Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

A 1 meter rise in sea levels would inundate 15% of Bangladesh for example, increasing starvation in the region. You may not care about Bangladeshi people, but you may care about increases in your federal tax to pay for flood defenses in places like Florida, Maine & Louisiana.

You describe global warming as junk science. Which particular component of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory do you disagree with?
1) Non-anthropomorphic CO2 causes a greenhouse effect
2) Man has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
3) An anthropomorphic increase in CO2 causes an enhanced greenhouse effect

If the Earth was warming because of mankind, why aren't sea levels rising? Actual measurement shows a rise, but only about 6 or 7 inches per century, and sea levels have been rising since this inter-glacial epoch began around 10,000 years ago. Even more compelling, the rise in sea level has slowed to this snail's pace of 6 or 7 inches per century. Ten thousand years ago, the initial rise of sea levels were on the order of 300 FEET.

Also, if the Earth was warming, why aren't mean temperatures of airport weather stations rising? And the answer is that they are not.

San Francisco Airport is my favourite weather station, but you may pick any station that you wish provided that it is an airport weather station without buildings around it. The data at SFO shows no change in temperature over the 30 year mean.

Go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr/ and click on the left-side column CLIMATE LOCAL. Then in the window that appears, click SF Airport. On the right side of the window, fill-in the bubble for "monthly statistics".

This is how real climatology is done. YOU pick the site, and YOU show me if there is any real change in mean temperature. YOU examine ALL of the data, and prove the case for global warming.

In junk science, data is plucked if it supports global warming ( or any other supposition ) and discounted if it does not. That is not how real science is done.

If my memory serves me correctly, June's mean monthly temp at SFO was 61.5F with the normal being 61.4F. July's mean monthly temp at SFO was 62.8F, normal of 62.8F.

Tracking monthly normals, you have to go back to Nov.2007 before a single month is well above normal, and the months before Nov. 2007 are at or below normal. Similarly, you have to go back to the El Nino years of 1998-2003 before you find much of any pattern of warming, and warming is what is expected during El Ninos.

And of course, a junk scientist would just take the data on the West Coast from El Nino years and then proclaim that the Earth is warming. Data from La Nina years would be discounted.... That is exactly what they did, too, and the media ran wild with stories about global warming. El Nino's storms became proof of global warming's harm to mankind.:rolleyes:

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

If the Earth was warming because of mankind, why aren't sea levels rising? Actual measurement shows a rise, but only about 6 or 7 inches per century, and sea levels have been rising since this inter-glacial epoch began around 10,000 years ago. Even more compelling, the rise in sea level has slowed to this snail's pace of 6 or 7 inches per century. Ten thousand years ago, the initial rise of sea levels were on the order of 300 FEET.

Also, if the Earth was warming, why aren't mean temperatures of airport weather stations rising? And the answer is that they are not.

San Francisco Airport is my favourite weather station, but you may pick any station that you wish provided that it is an airport weather station without buildings around it. The data at SFO shows no change in temperature over the 30 year mean.

Go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr/ and click on the left-side column CLIMATE LOCAL. Then in the window that appears, click SF Airport. On the right side of the window, fill-in the bubble for "monthly statistics".

This is how real climatology is done. YOU pick the site, and YOU show me if there is any real change in mean temperature. YOU examine ALL of the data, and prove the case for global warming.

In junk science, data is plucked if it supports global warming ( or any other supposition ) and discounted if it does not. That is not how real science is done.

If my memory serves me correctly, June's mean monthly temp at SFO was 61.5F with the normal being 61.4F. July's mean monthly temp at SFO was 62.8F, normal of 62.8F.

Tracking monthly normals, you have to go back to Nov.2007 before a single month is well above normal, and the months before Nov. 2007 are at or below normal. Similarly, you have to go back to the El Nino years of 1998-2003 before you find much of any pattern of warming, and warming is what is expected during El Ninos.

And of course, a junk scientist would just take the data on the West Coast from El Nino years and then proclaim that the Earth is warming. Data from La Nina years would be discounted.... That is exactly what they did, too, and the media ran wild with stories about global warming. El Nino's storms became proof of global warming's harm to mankind.:rolleyes:

Which component of the theory do you disagree with?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

Which component of the theory do you disagree with?

All that can be shown is that CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is rising because we have data from Mona Loa Observatory in Hawaii which shows this. The rise is slow and steady, with a seasonal variation in it, and the rise has been occurring for decades.

We also know that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases. The planet, Venus is hellishly hot probably because of the CO2 in its atmosphere.

The Earth's plant-life uses CO2, and the rise in CO2 benefits plants, but the up-take of CO2 apparently does not balance emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere from all sources, natural and anthropogenic.

With the industrial development of China and India, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are increasing.

Beyond this common knowledge, I have major disagreement with the environmentalists who claim that the Earth is warming and that CO2 is causing this warming. Temperature observations and sea level measurements do not confirm this.

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

All that can be shown is that CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is rising because we have data from Mona Loa Observatory in Hawaii which shows this. The rise is slow and steady, with a seasonal variation in it, and the rise has been occurring for decades.

We also know that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases. The planet, Venus is hellishly hot probably because of the CO2 in its atmosphere.

The Earth's plant-life uses CO2, and the rise in CO2 benefits plants, but the up-take of CO2 apparently does not balance emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere from all sources, natural and anthropogenic.

With the industrial development of China and India, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are increasing.

Beyond this common knowledge, I have major disagreement with the environmentalists who claim that the Earth is warming and that CO2 is causing this warming. Temperature observations and sea level measurements do not confirm this.

My apologies for the delay in replying - I live in an European time zone.

OK, so you dispute that an increase in CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. This doesn't seem entirely logical to me unless there is some reason that the greenhouse effect has some kind of upper temperature limit where the mechanism stops or breaks down, and that some mechanism causes this - but you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I don't know why there is a lag between the increased CO2 that is up there and its effects - this is an interesting question. Sulphur emissions reflect heat back out before it enters the atmosphere, I believe these are a factor in the lag. I found the 1 degree temperature jump on the day after 911 (with most aircraft grounded and no associated contrails) worrying. Global dimming could be reducing or hiding the initial effects.

I think these things just take time - there is a scientific consensus that there has been a small rise in global average temperatures, described as a signal emerging from natural variability (as you know, this natural variability preculdes the usefulness of looking at the figures for just one site over a short period of time - only long run global averages are really any use).

Anecdotally, I spend quite a bit of time in the Alps, and people here are certain that glaciers are retreating. An ex girlfriend of mine is a climate scientist, and she told me that they didn't really know for certain, but were reasonably sure. There is some uncertainty what is happening within such a complex system, but a signal is emerging.

I believe that the world's gubmints are using global warming as a cloak for preparing for peak cheap oil - politicians don't care about what happens in 5 years time, let alone 50. This further clouds the issue.

The way I see it is that the precautionary principle means that action should be taken now. It is a great shame that George Bush spent trillions of dollars of your tax money invading Iraq (I believe because of their oil). Had these trillions been spent on domestic production of energy in the US through renewables and alternatives, you would now be giving much less of your pay packet to Arab nations.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

We are still warming out of the Little Ice Age (1500-1900 A.D.); the warming appears to have peaked sometime around 1940. We are also warming very slowly out of the last glacial phase of the (big) Ice Age which ended around 10,000 years ago.

This natural warming of the Earth is very slight, but it has some interesting effects noticeable in our lifetime: a slight rise in sea level of about 6 or 7 inches per century and also the disappearance of some mid-latitude alpine glaciers.

No-one disputes that CO2 adds to the natural greenhouse effect of gases in the Earth's atmosphere. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely small, about 550 parts per million. Nevertheless, the CO2 in the atmosphere is up by about half-again from initial measurements taken at Mona Loa ( or Mona Kea ) Observatory in Hawaii during the 1950s.

In addition to natural affects on temperature, there are anthropogenic affects. CO2 pushes temps up, but dust in the atmosphere due to farming and industry tends to push temperatures down in the day and up at night. Water vapour emitted by mankind into the atmosphere tends to depress temps in the day, but push temps up at night. Increasing the albedo ( reflectivity) of the Earth's surface due to farming and deforestation tends to cool the Earth. No-one can sort-out the net affect of all this on the world's climate.

Long-term forecasts for the Earth's climate are a cooling, a return to a glacial phase of the Ice Age.

Finally, variations in the Sun's output of energy are known to occur. They have a profound affect upon the Earth's climate and are not understood.

[c1ue]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

I put this link up in Rant & Rave a few weeks back - a series of blogs by the founder of the Weather Channel, each targeted at a specific man made global warming thesis.

Never did hear a refutation on any of these points.

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...is+a+Scam1.pdf

Some highlights:

Quote:

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace element essential to plant growth and a natural product of human breathing and many other normal processes. Yes, it is way up in the atmosphere; but still it is only 37 of every 100,000 atmospheric molecules.

Quote:

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants. "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. "All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,"

Quote:

John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and wrote about it in the Canada Free Press. They tell us the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually divided into three working groups. Only one of those groups, Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future projections. Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I. According to them, in total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. That is a very long way from the "consensus of 2,500 scientists" that is constantly reported. Another insider tells us that while several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. Dr. John W. Zillman is a generally supportive member of the IPPC. He noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors." He then ads, "Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views... "The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process."

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

We are still warming out of the Little Ice Age (1500-1900 A.D.); the warming appears to have peaked sometime around 1940. We are also warming very slowly out of the last glacial phase of the (big) Ice Age which ended around 10,000 years ago.

This natural warming of the Earth is very slight, but it has some interesting effects noticeable in our lifetime: a slight rise in sea level of about 6 or 7 inches per century and also the disappearance of some mid-latitude alpine glaciers.

No-one disputes that CO2 adds to the natural greenhouse effect of gases in the Earth's atmosphere. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely small, about 550 parts per million. Nevertheless, the CO2 in the atmosphere is up by about half-again from initial measurements taken at Mona Loa ( or Mona Kea ) Observatory in Hawaii during the 1950s.

In addition to natural affects on temperature, there are anthropogenic affects. CO2 pushes temps up, but dust in the atmosphere due to farming and industry tends to push temperatures down in the day and up at night. Water vapour emitted by mankind into the atmosphere tends to depress temps in the day, but push temps up at night. Increasing the albedo ( reflectivity) of the Earth's surface due to farming and deforestation tends to cool the Earth. No-one can sort-out the net affect of all this on the world's climate.

Long-term forecasts for the Earth's climate are a cooling, a return to a glacial phase of the Ice Age.

Finally, variations in the Sun's output of energy are known to occur. They have a profound affect upon the Earth's climate and are not understood.

In the very long term, the sun is going to burn itself out; this has about as much relevance to us as the next ice age. Co2 stays in the atmosphere for about 100 years, and we'll probably still be producing Co2 for another 100 years, thus it's the next 200 years that we need to worry about the effects on everyone who lives and farms in low lying areas. There is an interesting flood map here: http://flood.firetree.net/

The climate models are some of the most sophisticated computer models in the world, they must both include the natural ice age effect, and be the most accurate method we have of predicting the net effect of all the different factors.

At it's core the simple fact that CO2 (+ water vapor & methane) keeps the atmosphere a lot warmer than it would otherwise be; and that we are chucking a lot more CO2 up there every day, has me personally convinced that global warming is a real danger.

It is astonishing how everyone has suddenly jumped on the bandwagon in the past few years. I'd repeat that imo global warming is being promoted as the acceptable face of the mitigation necessary to deal with peak cheap oil. I suspect that this is why some contrarians accurately detect that the certainty involved with the science is being somewhat exaggerated.

To me, one of the most worrying things about those who say with certainty that global warming is not happening is that they are essentially advocating a 200 year experiment on the only planet we have to live on, with no going back. It's people like Bangladeshis who will suffer most, when we in the west have produced far more CO2 per capita than our fair share, and continue to do so.

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

I put this link up in Rant & Rave a few weeks back - a series of blogs by the founder of the Weather Channel, each targeted at a specific man made global warming thesis.

You can find crackpots blogging on either side of the established scientific consensus. Google 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Useless unless it's a peer reviewed paper imo.

[Guest]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

To me, one of the most worrying things about those who say with certainty that global warming is not happening is that they are essentially advocating a 200 year experiment on the only planet we have to live on, with no going back. It's people like Bangladeshis who will suffer most, when we in the west have produced far more CO2 per capita than our fair share, and continue to do so.

Very pithy comment there Renewable. Expresses the bottom line very clearly.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

You can find crackpots blogging on either side of the established scientific consensus. Google 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Useless unless it's a peer reviewed paper imo.

Two terms that make my hair stand up: "established scientific consensus" which I think comes from Al Gore, and the other is, "run-away greenhouse effect" which may also come from Al Gore.

Please explain these terms to me because to me, these terms close-off debate on the issue of global warming.

The idea of closing-off debate on an issue is in itself, unscientific, something that I would expect to encounter in a religion and not in science.

And the idea of 37 parts per 100,000 or 55 parts per 100,000, whatever the CO2 level is on this planet, please explain to me why doubling that amount of CO2 means the end of the world.

If I have a penny in my pocket and pick-up a penny on the ground, I have doubled my money. Why is that big news? The same thing with the atmosphere: Why would doubling the miniscule level of CO2 be big news, an Earth-shaking event? (That might be the worst case too, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere during the next 100 years.)

And this comment about Bangladesh: No-one suffered in Bangladesh because of a half-foot rise in the sea level over the last century. People suffered in Bangladesh because they were forced by over-population and land costs to live 15 feet below sea level. The issue of their drowning goes back to the issue of planning and the role of government in providing for the general welfare of people.

We have people who drowned in Louisiana and Mississippi because they were forced to live below sea level, again because of the callous neglect of government and over-population. Some 6 or 7000 people died in Lousiana and Mississippi during the recent flooding, the exact number is still not known.

The flooding disasters on the US Gulf Coast and the Bangladeshi Coast have nothing to do with global warming and nothing to do with CO2. No-one should ever have to live below sea level.

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

Two terms that make my hair stand up: "established scientific consensus" which I think comes from Al Gore, and the other is, "run-away greenhouse effect" which may also come from Al Gore.

Please explain these terms to me because to me, these terms close-off debate on the issue of global warming.

The idea of closing-off debate on an issue is in itself, unscientific, something that I would expect to encounter in a religion and not in science.

established scientific consensus = most scientists working in the complex field
runaway greenhouse effect = crackpot theory as improbable as the no warming one

Haven't seen Gore's opus. Is it any good?

And the idea of 37 parts per 100,000 or 55 parts per 100,000, whatever the CO2 level is on this planet, please explain to me why doubling that amount of CO2 means the end of the world.

end of the world? Just seems logical that if CO2 = warmer; more CO2 = even warmer.

The flooding disasters on the US Gulf Coast and the Bangladeshi Coast have nothing to do with global warming and nothing to do with CO2.

Who said they did? It's the possibility (probability?) of an increase in the incidence of flooding in the future that is the worrying thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man X 2

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

established scientific consensus = most scientists working in the complex field
runaway greenhouse effect = crackpot theory as improbable as the no warming one

Haven't seen Gore's opus. Is it any good?




end of the world? Just seems logical that if CO2 = warmer; more CO2 = even warmer.

Here is some logic for you: 0=0. 2 x 0 = 0. In other words, 37 parts per 100,000 has no measureable effect of global warming, and twice that amount would likely have no measureable effect of global warming. And the proof that 37 is a negligible figure is that there is no long-term observation in mean temperature at airports of global warming, at least not since 1940.



Who said they did? It's the possibility (probability?) of an increase in the incidence of flooding in the future that is the worrying thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man X 2

There is no evidence whatsoever that storms are getting stronger than in decades past. That is another piece of bogus information from the junk science of global warming.

If there is evidence of any trend, it may be that storms are now less powerful, and that temperature differences which generate storms on this planet are a bit less than observed in prior years. The so-called "dimming" of the Earth's atmosphere due to filth and pollution in the atmosphere may be responsible for this possible trend toward moderation of storms.

Finally, if saving lives is a concern of government, please have planners not allow people to live below sea level on sea coasts.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

My reply to your point #2 got stuck into the shaded area, and it's in italics for some reason. It begins, "Here is some logic for you:" My reply to your point #3 got stuck into the white area below. Again why, I don't know?

I did not reply to your point #1 because I have not read Al Gore's book yet. It would be a difficult read; I would get very upset.

[renewable]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

I did not reply to your point #1 because I have not read Al Gore's book yet. It would be a difficult read; I would get very upset.

I suspect you would. Apparently there's a film too!

edit: going back on topic (sorry) you guys should drive on a German autobahn if you ever get a chance; it's quite an experience to see a little black dot in the distance extremely rapidly transform into a porsche tailgating you when you are going in excess of 100 mph. It's interesting that the Germans are also probably the leading nation in the use of renewables. The Freiburg 'eco-city' is well worth a visit

[c1ue]

Re: Spain:- Lights out/Speed limts cut!

Renewable,

Read the full blog.

The reason it is interesting is that it looks directly at the source of a lot of people's belief in the man made global warming hypothesis - several specific lines of assertion as well as the IPCC paper.

Note that the blogs don't dispute that CO2 has gone up, what is being discussed is exactly what the scientific basis is behind the thinking that CO2 is the cause of the warming.

I have posted other links showing how a few point sources of data - notably Hansen at the NASA Goddard institute - have been changing (I personally say manipulating) the core data sets to exxagerate the temperature records.

Sure, there are lots of scientists involved in this research, but the blog ALSO specifically points out that the IPCC conclusions on man-made global warming are not from a consensus of all 2,500 scientists, but from a specific subset.

The problem with characterizing the 200 year experiment is that this is a clear example of the 'assumptive close', or invoking of Pascal's theorem on the afterlife: that if there is any chance of an eternity in hell, then you should go to church.

I prefer not to play stupid salesman's games.