as well as anyone.

As for me, university educated, I'm not convinced either way yet. Ask me 3 years ago, and I'm all over AGW. Today it's clear vast portions of the 2007 IPCC report are inaccurate, misleading, and based on poor data. Look no further than the Himalaya status for 2035 for example. look at projections from IPCC 2000 for 10 years out (today) and just see how far wrong it was.

It should be blatantly clear to any mind with a scientific bend that we only know 1% of what we think we know about climate. The climategate email from the CRU big cheese who lamented the lack of warming over the past decade, and the fact it was a "damn shame" he couldn't explain it should be enough to promote skepticism, or at least caution in conclusion.

Forrestry eh? I put myself through university 20 years ago planting trees in BC. If you are in the Fort St John area and find some 20 year old replanted blocks, look for vast patches of dead, crooked or stunted trees. Those ones were mine. ;)

BJT = Black Jacques Shellac zee most famous lumber jacques in all of Quebec?

I want his autograph.

Here in S. central BC the AGW prediction was for severe drought and for the weather to get even hotter. As it is, I've had to turn down the irrigation, the slugs and snails are out in full force (and trying to remember where I stashed the slug bait) and I've never seen the hills this green before. And, BTW, the local rivers are the highest I've ever seen them. Of course watering restrictions are in effect. The strawberries and raspberries like the rain but I don't; reminds me far too much of Vancouver. Now wondering if I have to move to New Mexico to get some of that dry heat which brought me to this section of BC in the first place.

An interesting observation............
Just yesterday morning I was watching the weather network waiting for the day's local forcast and subjected to a mini documentary about the "devastating" drought across the prairies in the abut 10 years ago.

Did you know that it was the worst in the century?
That it was caused by global warming?
That it was proof that "we" need to do more to control carbon emmissions?

Amazing!

As for the troll idiots who think they can blanket characterize the readers and commenters at SDA ... time to relink the profile we did a couple years ago.

Wow! Three years already!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006355.html

Now for all you know it all trollidjits.... go start your own blog and come back when you can boast and prove that you attract and keep this kind of readership!

"Yes there is...since the Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising, adding to the greenhouse effect. "

someone is so full of indoctrinated shite they're blowing it out their pie hole.

CO2 and GHG have a sub fractional relationship on effecting climate change. the major drivers are solar radiation and the seas. Looking to GHGsas a cause or cure for climate change is like focusing on the rear wheel lug nuts of a car when it over heats.

Do some reading FGS.

Sylvanguy at 11:57 wrote:
"One must be a scientist in the ilk of Suzuki and Gore before being able to understand the difference between a "dry drought" and a "wet drought".
The average unwashed citizen cannot grasp concepts that are child's play to the vast majority of scientists."
-----------------------------

And let us not forget the difference between a wet flood and a dry flood as well.

Sophistry sophistry all is sophistry.

That is a good one,'the difference between a "dry drought" and a "wet drought"' or "a wet flood and a dry flood as well".

Chilliwack had a high of 12 degrees today and has been very cool for weeks now. Our rain gauge today is heading for 11 inches (over an inch today already).

BTJ - P. Eng. here, mining. The oldest rocks are considerably older than 500 million years old and continental drift has been happening for a lot longer than that. I think you're making similar errors in AGW. AGW is outside of both of our specialties, but could you explain why carbon dioxide levels dropping below 160 ppm would be hazardous to life on earth, and what the effect on plant growth is of elevating CO2 levels? The 6-sigma tree that Briffa loves so much (that is the basis of the "it's never been hotter in recorded history") because it gets rid of the medieval warm period actually shows cooling after 1960, so either we're cooler now than in the 1960's or the historical reconstruction based on tree-rings is worthless.

If you do have a a BSc then you'll know that transparency and repeatability are fundamental to the progress of science. Why Einstein was brought up, IMHO, was not to try to link gravity and AGW, but to show how to present a theory that radically changes past means of thought: present your theory (done by AGW proponents), present your evidence (partly done by AGW proponents, though they insist that proprietary computer models must also be considered as "evidence" contrary to disclosure laws for, say, mining results that are being released to the stock exchange), present your predictions (done ad nausium by the AGW proponents) and the circumstances under which they apply (not done by AGW proponents), and present a list of falsification criteria have to be given (never done by any AGW proponent anywhere, you've dodged several such requests on this thread). In Einstein's case, the summary would be something like "Newton was slightly wrong about gravitation because space and time can be warped. This can be tested by whether light bends in heavy gravitation. The laws Newton developed are right in 99% of all cases, but are wrong when going very fast or in a heavy gravity field). There's no need to discuss what Einstein did or why or which variables involved are significant (which we don't know for the earth's climate, BTW), but only the method that he followed and that his predictions were right. As for me, when a computer model gets within 20% for snowball earth over 600 million years ago and correctly can account for the Holocene optimum and the roman warm period then I'll take them more seriously. Until they can pass statistical and physics reviews (which they don't at the moment) I view it as more of a religion than a scientific theory. After all, if nothing that happens can disprove it it is being taken on faith, is it not?

AGW proof reminds me of a tale Dad told about the old country...England.
Seems there was this extremely excentric fella who ALWAYS wore his hat crooked. When asked why he wore his hat that way his answer was...
"It keeps the lions away!"
When it was pointed out that there were no lions within thousands of miles...
His response:
"Very effective Eh?"

"wattsupwiththat.com

I don't see any of the 'warmers' here at WUWT...
You know why?

Because they would get blown out of the water..."

Haha...ya..right..it's probably because IT'S A BLOG BY A WEATHER MAN WHO HAS AN ADMITTED BIAS TOWARDS DENIAL!! They wouldn't get blown out of the water, they'd get bombarded by irrational, ridiculous BS much like I am here.

"Actually, BTJ, I did provide two cases where the models were wrong - Arctic ice volume and current temp plateau."

Hello! Are you not considering what I'm saying? I'm saying don't look at 'the models'..the data says it all...sea ice is retreating, glaciers are melting, the oceans are acidifying and rising, global temperatures are rising.

Show me otherwise.

"If you're in here saying you believe in AGW and that individuals who also believe in global warming are perfectly capable of creating value and ideas with their own knowledge and reasoning, then I have no reason to argue against you."

Great, then we are have at least agreed to that.

"The fact is that most proponents of AGW do want use AGW as an excuse to make the pie a whole lot bigger."

'Most proponents', by which I'm assuming you mean the general population, don't matter whatsoever in regards to the scientific basis of AGW. Just because a bunch of people take AGW and mold it to try and support their irrational political view doesn't mean the AGW is not real.

"If envirowhackos would just friggin devote their lives to find an efficient alternative sources of energy (because they care so much) instead of deciding they need buckets of government subsidies to dump into non-solutions, then that would be just fine with me."

For sure, I would agree. I believe the rational point of view would like to see the funding, support, and red carpet laid out for O&G and other troubled industries taken away in place of a free market, rather than just transferring those same problematic approaches to 'green' industry.

"Today it's clear vast portions of the 2007 IPCC report are inaccurate, misleading, and based on poor data."

I would advise you to read the paper that this thread cites, rather than make assumptions based on hearsay and summaries. You would gain an understanding of the details of the inaccuracies.

"It should be blatantly clear to any mind with a scientific bend that we only know 1% of what we think we know about climate."

Where'd you pull that statement from? Any rationale behind it?

"The climategate email from the CRU big cheese who lamented the lack of warming over the past decade, and the fact it was a "damn shame" he couldn't explain it should be enough to promote skepticism, or at least caution in conclusion."

You are making large assumptions based on a very limited amount of information, most of which is read out of context. The issue you refer to is a discussion over statistical methods, not the distortion of entire conclusions.

"Forrestry eh? I put myself through university 20 years ago planting trees in BC. If you are in the Fort St John area and find some 20 year old replanted blocks, look for vast patches of dead, crooked or stunted trees. Those ones were mine. ;)"

Haha...nice ;)

"CO2 and GHG have a sub fractional relationship on effecting climate change. the major drivers are solar radiation and the seas. Looking to GHGsas a cause or cure for climate change is like focusing on the rear wheel lug nuts of a car when it over heats."

They do not have a 'subfractional relationship'...nevertheless, solar radiation can not explain current trends, as I explained. The lower atmosphere has been warming while the upper atmosphere cooling, all the while solar radiation is at a low...this is consistent with an increase in the GHG effect.

The seas have been acidifying due to an increased absorption of CO2.

"The oldest rocks are considerably older than 500 million years old"

I was off...plate tectonics started about 2.5 billion years ago.

"could you explain why carbon dioxide levels dropping below 160 ppm would be hazardous to life on earth, and what the effect on plant growth is of elevating CO2 levels? "

Plants would grow faster, assuming all other needs are met. A drop in CO2 to those levels would cause global cooling, a loss in plant diversity and range, and a potential weakening of global energy systems. What does that have to do with the current trend of increased CO2?

"Why Einstein was brought up, IMHO, was not to try to link gravity and AGW, but to show how to present a theory that radically changes past means of thought"

I understand that, but you are still attempting to parallel pure physics with a more complicated (more variables, more forces) issue like climate. It's apples to oranges to some degree.

"present a list of falsification criteria have to be given (never done by any AGW proponent anywhere, you've dodged several such requests on this thread)"

I believe I attempted to do so, either here or on another AGW related thread (the BP thread 'Killing your competition).

Nonetheless, the overall argument is that humans development/advancements have stagnated in some very important industries (energy, fuel, land use, materials), many of which are facing diminishing resources, pollution, and cause widespread social dismay (oil wars). AGW holds the same basic premise as an argument for moving on to better, more advanced methods of shaping nature.

Shaping nature? The arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me.

"Shaping nature? The arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me."

What are you talking about Terry? How is that statement 'left'? Do you not agree with human technology and advancement? Do you not agree with taking what nature provides us with and creating things with it by means of conceptualization?

BTJ, even if the earth is changing, no one has proved to me that humans are the cause behind it. Basing your assumptions about the earth (which is constantly changing) on the last 100 years of data is like basing the whole of the earth's water composition on 2 droplets that fell a second ago. Most of their assumptions are wrong and a lot of data that disproved their theories got thrown out. That isn't science - it's a whitewash.

I agree that technological development is important but I believe that free market forces should drive that development - not government spending based on science that isn't science but is more like guess work. To develop the most inefficient and crappy technology isn't a step forward, it's a huge step backwards and it wouldn't be occurring if it weren't for government pouring my money down the tubes (because this technology isn't going to last). They are better off developing better technology to get more of the oil out of the ground than wasting their time on the stupidity of solar and wind power.

"no one has proved to me that humans are the cause behind it."

Sounds more like you haven't put in an effort to learn about it yourself.

"I agree that technological development is important but I believe that free market forces should drive that development - not government spending based on science that isn't science but is more like guess work."

I never said differently.

"To develop the most inefficient and crappy technology isn't a step forward, it's a huge step backwards and it wouldn't be occurring if it weren't for government pouring my money down the tubes"

Just what is this technology you are referring to? Development by definition is a step forward.

"They are better off developing better technology to get more of the oil out of the ground than wasting their time on the stupidity of solar and wind power."

That's quite the statement. Your opinion is that the premier in technological advancement to strive towards is 'getting more oil out of the ground' and wind and solar are 'stupid'. Don't put too much thought into it now. Solar is stupid why? Because the sun provides all thousands of times more energy than all the oil in the world? Because all that energy in oil came from the sun? Why?

And what's your hard-on over oil about? What is so superior about drilling holes and burning oil more or less like we have for DECADES. Where is the advancement in that? Where is the creativity? Why do you not want us to move forward? Why should we stick where we're at and just 'get more oil out'?

Wind is clearly a step back, and is the least reliable source of power.

Solar is somewhat more reliable, but still currently requires huge swaths of land, and we don't have an energy storage technique. The most promising 'energy storage' technique so far from solar seems to be creating conventional fuels from plant biomass. Of course, this would take perfectly good land out of food production, which is a terrible consequence of going that direction.

Nuclear is historically safer than either oil or wind on a deaths per amount of energy produced basis. But, again, nuclear isn't really viable to use for transportation on its own without either shrinking it or having somewhere to store the energy.

So, in the long run we need either a much better way of storing energy than chemical batteries or a completely different place to get energy from. If you come up with a solution to either of those problems, you will make billions of dollars. You do *not* need government funding. If you can even come up with a half-assed plausible sounding theory, you'll have venture capital coming out your ears.

"Wind is clearly a step back, and is the least reliable source of power."

Why? an explanation behind a statement would make this entertaining and worth while.

Wind will always blow and can be predicted in time and location.

"Solar is somewhat more reliable, but still currently requires huge swaths of land, and we don't have an energy storage technique."

We just started really putting effort into these technologies and you're ready to write them off. There are other ways to manage energy than a central mass production style. I would think as a conservative you'd be interested in a non-centralized energy supply.

"The most promising 'energy storage' technique so far from solar seems to be creating conventional fuels from plant biomass. Of course, this would take perfectly good land out of food production, which is a terrible consequence of going that direction."

I'm not sure if I agree with you analysis that it's the most promising, but it's an option. It doesn't have to take up much land period if the most appropriate crop is used. Forest by-products are being developed into fuels, but it's tricky. Hemp is the perfect plant for the job actually. In comparison to corn and sugar cane it requires VERY little nutrients, VERY little moisture, VERY little tillage, VERY little land for a lot of good fuel producing fibre...and at the same time has multiple other usages available.

"Nuclear is historically safer than either oil or wind on a deaths per amount of energy produced basis."

Huh? What do you mean 'deaths per amount of energy produced'? Nuclear is an option but it carries a potential for heavy consequences if we get something like BP running a reactor.

" But, again, nuclear isn't really viable to use for transportation on its own without either shrinking it or having somewhere to store the energy."

If you used electricity for transportation that problem would be solved.

" You do *not* need government funding."

You do need funding though...and it's not that easy to come by, especially in this day of collectivist groups protecting their own kind, seeking out their own piece of the pie.

BTJ - the only location on this thread when falsification was mentioned or alluded to was the exchange:

"So, BTJ, what climate trend or other real world observation will falsify the AGW hypothesis?"

Huh? That's what I asked anyone who denies the mounds of science behind AGW.

At 2:53 on the 17th. This is not an answer by you, it is an evasion that attempts to put the onus of proof on the null hypothesis. You were asked on this thread twice what would falsify AGW to you and have responded in a fashion that would leave an impartial observer to believe that you are taking on faith that AGW must be true because you cannot or will not state what would make it false.

Oh, and noting that we're warmer now than at the heart of the little ice age means nothing, observed cycles show that warming and cooling trends happen regardless of what we do. Correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels are changing because of human activity. So long as they stay between 160 ppm and 12% they're still in the range of what has naturally occurred on earth (though we'd be unsuccessful in restoring to 12% if we tried, we've come a long ways, but we're not gods and the hubris of believing that we are will cause a lot more damage and human grief than any religion ever did, IMHO).

Enjoy your belief system. If you do decide to talk science with the astrophysicists, computer programmers, computer model-builders and users, geologists, statisticians and other experts in a wide variety of fields that post at wattsupwiththat.com you'll have to bring more than ironclad beliefs. When you denigrated the individuals rather than pointing out any major errors they've made, you showed a closed-mindedness that is the antithesis of scientific enquiry. Currently I'm of the opinion that the movement of the epicentre of the solar system has given us the best match to historic trends and cycles as noted in the ice cores.

Oh, and the photosynthesis relationship I was looking for at 160ppm is whether photosynthesis essentially stops below this level (ie end of most life on earth as we know it as all plants that need photo-synthesis die). This would make the 160-180 ppm concentration the lower boundary for plant life and, as the less efficient gatherers die off, would result in an increase in CO2 for the hardier plants. I know that the exponential or log function of photosynthesis that doubles CO2 uptake (ie growing twice as fast) between 200ppm and the current 340-360ppm results, in greenhouses, in another doubling when CO2 is artificially increased to 1000ppm. This negative relationship (increased uptake by plant life, as you agreed) is one of the major negative re-enforcement effects that the earth uses to restore its loose equilibrium. As previously stated, we're not gods and don't have the capability of overloading this natural system even if we tried. To get to AGW computer model forecasts, major positive re-enforcements are needed that are contrary to anything seen in the historic records. That is part of why us sceptics don't take computer models as proof.

BJT said: Regarding the IPCC report

"I would advise you to read the paper that this thread cites, rather than make assumptions based on hearsay and summaries. You would gain an understanding of the details of the inaccuracies."

[i]Nature[/i] seems to agree with me: Including some heavy hitters.

"A former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that the organization should adopt a code of conduct and develop a mechanism to fix errors more quickly....

The use of 'grey literature' in IPCC reports, such as literature which is not peer-reviewed or not published in scientific journals, is under particular scrutiny....

The IPCC was never prepared for the situation that someone would come up with criticism that could be perceived as credible, The IPCC is really amateurishly organized in this regard."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html

"Why? an explanation behind a statement would make this entertaining and worth while."

Had you seen a windmill lately before the government started throwing money at them?

"Wind will always blow and can be predicted in time and location."

Anything beyond a 24 hour weather forecast is generally completely useless. Sure, they can use historical data, but even in the windiest places, these windmills sit idle most of the time.

"I would think as a conservative you'd be interested in a non-centralized energy supply."

I'm not a conservative, and I'm more interested in an efficient energy supply, regardless of whether it's centralized or not.

"Huh? What do you mean 'deaths per amount of energy produced'?"

Relative to coal, you need a very small amount of uranium to produce the same number of KWh of electricity. Mining is very dangerous.

Windmills produce very little energy, yet they require a lot of maintenance at great heights. When people fall, they tend to die.

The Three Mile Island incident killed exactly zero people. Chernobyl was a horrible disaster, but the number of deaths involved in that was still peanuts relative to the number of people who have died mining coal, etc.

Energy from oil and gas will ALWAYS be more efficient than energy from the sun or wind. It's about the energy that can be gained. There is no quantum leap to be made that will turn wind or solar energy into the kind of efficient energy you get from oil or nuclear means.

Notice I ask for PROOF of human activity altering the climate. The stuff I've gotten from AGW believers does not qualify as proof. The priests (or scientists I guess you'd have us call them) can spout their "findings" but when you scratch the surface, they are all about misinformation.

K Stricker @3:17 says "Relative to coal, you need a very small amount of uranium to produce the same number of KWh of electricity. Mining is very dangerous.... Chernobyl was a horrible disaster, but the number of deaths involved in that was still peanuts relative to the number of people who have died mining coal, etc."

This is true of the history of all industries. When 90% of the population was in agriculture the death and mutilation rate from agricultural accidents was high also. The rate of death of modern open pit or mountaintop mining is extremely low, to the point that it compares with the hazards of a city worker commuting to work on a freeway. Underground mines that are commissioned now in Canada are almost as safe as surface mining. Underground coal mines in China kill over 6000 per year. Remarkably, those who promote electric cars will make a lot more workers die in rare-earth and nickel mining in places like China and Africa (it takes a very long time to get a project online in developed north America and Europe, less so in places where corruption is expected and human life is cheap). The lag time to meet demand for the new electric cars would price them out of the market, or mean alternate supplies would be found. The problem of disposing of the smelter waste and the extra heavy metals released in car crashes and eventually going to garbage dumps... well, they prefer not to worry about that for cars and will only concentrate on how bad nuclear power is for the exact same things. In terms of deaths per kilowatt, the bird-bat-blenders are the most deadly for people too even though it's less than one per year.

kg- if they cannot provide proof beyond appeals to authority (ie "When all the experts change my mind so will I") then they are followers in a religious meaning. If someone lists themselves as a believer in this way I have no problem with them. The ones I don't get along with are the ones who think that their dogma is science and treat all who disagree with them as heretics.

"Oh, and the photosynthesis relationship I was looking for at 160ppm is whether photosynthesis essentially stops below this level....(increased uptake by plant life, as you agreed) is one of the major negative re-enforcement effects that the earth uses to restore its loose equilibrium."

So basically what I said. What's your point? Other than to discuss the role of CO2 and photosynthesis?

"As previously stated, we're not gods and don't have the capability of overloading this natural system even if we tried"

First of all, I don't believe in 'gods'...what is that even supposed to mean? We don't have to overload the natural system to have an effect on it great enough to alter the state of the systems we rely on.

If we blew up all our nukes...you don't think we'd do a pretty good job at altering the state of the earth?

" To get to AGW computer model forecasts, major positive re-enforcements are needed that are contrary to anything seen in the historic records. That is part of why us sceptics don't take computer models as proof."

How many times do I have to say it. DON'T LOOK AT THE COMPUTER FORECASTS!!! That is secondary to looking at historical and present data and determining that we are affecting the climate.

"[i]Nature[/i] seems to agree with me: Including some heavy hitters. "

Those quotes do not support your statements...again, go read the entire paper that started this thread before you make claims.

"Had you seen a windmill lately before the government started throwing money at them?"

That's not a very good explanation, it's piss poor in fact. Did you see what airplanes looked like before we started throwing money and time into them? How is wind any less viable than say hydro-electric dams?

"Anything beyond a 24 hour weather forecast is generally completely useless. Sure, they can use historical data, but even in the windiest places, these windmills sit idle most of the time."

You don't need a 'weather forecast'...long term weather data combined with geographical data can accurately determine consistent wind patterns. Please, some proof behind the statement "even in the windiest places these windmills sit idle MOST OF THE TIME". Empty statements are worthless.

"I'm not a conservative, and I'm more interested in an efficient energy supply, regardless of whether it's centralized or not."

What are you doing on a conservative blog then? What are you...a liberal? An efficient energy supply is decentralized...same with gov't.

"Windmills produce very little energy, yet they require a lot of maintenance at great heights. When people fall, they tend to die."

Hahahahaha...are you kidding me? What are the death rates for 'windmill maintenance workers'? It's called a rope and harness.

"Chernobyl was a horrible disaster, but the number of deaths involved in that was still peanuts relative to the number of people who have died mining coal, etc."

BS...the accident itself only killed a couple dozen people or so, but the long term effect have negatively impacted the health of people in the surrounding area.

"Energy from oil and gas will ALWAYS be more efficient than energy from the sun or wind."

Empty statements are WORTHLESS...don't even bother. Can you somehow see into the future? How do you know this?

"There is no quantum leap to be made that will turn wind or solar energy into the kind of efficient energy you get from oil or nuclear means."

How do you know? You can predict what can and can't be invented, created, advanced by us? You have no idea what we can create in the future...look at what we've created in the last 100 years!

"Notice I ask for PROOF of human activity altering the climate. The stuff I've gotten from AGW believers does not qualify as proof."

What do you mean 'the stuff you've gotten'? What is this stuff? What have you read that has not provided you with sufficient evidence? My guess is you haven't done any research and you're waiting for some magical proof-positive event to take place that requires no work, effort, or time on your part to understand.

"Remarkably, those who promote electric cars will make a lot more workers die in rare-earth and nickel mining in places like China and Africa (it takes a very long time to get a project online in developed north America and Europe, less so in places where corruption is expected and human life is cheap)."

Your logic is flawed...those people die because they do not have technology, not because 'electric cars are promoted'.

"The lag time to meet demand for the new electric cars would price them out of the market, or mean alternate supplies would be found."

More unsupported, illogical BS.

"The problem of disposing of the smelter waste and the extra heavy metals released in car crashes and eventually going to garbage dumps... well, they prefer not to worry about that for cars and will only concentrate on how bad nuclear power is for the exact same things."

It's called recycling..I'm sure you've heard of it. Garbage dumps are the poster child of human incompetence and mediocrity...throw things that a short time ago were valuable into a hole in the ground and bury it. Genius.

Have you ever seen the piles of e-waste in places like China? Here's a film for you...'Manufactured Landscapes' is an award winning documentary film about the work of photographer Edward Burtynsky. It's just pictures and footage by an artist who focuses on landscapes, specifically the relationship between human and non-human landcapes. Beautiful art work and a look at sights most don't see.

"In terms of deaths per kilowatt, the bird-bat-blenders are the most deadly for people too even though it's less than one per year."

When you don't account for all the people killed in oil-wars, the negative health impacts of poisonous chemicals, etc right?

Would be nice if you provided links to your continuous phrase analysis of others...BTJ

A good example is the windmill one where you mock the fact that they are not efficient and require lots of maintenance. Where is your link that says they are good investment value overall? You mocked me when I told you to visit "Watts up with that" saying it's biased although many posters that go there are from the scientific field...Let us see YOUR sources of information...Let us judge yours for a change.

I'm actually surprized the others here are not demanding you provide more links to back your smug remarks.

"When you don't account for all the people killed in oil-wars, the negative health impacts of poisonous chemicals, etc right?"

Careful here, we are talking about the efficiency of carbon/nuclear vs alternate energy sources, not geopolitics.

But geopolitics is a good point to promote North American carbon usage though. Apart from untapped oil and gas, North America sits on vast amounts of coal. Coal can be transformed into fuel. That thechnology exists since WWII.

Terry:
"Would be nice if you provided links to your continuous phrase analysis of others"

For one, they are not 'phrase analyses', it's called a discussion and it's really quite productive if participants address each others comments, ask questions, and provide support for their opinions/statements.

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VMY-4TMC2CG-1&_user=1022551&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1374724825&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050484&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1022551&md5=57ea73ba0a6d2744c178bc701ef00915#sec10

and

"The EROI (energy return on investment) for wind turbines (17.0) compares favorably with other power generation systems (Fig. 6). Coal accounts for about 40% of global electricity generation [2] and has an EROI of about 8.0. It is a mature technology where technical improvements are not likely to significantly improve generation efficiency, and thus the EROI will remain fairly stable. Adding carbon sequestration technology to coal combustion will increase the energy cost of power generation. Hydropower has a relatively high EROI (about 12), but on a global scale it has a modest potential for expansion. The average EROI for hydropower is based on a literature review of published life cycle energy assessments (N = 7). Similar literature reviews were done for coal (N = 12), solar thermal (N = 9) and geothermal (N = 11) power generation systems."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4VPCVFH-1&_user=1022551&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1374728156&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050484&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1022551&md5=01c357b8ede4004006ea2947cf9ab443#sec5

Renewable Energy
Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 218-225

Let me know if you can't view them, I have access to a range of journals and can email a pdf to anyone interested.

From second article

"The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n = 60; std. dev = 13.7). This places wind in a favorable position relative to other forms of power generation, and suggests that wind energy could yield significant economic and social benefits relative to other power generation systems. Ongoing technical progress in wind energy technology will undoubtedly lead to further energy cost reductions. However technical progress and a high EROI are not sufficient conditions for the continued rapid expansion of wind energy. A number of social, economic, environmental and regulatory issues need resolution."

BTJ - still no falsification criteria. Enjoy your religion, but you can't get away with calling it "science" anymore, except in a Scientology sort of way.

If you are going to poo-poo Watts and Fox News you can't just turn around and reference a meta-study from a university group that has their mission statement "shift the world's economies away from their present emphasis on infinite economic growth and toward a focus on sustainable human wellbeing." (Gund Institute). This is what was revealed in the "climategate" emails - the systematic corruption of the peer review process by those on the inside to deny credibility of those who oppose them, then their preferred view passing by default because it had undergone (essentially internal) review. Science shouldn't depend on politics and sources of challenges should be irrelevant: all possible arguments against a theory have to be examined, and a single datum can disprove a theory. That's why AGW is not science, as there's nothing that will disprove it in closed minds. A number of reformed AGW supporters are regular posters at wattsupwiththat.com, but we've been there already.

Energy density is one way to measure the amount of total energy that is available to be produced at a location. Around 200 watts/m2 is normal for direct sunlight (order-of-magnitude for latitudes below 60 degrees). Windmills can produce over a megawatt each, but need a lot of space between them and are usually available for about 30% of their available output, giving them about 4 watts/m2 over the size of the "farm" (and I'm being generous). Coal plants are closer to 1kW/m2 for their entire property. Natural gas plants (excluding wellheads and pipelines) are over 4kW/m2.

Another meaning of energy density is the number of joules of energy produced by 1 gram of the material being combusted/reacted. By this measure, the atomic energy produced in a nuke plant is about 2 million times more dense than the chemical energy of coal.

for those interested in energy densities, here's a link I found during my search for the above.

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf

"still no falsification criteria"

Here are a few that apply to the whole issue:

We drastically cut our emissions and are able to increase carbon sinks, capture methane, etc and the atmospheric PPM of CO2 and other GHG's start to decline....and nothing changes to the climate trend.

We keep increasing our emissions and the atmospheric PPM of CO2 and other GHG's keeps increasing...and the climate does not continue to warm, glaciers slow their melting, etc.

There are millions of other falsification criteria in each research/experiment project in each of the many subjects/issues that make up the broader overall global climate issue (ie. glaciology, oceanography, etc)

"If you are going to poo-poo Watts and Fox News you can't just turn around and reference a meta-study from a university group that has their mission statement "shift the world's economies away from their present emphasis on infinite economic growth and toward a focus on sustainable human wellbeing." (Gund Institute)."

You're not seriously comparing an ex-weatherman's blog and FOXNEWS to the University of Virginia are you?

Is it any wonder I can barely take you seriously?

"However, integration of wind with diesel mini-grids has several advantages. It reduces pollution, may reduce the cost of generating energy (COE, $/kWh) and provides the reliability of the diesel system as well as the costeffectiveness of the wind-generated energy. The introduction of WECSs into the diesel grid leads to an appreciable reduction in diesel consumption. A hybrid wind–dieseldriven power system (with/without battery) is a viable/costeffective technology for electric supply.....The percentage fuel savings using the above hybrid system has been found to be about 14% relative to the diesel-only situation. Additionally, the percentage reduction in carbon emissions is about 14% relative to the 0% wind-energy case. The study also indicates that the operational hours of diesel generators decrease with an increase in the wind-farm capacity."

pdfserve.informaworld.com/437327_917248827_919081168.pdf

"The annual wind energy savings by replacing the energy generated by diesel units is $14,880. The net present value is $70,000 with simple payback of 5.4 years and the discounted payback of 7.2 years..... The specific cost ranges between 7.4 and 8.45 ¢/kWh. To justify the wind turbine integration into the existing diesel generation the diesel generation operating cost is worked out. It is found that the operating cost of diesel generation is 14.3 ¢/kWh which is roughly 1.7–1.8 times the specific cost of wind turbine. This shows that the turbine can be economically embedded into the existing system. The simple payback period of the turbine ranges between 5.1 snd5.9 years and discounted payback is between 6.7 and 8.0 years at 7.55% discount rate."

Economics of Wind turbine as an energy fuel saver – A case study for remote application in oman

A. Malika, and A.H. Al-Badi, a, a
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. 33, Al-Khod, Muscat-123, Sultanate of Oman
Received 6 March 2009; revised 28 June 2009; accepted 1 July 2009. Available online 3 August 2009.

"A number of reformed AGW supporters are regular posters at wattsupwiththat.com, but we've been there already."

Wattsupwiththat IS A BLOG...by a WEATHER MAN! You do not go to a blog for scientific research. 'Reformed supporters'? You're the one making it sound like a religion or political party.

"Energy density is one way to measure the amount of total energy that is available to be produced at a location. Around 200 watts/m2 is normal for direct sunlight (order-of-magnitude for latitudes below 60 degrees). Windmills can produce over a megawatt each, but need a lot of space between them and are usually available for about 30% of their available output, giving them about 4 watts/m2 over the size of the "farm" (and I'm being generous). Coal plants are closer to 1kW/m2 for their entire property. Natural gas plants (excluding wellheads and pipelines) are over 4kW/m2."

Your analysis is extremely flawed to give coal and gas an advantage. For your analysis of the energy density of Coal you only use the surface area of the plant that generates electricity and ignore the mine where the coal comes from, the varios plants where it is processed, and the pollution that essentially takes up land too. You do the same for gas, but at least you admit that you left out the wellheads and pipelines.

Your economic analysis is extremely narrow, only focusing on one aspect when there are hundreds.

"Around 200 watts/m2 is normal for direct sunlight (order-of-magnitude for latitudes below 60 degrees)."

You don't empty land for solar, you can use land that is already inhabited (ie. roofs). So that land usage doesn't need to be as high as you imply.

Here is a good interview from Dr. Smil...I think you'll find his opinions are not in agreement with yours.

The link

h t t p://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/smil-on-hummers-hondas-meat-heat/

BTJ - last post. (sorry to have used up so much space, Kate) I never claimed that Smil's views are in agreement with mine but I listed his summary data for those who wanted to learn more because he did a decent job of explaining things. I don't police my sources based on what their politics are but I will look up suspect data from other sources to see if it's plausible.

There's a world of difference between "plants will grow slower" and "all plant life will die". As this is much closer to your area of expertise than mine, I'll assume that the worst-case that I stated is realistic, and that the lower boundary of what the atmosphere could contain for CO2 is 160 ppm because there's still life. Some ice-core studies have placed atmospheric CO2 as low as 180 ppm during ice ages but when no wide-scale extinctions were noted (which fails the "plausable" test to me because plant-based foods would be rare and wide-scale starvation would result) and makes this means of measuring historic CO2 suspect. I also don't think it's avarice or deliberate misleading, just that there's a variable that isn't being properly factored. Temperature proxies on the other hand have a lot of other data that they can be checked again, and there's a lot of agreement in them (outside of 6-sigma tree ring collections).

Read the link regarding the energy density of coal - when you don't include the haul roads and mining area the value is 4 times higher. The coal was all-in, the natural gas was not. Between this and your being off by 5 times on the age of crustal plates I can see why you support AGW, it's a minor contributor to a large, complex and self-buffering system (if history is anything to go by it "fixes" itself, and we don't know how or why) and you need your math to be off by orders of magnitude to make it work.

Finally, your base case for falsification is actually the gospel that underlies the belief and would result in the deaths of millions around the globe (which is what dismantling the current industrial system would result in). Most of us are not willing to pay this price, and insist that there must be more proof before it should even be considered. A falsification criterion would be more like "CO2 increases 15ppm without a temperature increase of a minimum 0.1 degrees C", something empirically checkable without the poor dying. Correlation is not causation (CO2 and temperature rising closer than the usual 800 year lag) and the warmers were caught with their hands on the cards stacking the deck (climategate emails). Basic thermometer measures go back over two centuries and when you look at records from places that haven't experienced population increases there is moderate warming as we're still emerging from a mini ice-age. Micro-site changes affect over 90% of the US long-term temperature records because they're situated near enough to cement, siding, or blacktop that they are over a degree warmer than they should be, which you'd already know if you'd read surfacestations.org, a project started by a former warmer whose family had diligently maintained one of the long term temperature sites... his name is Anthony Watts, and that's what started his website was discussions about whether the temperature record could be trusted when it's the base data is that corrupted. GISS is even worse because it heavily relies on airport records, where they want data for the incoming aircraft of what the landing surface is like for safety, and don't care that the tarmac surface today is 5 degrees or more warmer on daily average than a grassy field away from humans would be. You ignore multi-variable systems when it suits you (ie my economics overview vs. your view of CO2 being the only important variable in global temperature) and ignore the past record of the warmists predictions (are there any that they made 15-20 years ago that they were right on? they still have 2 years before the pole is completely ice-free,right? 10% of the streets that existed in Long Island 20 years ago are currently underwater, right?). Yes, our data collection is getting better (satellites and ARGO array being good examples), but we are only starting to understand what data we need to gather to know the inputs for global climate are and to help us understand how our climate works. Known inputs like the sunspot cycle and PDO are 11 years and 20 or 40 years respectively. The solar epicycles are every 1500 years or so. The 30 years of solid coverage (satellite) and ARGO array (2 1/2 years) are nowhere near enough to get a baseline, let alone set policy. Enjoy your religion, I don't want to play anymore.

C_Miner

Why do you bother? BTJ is a gadfly know-it-all who loves to be contrary and who thinks that the ability to cut and paste a lot of stuff that he only vaguely understands is scholary debate. Ignore him

" I don't police my sources based on what their politics are but I will look up suspect data from other sources to see if it's plausible."

Huh? The guy is a professor! He gives a great neutral view on the whole subject.

"There's a world of difference between "plants will grow slower" and "all plant life will die"."

Wow...obviously stating that they will grow slower implies that at some point if CO2 levels are low enough they will STOP growing. I did not know the exact level that happens, that's all. You are making a stink over nothing...and you still haven't connected this to the issue at hand..what is your point?

" A falsification criterion would be more like "CO2 increases 15ppm without a temperature increase of a minimum 0.1 degrees C""

You don't have a strong grasp on the complexity of climate do you? You can't make a detailed prediction like that. I suggest you go watch the interview I posted of your source...it is a very neutral stance you'll find...and may inform you as to the complexity of the issue.

Your only sources seem to be blogs...specifically wattsupwiththat. You don't find that a tad narrow?

"your view of CO2 being the only important variable in global temperature"

Quote me. Show me where I say that.

"BTJ is a gadfly know-it-all who loves to be contrary and who thinks that the ability to cut and paste a lot of stuff that he only vaguely understands is scholary debate. Ignore him"

And what you're doing is called trolling...you got your ass handed to you trying to debate and now have sunk to the level of throwing one sentence insults and lies. Show me where I cut and pasted a lot of 'stuff'...which you likely DON'T understand..period.