You're right,NoBozo.....kinda fun to see people stirred up on both sides of an issue.Can't imagine what would happen if Don allowed political debate.

If all human caused global warming believers would practice what they preach by swearing off energy use (junk your car, disconnect from the grid) that would do more to lower co2 emissions than any cap and tax scheme. They could solve their "problem" and leave the rest of us alone.

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

Polar Ice
 

Oh my! Seals in the artic are becoming too warm. The polar ice cap has shrunk significantly and further shrinkage is a flooding threat to costal habitation. Excuse me the alarm was from the New York Times from 1822. Much like their ice age threat of the 1960's.

Could you please point it out
 

I read the article in your link and didn't see where Dr. Jones admitted to cooking the books. Could you please indicate where he does so?

Thanks

OK, this is the easiest piece:

"There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good."

Dr Jones' findings are not based on the actual land station records. It's based on data he modified from the real data. He freely admits he changed the actual land record to generate his "official" surface temperature record. That's cooking the books.

Their has never been an independent review of the real data. As a matter of fact if you check a few other sources, you will find that Dr. Jones claims that much of the real data is lost cannot be verified.

Reading further you see that there are three different datasets all derived from the lost real data. All different and only GISS allows anyone to see their data. If this is science and there is a scientific method of converting actual land station data to "official" surface temperature records, then this process would be open and repeatable.

So Dr Jones is 100% sure that we have global warming, he bases this on data that he won't show us, he admits it was changed from the original data using a method he won't tell us, and he claims he lost the original data.

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."


Confronted with differing data, tree rings vs instument data, he chose to use tree rings when that data supported his theory and instrument data when that supported his theory and a "trick" to hide the differences when they didn't agree. In science, when your data doesn't agree, you can't pick the data you like and use a "trick" to hide the data you don't. That's cooking the books.

This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.

As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

At Minimum, Turn Off Residential Outdoor Lighting...
 

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater. :(

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything? :eek2:

http://astroguyz.com/wp-content/uplo.../night_usa.jpg

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.:(

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do. ;)

You could be right
 

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

Unfortunately Rose peer review is not to be for "poor" papers, we have to guess what makes a paper "poor".

"I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech?"

The first part is the most damning. Some people believe that AGW means the end of the world as we know it, a tipping point that we cannot come back from, and yet the leading scientist will not show his work, will not tell us how he changed the raw data to make his charts and conclusions. The lives of 6 billion people are at stake. Does this sound credible? Remember he says he's 100% certain there is warming, he has zero doubt.

Is the "science settled" on anthropogenic global warming Rose?

New wind turbine design
 

I ran across this a while back. A well respected massachusetts aerospace company is taking its ducted fan technology used in commercial jet engines and applying it to wind turbines: http://www.flodesign.org/clients.html

This is a really cool application of existing technology. There's two advantages over conventional propeller type wind turbine design: 1) a similar power level generating ducted fan design is smaller, and they can be placed closer together and 2) more importantly it will operate efficiently at both higher and lower wind velocities.

For those who wish to learn about the technology, I've attached 2 white papers published by Flodesign that discuss the aerodynamic theory.

Or watch this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Si-74IcrQ

It will be interesting to see if this alternative design takes off. There are other companies that are introducing similar ducted fan designs.

Here are some more pictures of global warming :D from about 1970. I am about 6' 2" in this picture.

The world is a strange place, isn't it. This is the very response I had previously (and still have) after reading the comments attacking the notion of human caused global warming. Amazing how people on the opposite sides of the issue can feel the exact same feeling. I can't imagine what I would do if I suddenly found myself in a conservative's body and mind - probably die of shock.

As to the numerous comments on how the amount of snow we have been having "disproves" global warming, that is, as usual, taking an instance and constructing a theory from it (or more likely taking a theory and finding an instance that supports it. The latest modeling suggests that the high temperatures in the higher latitudes (north of the Arctic Circle, its MUCH warmer than average) has the effect of pushing the airflow and precipitation down to our latitudes.

The difference between that and the theories here (lots of snow in the Lakes Region disproves global warming) is that the data supports the theory across the board. The idea that high snowfall this year in the Lakes Region disproving human caused global warming is like saying I found one four leaf clover in an entire field, therefore four leaf clovers are the norm everywhere.

But of course, I realize no scientific demonstration would possibly convince those not willing to look at the facts. Conspiracy theories are usually embraced because people have trouble thinking one person could have so much impact; likewise, anti-scientific attitudes are embraced because people have trouble imagining so much change will come from simple activities of driving to work, flying an airplane to a vacation, heating ones home. What many people fail to factor in is overpopulation, wasteful energy use, and the cumulative effects of 300 million people.

I say 300 million, not 7 billion, because lets face it - global warming is caused by excessive affluence, not by mere numbers of humans. Its the "McMansions" that people have to heat, its the excessive energy use for air conditioning, heating, spas, etc. etc. etc. The idea of helping raise the standard of the world will be disastrous (as we see in the way China and India are vastly increasing there energy use, their pollution (remember, China had to close down industry in most of the Beijing region to get air quality to an acceptable level) and their impact on global warming. The world would have a lot more "breathing space" (literally) were the super affluent be curtailed (as is happening in the Arab world right now).

Shed- I sent you a PM. Check your messages :)

Shed,

The planet is still recovering from the last glacial maximum that reached its zenith around 20K years ago with the ice retreating from what we know as the US of A approx 12K years ago. Glaciologically speaking, we are still in the last ice age because the poles of our planet still remain covered in ice.

That human presence has had an effect on the planets climate there is no doubt. But to infer as you so vociferiously do that our civilization is the dominant cause is IMO a myopic viewpoint.

IMHO, the sun's varying intensity and our planets active vulcanism throughout Earth's history have and still dominate the world's climate. Before the Pleistocene age, the world was much warmer with much higher CO2 levels.

Has anyone seen the satellite picture just like this one..Except. it's the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is completely DARK. I suggest our liberals in this country would have us emulate North Korea. THEY (our own liberals) of course would be in charge. :D :D NB ....Maybe not so funny....

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

What A Rose We Have...
 

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. May I add that She and Her Great wealth of knowledge is, has and always will be respected and enjoyed here!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...70N2HN20110124

Also, WSI's meteorologists are predicting a notably cold spring for the entire Northern United States this year, 2011.

Keep up the great work Rose, We love you!
Terry
_________________________________

I believe that is what you are doing, Yankee. The scientific community has more consensus on human caused global warming than on most other issues. If Rose is teaching college-aged students about greenhouse gases, that's because she's committed to teaching them science, not ideology, which is what your position appears to be.

A few years ago I was in Tanzania, which is definitely a third world country. I decided to go to the National Museum. The museum was four rooms total, one of which was on evolution. Despite looking like it greatly needed a face-lift, the think I marveled at was that their display on evolution was more accurate and up-to-date than many states allow their children to be taught - due to false ideology.

More power to anyone trying to lift the veil of ignorance from the youth of this world who will be inheriting the mess we leave to them due to our collective unwillingness to open our eyes. Look at social security - we are stiffing our children who will pay the bills for the moeny we use. Its pretty much the same (except a lot worse) in terms of the environment, because we will be leaving them a vastly degraded environment that may not be repairable.

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

I'm dropping out of this discussion, I'm impressed that Rose has a mind open to discussion, even if she disagree's with me. I find that most AGW true believers cannot engage in rational thought and just parrot back a list of things they don't like and how they are either caused by AGW or cause AGW or both. Talking to them is like trying to convince the Jehovah's Witness who comes to my door that the Bible is fallible, you can't reason with blind faith.

One last comment, we all hear that AGW or now Climate Change is unpredictable, and some places will heat and some will cool, some wetter some drier. But the one constant is that it is always bad. It never causes anything good, even by accident.

Thank you for the rather unneccessary and condecending 6th grade primer on natural science. Needless to say you miss my point. Again, I agree that human civilization is a factor in the planets climate but it is an inconvenient truth that you all but eliminate any possibility that there are other variables in the equation, or even that science knows what the equation is.

Please look at other periods in the Earth's geologic past. Even limit yourself to the last recent epochs and you'll see that there were long stretches of time where the H2O and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much greater. Furthermore, we've only had the technology a few decades to accurately measure the variations in the sun's intensity. And I for one do not believe that we have all the answers regarding the effects of the sun's output, or the effect of infrared wavelength energy absorption in the atmosphere and therefore its propensity for climactic change.

With an increase in greenhouse gases, however they get into the atmosphere, do we really know their effects? Will the planet get warmer or colder?

And I've assumed nothing, and I do not need to ask what you meant. Your post clearly states that you will teach your students what greenhouse gases do while you strongly infer that despite the ongoing climatological debate you have decided to "teach" your students what you think instead of presenting all sides as an educator should do.

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

Yankee: Please DO NOt Bail Out of this disscussion. You have the ability to put this into words... that make sense. :) NB

May I Add...
 

Mind you all, I haven't any collage degrees, I do however have some years on me...
Planet, ( as in Planet Earth ), did not necessarily mean that any of our great geniuses could just jump in and shape it, ( plan it ) in any fashion that they fancied. Politics has tried and failed, and as far as I can see, Mother Nature has and will prevail.

Now and yes, we try our best to improve what we can to preserve all that we have cherished in our life times and to pass on to others. Just remember that absolute control is frivolous!

May we all keep learning, and thank you for listening,

Terry
_________________________________

It would seem as though few of us will be changing our minds in the near future concerning this issue.

When I read posts citing localized cold snaps as supporting their belief in the fallacy of climate change, I can certainly see the wisdom of recognizing the impossibility of reason. Weather is not climate.

Even the fact that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record plus the last decade containing some of the warmest years on record isn't enough, by itself, to conclusively prove the point. But all the rest of the scientific data certainly is.

As a former teacher, I commend Rose for sharing with her students information that will help them make decisions to guide our planet in the future.

Peter

I Agree...
 

That is why they are spelled differently. What is CLIMATE? Climate is the overall picture of weather. = weather's Mom has always been Mother Nature, and she rules. She is the windmill that graces and powers all of the sail boats here in the Lakes Region, and beyond... :)... And I am also very thankful for www.winnipesaukee.com

Now, being born and brought up here in New England ( for the most part ) I found out early and became a weather nut. Just to let Y'All know, just how much I am enjoying this thread soooo!


Terry
____________________________________

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.:D

Title of a private message from Pineedles to me about Global Warming/Climate Change" a while ago:

"Get out of town"

Well, it's not (necessarily) insulting, but it doesn't come across too friendly, or tolerant.

Pineedles must not have read the results of the scientific watchdog agency report, which after investigating all the data, found that the Climate Scientists had NOT lied. They do sound rather arrogant - a common character flaw, but not dishonest. While some "media" like Fox News (sic) may have reported they had lied, that doesn't make it so. Fox is not known for its retractions of its false claims.

Actually, even I think there is some chance that global warming that we see is not primarily caused by human activity. I'm not a climate scientist. I think other factors (sun activity, long term cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.) may have a major impact. However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today. So I think my lack of being 100% convinced is probably the same sort of fantasy that most posters here seem to hold - that if we just say we don't believe it, maybe we are not responsible for knowing about our planet's death of its life support systems due to our unwillingness to change our behavior.

Perfectly said, Pineedles! :)

Al Gore called and he's looking for a co host with Kieth Olberman on his radio station.Looks like we have a few here that view the world through their eyes only in that same light.What scares you people so much that you feel you have to stop all talk of differing opinions?I welcome the others opinions and viewpoints especially if it disagrees with mine.How else does a democracy come to a decision?What burns my butt here is when I'm told that the fianl answer is in and I am somehow a persom with my head burried in the sand because I don't agree.Pretty scary scenerio.Sounds more like Middle East dictatorship to me.

Hunh?
 

• Still, I prefer "warm" to "cold", especially as there is little we can do about it without costing even more unemployment.

• Windmills will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources—without raising the costs of our food—something in which the entire Department of Energy has failed. (in)

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

The Deception Was at Universities...
 

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:

Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to". :rolleye1:

:look: The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion. :D

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

:confused:

Or the years and years of raw data that was "interpreted" then destroyed to "save space" by a renowned University (UAE) who's studies provide a cornerstone for AGW.

Getting back to Global Warming
 

I know most of you have a ton of snow in your back yard and for that reason discount global warming. I saw this article today. Please don't shoot the messenger


Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
12 hours ago


WASHINGTON — This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday.
This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
As the planet warms up, more water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere, said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the same time, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of the moisture that it takes in.
Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches its saturation point, Sanford said.
This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Midwest to the Northeast have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground.
The amount of water in that snowpack is among the highest on record, Masters said.
"If you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out to more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area," Masters said. "If all that water gets unleashed in a hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area, we could be looking at record flooding along the Upper Mississippi River and the Red River in North Dakota."
That tallies with projections by the U.S. National Weather Service, which last month said a large stretch of the north central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring.
SPRING CREEP
Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creep, a phenomenon where spring begins earlier than previously.
"We've documented in the mountains of the U.S. West that the spring runoff pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago," Masters said. "And that's because of warmer temperatures tending to melt that snowpack earlier and earlier."
In the last century, global average temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (.8 Celsius). Last year tied for the warmest in the modern record. One place this warmth showed up was in the Arctic, which is a major weather-maker for the Northern Hemisphere, according to Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
One driver of this winter's "crazy weather," Serreze said, is an atmospheric pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation, which has moved into what climate scientists call a negative phase.
This phase means there is high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at mid-latitudes, which makes the Arctic zone relatively warm, but spills cold Arctic air southward to places like the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.
This negative Arctic Oscillation has been evident for two years in a row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy snowfalls.
It is possible, but not certain, that the negative Arctic Oscillation is linked to warming of the Arctic, which is in turn influenced by a decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.
The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

Like I said, is there anything GW can't do???

From a 1974 Time magazine article:

"Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example."

Global Warmin link
 

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...LIMATE-WINTER/

As should have I:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html