<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate change myth debunked: scientists did not predict new ice age]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:44:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/1 Not just on his blog

Actually, the three of them have a study coming out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

I wrote more about this at The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough?bid=769& ...

grist.org

]]> Not just on his blog

Actually, the three of them have a study coming out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

I wrote more about this at The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough?bid=769& ...

grist.org

]]> Comment #2 by Charles Barton http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:35:42 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/2 Global Warming

I was working At ORNL in early 1971, when I heard Jerry Olson, a plant ecologist who specialized in the role of plants in the world carbon cycle, talk the increase of the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and its implications for world climate.  Shortly afterwards ORNL set up a group, to study atmospheric CO2, and its effects on global climate,  Alvin Weinberg persuaded Freeman Dyson to come to ORNL to participate in the CO2/climate change research.  By 1975 Weinberg, who had been director of ORNL, was talking to Congress about climate change.  My father, an ORNL chemist, was writing about CO2 driven climate change as accepted scientific fact in 1977.    

Charles Barton

]]> Global Warming

I was working At ORNL in early 1971, when I heard Jerry Olson, a plant ecologist who specialized in the role of plants in the world carbon cycle, talk the increase of the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and its implications for world climate.  Shortly afterwards ORNL set up a group, to study atmospheric CO2, and its effects on global climate,  Alvin Weinberg persuaded Freeman Dyson to come to ORNL to participate in the CO2/climate change research.  By 1975 Weinberg, who had been director of ORNL, was talking to Congress about climate change.  My father, an ORNL chemist, was writing about CO2 driven climate change as accepted scientific fact in 1977.    

Charles Barton

]]> Comment #3 by tico89 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:55:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/3 Well, there you go...

Go back to pumping as much dust and other cooling agents as possible into the atmosphere, to counter the heating effect of carbon dioxide. Then, as the world starts to cool, up the amount of CO2. Then up the amount of cooling particles.

Problem solved.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> Well, there you go...

Go back to pumping as much dust and other cooling agents as possible into the atmosphere, to counter the heating effect of carbon dioxide. Then, as the world starts to cool, up the amount of CO2. Then up the amount of cooling particles.

Problem solved.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> Comment #4 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:12:17 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/4 There...I just warmed it


There is in fact no credible dissent to the argument that carbon dioxide warms the climate.

There is also no credible dissent to the argument that lighting up an American Spirit Light with my BIC warms the climate.

]]> There...I just warmed it


There is in fact no credible dissent to the argument that carbon dioxide warms the climate.

There is also no credible dissent to the argument that lighting up an American Spirit Light with my BIC warms the climate.

]]> Comment #5 by 314159265 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:26:33 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/5 Bunkum never grows old and smelly,

like this myth, it seems.
Is it really still floating around?

Or is it just the odd broken-record troll repeating it here and there?


]]> Bunkum never grows old and smelly,

like this myth, it seems.
Is it really still floating around?

Or is it just the odd broken-record troll repeating it here and there?


]]> Comment #6 by jfleck http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:40:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/6 broken records

pi -

As a journalist covering climate change, I get a lot of letters from well-intentioned readers helpfully correcting my egregious misunderstandings. On climate change, perhaps half of them invoke some version of the "'70s global cooling consensus" myth. Based on that limited data set, I'd say it's still floating around quite robustly, which is one of the reasons I was interested in working with Tom and William on the paper.

]]> broken records

pi -

As a journalist covering climate change, I get a lot of letters from well-intentioned readers helpfully correcting my egregious misunderstandings. On climate change, perhaps half of them invoke some version of the "'70s global cooling consensus" myth. Based on that limited data set, I'd say it's still floating around quite robustly, which is one of the reasons I was interested in working with Tom and William on the paper.

]]> Comment #7 by Norm Smith http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:37:49 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/7 Please take off your blinders !!

Sorry Guys - Al Gore's 'computer models' were wrong. ITS COLDER THAN EVER. Here are some articles. They quote highly respected scientists who are presenting SCIENTIFIC FACTS, NOT "IDEOLOGY" as someone above claimed. They are not on board with your alleged "consensus", but I suspect you will dismiss these impartial scientists as "oil company stooges" or something like that. That's much easier than attempting an academic rebuttal.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html ...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worl ...

And here is an article directly from the Greenland Newspaper:  http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

That satellite photo is not "ideology." It's a real photo taken with a real scientific instrument called a weather satellite. and it shows that the Polar Bears have more ice than they had for the last 15 years.

And check out this Media Watch expose' about that photo of the  poor stranded polar bears:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM

I personally live in Canada and Polar Bear populations have tripled over the last 30 years.

Please open your minds and give those articles a serious read. This isn't about right or left. Be a truth-seeker regardless where that takes you.

Peace to all.

]]> Please take off your blinders !!

Sorry Guys - Al Gore's 'computer models' were wrong. ITS COLDER THAN EVER. Here are some articles. They quote highly respected scientists who are presenting SCIENTIFIC FACTS, NOT "IDEOLOGY" as someone above claimed. They are not on board with your alleged "consensus", but I suspect you will dismiss these impartial scientists as "oil company stooges" or something like that. That's much easier than attempting an academic rebuttal.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html ...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worl ...

And here is an article directly from the Greenland Newspaper:  http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

That satellite photo is not "ideology." It's a real photo taken with a real scientific instrument called a weather satellite. and it shows that the Polar Bears have more ice than they had for the last 15 years.

And check out this Media Watch expose' about that photo of the  poor stranded polar bears:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM

I personally live in Canada and Polar Bear populations have tripled over the last 30 years.

Please open your minds and give those articles a serious read. This isn't about right or left. Be a truth-seeker regardless where that takes you.

Peace to all.

]]> Comment #8 by Norm Smith http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:00:11 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/8 Sunspot Hibernation

PS: If the Sunspot Hibernation (as described by Astrophysicist Dr. Ken Tapping in the National Post article above) comes to an end this will be the place to see it:  
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ ...

Normally there would be dozens or hundreds of sunspots.

Let's all hope this is just a once in a lifetime temporary anomaly. The last time the sunspots  hibernated we had the "Little Ice Age."

But it's already been a few months of no sunspots and look what's happening around the world. I have to admit I am very concerned.  


]]> Sunspot Hibernation

PS: If the Sunspot Hibernation (as described by Astrophysicist Dr. Ken Tapping in the National Post article above) comes to an end this will be the place to see it:  
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ ...

Normally there would be dozens or hundreds of sunspots.

Let's all hope this is just a once in a lifetime temporary anomaly. The last time the sunspots  hibernated we had the "Little Ice Age."

But it's already been a few months of no sunspots and look what's happening around the world. I have to admit I am very concerned.  


]]> Comment #9 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:08:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/9 Good blog


Hi NormSmith,

Good blog and interesting references.

I have been checking
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
for regular up-dates on solar activity.

It's been very quiet.

I sincerely hope this is not the beginning of another Maunder minimum.  We do NOT need another Little Ice Age in Europe, where I live (or in Canada, where you live).  I much prefer the current "Modern Warming Period", which is only slightly cooler than the earlier pre-GHG "Medieval Warming Period", when Greenland was green and not all iced up as your report from Greenland showed.

Of course, the AGW activists like Andrew Dessler will be denying any cold spell even if they get 24 inches of snow down in College Station, TX.

Or, if they are really clever, they will explain the current cold weather as part of the "severe weather events we can expect as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse warming".

Andrew Dessler likes to talk of scientists who are working on theories that link solar activity with climate as the "Solar Distraction".

Let's hope the sun doesn't bring us the MOTHER of all "solar distractions": a new Little Ice Age.

Regards,

Max




]]> Good blog


Hi NormSmith,

Good blog and interesting references.

I have been checking
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
for regular up-dates on solar activity.

It's been very quiet.

I sincerely hope this is not the beginning of another Maunder minimum.  We do NOT need another Little Ice Age in Europe, where I live (or in Canada, where you live).  I much prefer the current "Modern Warming Period", which is only slightly cooler than the earlier pre-GHG "Medieval Warming Period", when Greenland was green and not all iced up as your report from Greenland showed.

Of course, the AGW activists like Andrew Dessler will be denying any cold spell even if they get 24 inches of snow down in College Station, TX.

Or, if they are really clever, they will explain the current cold weather as part of the "severe weather events we can expect as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse warming".

Andrew Dessler likes to talk of scientists who are working on theories that link solar activity with climate as the "Solar Distraction".

Let's hope the sun doesn't bring us the MOTHER of all "solar distractions": a new Little Ice Age.

Regards,

Max




]]> Comment #10 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:14:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/10 Good article by Andrew

Andrew Dessler has written an interesting lead article comparing the current global warming scare (caused by human emissions) with an earlier scare of an impending ice age (caused by human emissions) in the 1970s.  He points to some major differences between then and now and leaves us with two things to remember:

1.    The consensus that an ice age was coming in the 1970s didn't actually exist.
2.    The theory that an ice age was coming does not contradict the theory that carbon dioxide warms the climate.

On the "consensus" statement it is certainly true that a smaller percentage of a much smaller total group of individuals supported the theory of an upcoming ice age in 1970 than the much larger percentage of an infinitely larger group of individuals that support the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming today.  It should be pointed out, though, that today's broad consensus on AGW does not necessarily include agreement that AGW will bring disaster for the environment and mankind, simply agreement that the AGW theory is valid.

The second point is obviously correct.  Both theories can coexist, side by side.

In another op-ed article on the gristmill site under "how the talk to a skeptic" Coby Beck (a AGW supporter and activist) wrote:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

"In the 1970s, there was a book a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader `consensus' on a coming alien invasion."

Discounting his last humorous sideline, Coby was also right.

There was a lot less hype in the 1970s on the coming ice age (caused by mankind) than there is thirty years later on the newest scare, the coming heat wave (caused by mankind).

Sure there were the usual alarmist articles in The New York Times and Newsweek (as there are today) and socio-environmental activists, such as Stephen Schneider were doing their job of fear-mongering to sell a socio-political agenda as others are doing today.

The big difference between today and then is not a scientific one, but a historical, political and economical one.

Then there was a Cold War, that occupied most everyone's mind.  Peace activists warned of "nuclear winter" scenarios. In the 1970's the largest political discussion involved Cold War issues.  There was the recent Vietnam debacle, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc.  The global confrontation between a heavily nuclear armed USSR and a just as heavily armed USA makes the current "war on terror" a picnic in comparison, no matter what US President Bush would like to have the American public believe.  And this confrontation was infinitely more frightening than the "ice age" scare of then (or, as a matter of fact, than the AGW warming scare of today).

There was no IPCC.  This is probably the major difference between then and now.  Since the IPCC has been formed, anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) has become a multibillion-dollar business.  And everyone knows that money talks.  And that BIG money talks BIG.

Back in the 1970s computers were still in their infancy.  The virtual world of computer-generated projections did not yet exist, as it does today.  The ability to crank out virtual imminent disasters with models was not there.

In the 1970s there were hardly any climate scientists.  Some pioneers, like Reid Bryson, made studies of human impact on climate but concluded that a new ice age was unlikely. A paper by S. I. Rasool and Stephen Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971, examined the possible future effects of human environmental emissions, and concluded that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"

Today there are thousands of individuals (scientists, engineers, computer modellers, etc.) on the multibillion dollar taxpayer funded AGW industry payroll, and they all compete for grant money from the politicians in a system where the "no crisis = no funding" principle governs. In other words, scientists who support alarming AGW will be more likely to receive public funding than those who do not. And today BIG money talks.

But the REALLY BIG money is not in the billions of dollars of climate research funding.  It is in the proposed policy changes to fight AGW.  Here we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes being shuffled around and administered by bureaucrats (UN and others).  This represents a true "field day" for the bureaucrats and politicians, some of whom are already profiting from the AGW hysteria and hoping to gain even more power and wealth from it.  All this did not exist back in the 1970s.

The media has always liked "disaster stories".  They sell well, and make a lot of money for the industry.  Today's media are far more advanced in their ability to reach billions of people than was the case 30 years ago.  Today's media also sees it as its job not only to sell a story, but to get people to change their minds on socio-political issues. But behind it all lies the profit motive, and the media sees that there is BIG money to be made from the AGW hysteria.

Then there are the "media darlings": Hollywood show people, actors, pop singers, talk show hosts, industrialists like Richard Branson, etc., that jump on the bandwagon to "save the planet from humanity" and get some free publicity in the process plus feel good that they are doing something worthwhile to help morally justify the absurdly high incomes they get.  There was no celebrity "bandwagon" in 1970, because there was no BIG money involved, as there is today.

So while there may have been some minor scientific differences between the ice age scare of the 1970s and the AGW scare of today, the main differences are historical, political and economical, with the biggest difference being that AGW is a BIG MONEY industry today, while the 1970s ice age scare was no big deal, as Coby Beck correctly pointed out.

Max



]]> Good article by Andrew

Andrew Dessler has written an interesting lead article comparing the current global warming scare (caused by human emissions) with an earlier scare of an impending ice age (caused by human emissions) in the 1970s.  He points to some major differences between then and now and leaves us with two things to remember:

1.    The consensus that an ice age was coming in the 1970s didn't actually exist.
2.    The theory that an ice age was coming does not contradict the theory that carbon dioxide warms the climate.

On the "consensus" statement it is certainly true that a smaller percentage of a much smaller total group of individuals supported the theory of an upcoming ice age in 1970 than the much larger percentage of an infinitely larger group of individuals that support the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming today.  It should be pointed out, though, that today's broad consensus on AGW does not necessarily include agreement that AGW will bring disaster for the environment and mankind, simply agreement that the AGW theory is valid.

The second point is obviously correct.  Both theories can coexist, side by side.

In another op-ed article on the gristmill site under "how the talk to a skeptic" Coby Beck (a AGW supporter and activist) wrote:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

"In the 1970s, there was a book a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader `consensus' on a coming alien invasion."

Discounting his last humorous sideline, Coby was also right.

There was a lot less hype in the 1970s on the coming ice age (caused by mankind) than there is thirty years later on the newest scare, the coming heat wave (caused by mankind).

Sure there were the usual alarmist articles in The New York Times and Newsweek (as there are today) and socio-environmental activists, such as Stephen Schneider were doing their job of fear-mongering to sell a socio-political agenda as others are doing today.

The big difference between today and then is not a scientific one, but a historical, political and economical one.

Then there was a Cold War, that occupied most everyone's mind.  Peace activists warned of "nuclear winter" scenarios. In the 1970's the largest political discussion involved Cold War issues.  There was the recent Vietnam debacle, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc.  The global confrontation between a heavily nuclear armed USSR and a just as heavily armed USA makes the current "war on terror" a picnic in comparison, no matter what US President Bush would like to have the American public believe.  And this confrontation was infinitely more frightening than the "ice age" scare of then (or, as a matter of fact, than the AGW warming scare of today).

There was no IPCC.  This is probably the major difference between then and now.  Since the IPCC has been formed, anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) has become a multibillion-dollar business.  And everyone knows that money talks.  And that BIG money talks BIG.

Back in the 1970s computers were still in their infancy.  The virtual world of computer-generated projections did not yet exist, as it does today.  The ability to crank out virtual imminent disasters with models was not there.

In the 1970s there were hardly any climate scientists.  Some pioneers, like Reid Bryson, made studies of human impact on climate but concluded that a new ice age was unlikely. A paper by S. I. Rasool and Stephen Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971, examined the possible future effects of human environmental emissions, and concluded that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"

Today there are thousands of individuals (scientists, engineers, computer modellers, etc.) on the multibillion dollar taxpayer funded AGW industry payroll, and they all compete for grant money from the politicians in a system where the "no crisis = no funding" principle governs. In other words, scientists who support alarming AGW will be more likely to receive public funding than those who do not. And today BIG money talks.

But the REALLY BIG money is not in the billions of dollars of climate research funding.  It is in the proposed policy changes to fight AGW.  Here we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes being shuffled around and administered by bureaucrats (UN and others).  This represents a true "field day" for the bureaucrats and politicians, some of whom are already profiting from the AGW hysteria and hoping to gain even more power and wealth from it.  All this did not exist back in the 1970s.

The media has always liked "disaster stories".  They sell well, and make a lot of money for the industry.  Today's media are far more advanced in their ability to reach billions of people than was the case 30 years ago.  Today's media also sees it as its job not only to sell a story, but to get people to change their minds on socio-political issues. But behind it all lies the profit motive, and the media sees that there is BIG money to be made from the AGW hysteria.

Then there are the "media darlings": Hollywood show people, actors, pop singers, talk show hosts, industrialists like Richard Branson, etc., that jump on the bandwagon to "save the planet from humanity" and get some free publicity in the process plus feel good that they are doing something worthwhile to help morally justify the absurdly high incomes they get.  There was no celebrity "bandwagon" in 1970, because there was no BIG money involved, as there is today.

So while there may have been some minor scientific differences between the ice age scare of the 1970s and the AGW scare of today, the main differences are historical, political and economical, with the biggest difference being that AGW is a BIG MONEY industry today, while the 1970s ice age scare was no big deal, as Coby Beck correctly pointed out.

Max



]]> Comment #11 by Norm Smith http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:31:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/11 Al Gore's Big Money Company

And let's not forget Al Gore's Company:

Here is some information about Al Gore he forgot to mention in his movie. This is very serious stuff I have been researching, and I wish the mainstream media would start looking into it. Please check this out yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Gore wants to make money for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM) and is raking in millions and millions.

Gore is Chairman of GIM:

 http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/

GIM invests in some Corporations that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their mandatory SEC disclosure:  

 http://www.secinfo.com/d13P5q.u1q.htm

Note that Gore invests heavily in GE (a major player in the Military Industrial Complex) and Becton Dickinson (a champion of Toxic Waste)

Learn more about Becton Dickinson's environmental scandals here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becton_Dickinson

And here is a marvelous flying gattling gun that spreads depleted uranium (DU) all over the Middle East - thanks to GE:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

GE is also a leader in nuclear submarine systems which I would describe as weapons of mass destruction.

It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the interrogation staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one.

]]> Al Gore's Big Money Company

And let's not forget Al Gore's Company:

Here is some information about Al Gore he forgot to mention in his movie. This is very serious stuff I have been researching, and I wish the mainstream media would start looking into it. Please check this out yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Gore wants to make money for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM) and is raking in millions and millions.

Gore is Chairman of GIM:

 http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/

GIM invests in some Corporations that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their mandatory SEC disclosure:  

 http://www.secinfo.com/d13P5q.u1q.htm

Note that Gore invests heavily in GE (a major player in the Military Industrial Complex) and Becton Dickinson (a champion of Toxic Waste)

Learn more about Becton Dickinson's environmental scandals here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becton_Dickinson

And here is a marvelous flying gattling gun that spreads depleted uranium (DU) all over the Middle East - thanks to GE:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

GE is also a leader in nuclear submarine systems which I would describe as weapons of mass destruction.

It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the interrogation staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one.

]]> Comment #12 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:32:48 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/12 Al Gore's big bucks

Hi Norm,

There is no question that Al Gore is ine of the politicians who is benefiting the most from the current AGW hysteria (which he is helping to create).

He has increased his personal wealth by 100 million dollars since he left Washington as a "public servant".

The links you provided show me how he stands to increase this wealth even more if the proposed carbon cap and trade schemes really become global.  And all of this will be at the expense of the public, who will end up swallowing all of these costs.

Smart guy.  It's always nice to see someone "doing well by doing good".

Getting a (politically motivated) Nobel Peace Prize in the process will only help him earn even more out of this hysteria - until the bubble bursts (as all phoney bubbles eventually do).

Regards,

Max

]]> Al Gore's big bucks

Hi Norm,

There is no question that Al Gore is ine of the politicians who is benefiting the most from the current AGW hysteria (which he is helping to create).

He has increased his personal wealth by 100 million dollars since he left Washington as a "public servant".

The links you provided show me how he stands to increase this wealth even more if the proposed carbon cap and trade schemes really become global.  And all of this will be at the expense of the public, who will end up swallowing all of these costs.

Smart guy.  It's always nice to see someone "doing well by doing good".

Getting a (politically motivated) Nobel Peace Prize in the process will only help him earn even more out of this hysteria - until the bubble bursts (as all phoney bubbles eventually do).

Regards,

Max

]]> Comment #13 by eolson22 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:42:50 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/13 No wonder

Is it any wonder that so many people invoke the "remember the ice age?" story, when it was repeated in public schools in the 70s? Along with gas from corn (gasohol), and reuseable space shuttles, it was just another facet of popular science that turned out to be bogus. (never mind overpopulation, food shortages, and the extinction of songbirds. And, alas for the moon base.)

]]> No wonder

Is it any wonder that so many people invoke the "remember the ice age?" story, when it was repeated in public schools in the 70s? Along with gas from corn (gasohol), and reuseable space shuttles, it was just another facet of popular science that turned out to be bogus. (never mind overpopulation, food shortages, and the extinction of songbirds. And, alas for the moon base.)

]]> Comment #14 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:06:11 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/14 Message to eolson22

Hi eolson22,

You wrote: "Is it any wonder that so many people invoke the `remember the ice age?' story, when it was repeated in public schools in the 70s?"

This is one of the great tragedies of today, as well.

Not only are politicians and activists promoting the AGW disaster scenario to convince the adult public that they should support the political agenda that they endorse, they are allowing this disaster scenario to be used to frighten school children, all in the name of a supposedly "noble cause".  I find this reprehensible and inexcusable.

There is absolutely NO excuse for frightening school children.  Period.

Max

]]> Message to eolson22

Hi eolson22,

You wrote: "Is it any wonder that so many people invoke the `remember the ice age?' story, when it was repeated in public schools in the 70s?"

This is one of the great tragedies of today, as well.

Not only are politicians and activists promoting the AGW disaster scenario to convince the adult public that they should support the political agenda that they endorse, they are allowing this disaster scenario to be used to frighten school children, all in the name of a supposedly "noble cause".  I find this reprehensible and inexcusable.

There is absolutely NO excuse for frightening school children.  Period.

Max

]]> Comment #15 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:46:51 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/15 Message to Norm Smith on polar bears

Hi Norm,

To your point (and video) about the polar bears, it is obvious that Al Gore, the WWF and anyone else that claims the polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct due to global warming are flat out lying.

The Polar Bear Study Group has published a summary of polar bear population status per 2005. http://pbsg.npolar.no/status-table14.htm

This shows that of the 19 polar bear populations, 5 are declining, 7 are stable or increasing, and insufficient data are available for the other 7.

Taken as a percentage of the total estimated polar bear population (estimated at 20,000-25,000):

20% of the population is declining
40% of the population is stable or increasing

with insufficient data for the other 40%.

It looks like a majority of the polar bears are not doing too badly.

Estimates are that the polar bear population has actually increased more than three-fold since the 1970s, when their number totaled less than 7,000 worldwide.  

This had nothing to do with climate change at all, but there was an international treaty signed between Norway, Canada, the USA, Iceland, Greenland, Finland and the USSR, which limited polar bear sport hunting and made it illegal to hunt polar bears from aircraft.

But the gullible public in both Europe and North America still believe Al Gore's phoney polar bear pics and statistics. Amazing!

Regards,

Max


]]> Message to Norm Smith on polar bears

Hi Norm,

To your point (and video) about the polar bears, it is obvious that Al Gore, the WWF and anyone else that claims the polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct due to global warming are flat out lying.

The Polar Bear Study Group has published a summary of polar bear population status per 2005. http://pbsg.npolar.no/status-table14.htm

This shows that of the 19 polar bear populations, 5 are declining, 7 are stable or increasing, and insufficient data are available for the other 7.

Taken as a percentage of the total estimated polar bear population (estimated at 20,000-25,000):

20% of the population is declining
40% of the population is stable or increasing

with insufficient data for the other 40%.

It looks like a majority of the polar bears are not doing too badly.

Estimates are that the polar bear population has actually increased more than three-fold since the 1970s, when their number totaled less than 7,000 worldwide.  

This had nothing to do with climate change at all, but there was an international treaty signed between Norway, Canada, the USA, Iceland, Greenland, Finland and the USSR, which limited polar bear sport hunting and made it illegal to hunt polar bears from aircraft.

But the gullible public in both Europe and North America still believe Al Gore's phoney polar bear pics and statistics. Amazing!

Regards,

Max


]]> Comment #16 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:38:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/16 David and Goliath

There is a "David and Goliath" confrontation going on now in the global climate debate.

"Goliath" is represented by the powerful and well-funded "overwhelming consensus of the scientific community" (as Andrew likes to remind us and as is embodied by the UN's IPCC).  These guys are getting billions of dollars of taxpayer funding from the politicians, who see opportunity for hundreds of billions of dollars of financial  (and political) gain from carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes by supporting and promoting the AGW climate hysteria.

"David" is represented by a handful of Danish climate scientists, who have stubbornly gone against the flow and have demonstrated in simple laboratory experiments a previously suggested but unproven relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and low altitude cloud formation, but have no massive financial support from the politicians.  This small group is now going to try to replicate their findings in a larger experiment, called the CLOUD project, at CERN.

The mighty Goliath ridicules puny David today, but will the results of CLOUD vindicate him?

Or will they show that mighty Goliath is right?

In the meantime, keep tuned in to what is happening recently to solar activity, now that solar cycle 24 has started, and let's see if global temperatures continue to level off and then cool again, giving David another shot in the arm and possibly laying mighty Goliath to rest.

Stay tuned for the fun, folks.

It's not over "until the fat lady sings"...(which may start to happen very soon).

Max

]]> David and Goliath

There is a "David and Goliath" confrontation going on now in the global climate debate.

"Goliath" is represented by the powerful and well-funded "overwhelming consensus of the scientific community" (as Andrew likes to remind us and as is embodied by the UN's IPCC).  These guys are getting billions of dollars of taxpayer funding from the politicians, who see opportunity for hundreds of billions of dollars of financial  (and political) gain from carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes by supporting and promoting the AGW climate hysteria.

"David" is represented by a handful of Danish climate scientists, who have stubbornly gone against the flow and have demonstrated in simple laboratory experiments a previously suggested but unproven relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and low altitude cloud formation, but have no massive financial support from the politicians.  This small group is now going to try to replicate their findings in a larger experiment, called the CLOUD project, at CERN.

The mighty Goliath ridicules puny David today, but will the results of CLOUD vindicate him?

Or will they show that mighty Goliath is right?

In the meantime, keep tuned in to what is happening recently to solar activity, now that solar cycle 24 has started, and let's see if global temperatures continue to level off and then cool again, giving David another shot in the arm and possibly laying mighty Goliath to rest.

Stay tuned for the fun, folks.

It's not over "until the fat lady sings"...(which may start to happen very soon).

Max

]]> Comment #17 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:43:18 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/17 Further to "David and Goliath"

Maybe those scientists back in the 1970s weren't that wrong after all...

]]> Further to "David and Goliath"

Maybe those scientists back in the 1970s weren't that wrong after all...

]]> Comment #18 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:25:48 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/18 Stay tuned for the fun, folks.

That is what Max said!

Sorry Max, this is the first time that I think you are talking sh#t.  If the Sun continues like the the last few months with low sunspot activity for some decades into solar cycle 24, then it will NOT BE FUN, by any stretch of the imagination.

The recent harsh winter weather around the world may only be an indication of the start of what COULD come.  (If LOW SUNSPOT ACTIVITY continues, per the current trend)

Let us all dance naked in the snow, and flaggelate and prostrate ourselves to the Gods of our choice, imploring that those naughty sunspots will come back, and save us from another "Little Ice Age".

]]> Stay tuned for the fun, folks.

That is what Max said!

Sorry Max, this is the first time that I think you are talking sh#t.  If the Sun continues like the the last few months with low sunspot activity for some decades into solar cycle 24, then it will NOT BE FUN, by any stretch of the imagination.

The recent harsh winter weather around the world may only be an indication of the start of what COULD come.  (If LOW SUNSPOT ACTIVITY continues, per the current trend)

Let us all dance naked in the snow, and flaggelate and prostrate ourselves to the Gods of our choice, imploring that those naughty sunspots will come back, and save us from another "Little Ice Age".

]]> Comment #19 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:36:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/19 What do you make of this, Black Wallaby?

Global Temperature Update

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has published a January 2008 update on global temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ...

A look at the map shows the highest increase in the surface temperature anomaly (>+4ºC vs. 1951-1980 average) in a very large surface area covering the northern areas of the former Soviet Union, primarily across Siberia, while other Arctic and Sub-arctic regions, such as Greenland, Baffin Bay, Alaska and the Bering Strait showed moderate cooling trends (-1ºC to -4ºC).

North America shows warming across Canada and north central plus northeastern USA (+1ºC to +4ºC), slight cooling west of the Rocky Mountains (-0.5ºC to -1ºC) and not much change elsewhere.

China and central Asia showed moderate cooling (-2ºC to -4ºC), except for the more industrialized coastal and southern regions, which showed slight to moderate warming (+0.5ºC to +2ºC).

In the Southern Hemisphere, South America shows coastal warming in Peru and Brazil (+1ºC), mild warming at the southern tip (+0.5ºC to +1ºC) and no change in the interior, while Africa shows cooling in the Sahara and central Africa (-1ºC to -4ºC), warming in coastal northern Africa plus Ethiopia and Somalia (+1ºC to +2ºC) and no change in most of sub-Saharan Africa.

In Kiwi-land and Wallaby country, New Zealand, Tasmania plus northern and western Australia are warming (+1ºC to +2ºC) while Australia's east coast is cooling slightly or not changing at all (0ºC to -1ºC).

The continent of Antarctica shows cooling (-1ºC to -4ºC) with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches up toward the southern tip of South America, which shows warming (+1ºC to +2ºC).

Major ocean areas of the globe in the North and South Atlantic, the North and South Pacific and the Indian Ocean are not covered at all due to missing data.

Interesting stuff.

Max


]]> What do you make of this, Black Wallaby?

Global Temperature Update

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has published a January 2008 update on global temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ...

A look at the map shows the highest increase in the surface temperature anomaly (>+4ºC vs. 1951-1980 average) in a very large surface area covering the northern areas of the former Soviet Union, primarily across Siberia, while other Arctic and Sub-arctic regions, such as Greenland, Baffin Bay, Alaska and the Bering Strait showed moderate cooling trends (-1ºC to -4ºC).

North America shows warming across Canada and north central plus northeastern USA (+1ºC to +4ºC), slight cooling west of the Rocky Mountains (-0.5ºC to -1ºC) and not much change elsewhere.

China and central Asia showed moderate cooling (-2ºC to -4ºC), except for the more industrialized coastal and southern regions, which showed slight to moderate warming (+0.5ºC to +2ºC).

In the Southern Hemisphere, South America shows coastal warming in Peru and Brazil (+1ºC), mild warming at the southern tip (+0.5ºC to +1ºC) and no change in the interior, while Africa shows cooling in the Sahara and central Africa (-1ºC to -4ºC), warming in coastal northern Africa plus Ethiopia and Somalia (+1ºC to +2ºC) and no change in most of sub-Saharan Africa.

In Kiwi-land and Wallaby country, New Zealand, Tasmania plus northern and western Australia are warming (+1ºC to +2ºC) while Australia's east coast is cooling slightly or not changing at all (0ºC to -1ºC).

The continent of Antarctica shows cooling (-1ºC to -4ºC) with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches up toward the southern tip of South America, which shows warming (+1ºC to +2ºC).

Major ocean areas of the globe in the North and South Atlantic, the North and South Pacific and the Indian Ocean are not covered at all due to missing data.

Interesting stuff.

Max


]]> Comment #20 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:45:17 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/20 Black Wallaby may be right

Hey Black Wallaby,

You may be right.

I wrote, "It's not over 'until the fat lady sings'...(which may start to happen very soon)."

I agree with you when you say, "let's hope the 'fat lady' doesn't sing "Winter Wonderland", when she starts singing. Another LIA would be a "solar distraction" we really DON'T need.

Regards,

Max

]]> Black Wallaby may be right

Hey Black Wallaby,

You may be right.

I wrote, "It's not over 'until the fat lady sings'...(which may start to happen very soon)."

I agree with you when you say, "let's hope the 'fat lady' doesn't sing "Winter Wonderland", when she starts singing. Another LIA would be a "solar distraction" we really DON'T need.

Regards,

Max

]]> Comment #21 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:58:31 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/21 Warming: What's The Problem?

even in the 1970s, most scientists thought that global warming was the dominant problem.

Ok, let's forget for an instance the straw man argument about some nameless "skeptics" who claim that there was a global cooling consensus, which you then shoot down to show...well, how great you are or something.

Let's get back to the timeline...sooo, weren't we being "warned" about Global Warming by PSAC in 1965?

Ok, we're being warned about Global Warming for what...48 years now?

What's the effect so far?

Nothing but good as far as I can see.

Zero hurricanes.

Good weather everywhere.

Nice summers in London.

Where's the disaster???

When is the Millenarial Global Warming End of the World Scenario going to start happening?

I mean, you AGWers have been standing around Times Square in long white gowns carrying "The End Is Nigh" signs for 48 years!

http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cartoons/end.gif

]]> Warming: What's The Problem?

even in the 1970s, most scientists thought that global warming was the dominant problem.

Ok, let's forget for an instance the straw man argument about some nameless "skeptics" who claim that there was a global cooling consensus, which you then shoot down to show...well, how great you are or something.

Let's get back to the timeline...sooo, weren't we being "warned" about Global Warming by PSAC in 1965?

Ok, we're being warned about Global Warming for what...48 years now?

What's the effect so far?

Nothing but good as far as I can see.

Zero hurricanes.

Good weather everywhere.

Nice summers in London.

Where's the disaster???

When is the Millenarial Global Warming End of the World Scenario going to start happening?

I mean, you AGWers have been standing around Times Square in long white gowns carrying "The End Is Nigh" signs for 48 years!

http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cartoons/end.gif

]]> Comment #22 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:18:53 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/22 Jabailo confuses the issue by bringing FACTS

Golly, jabailo, you're spoiling all the fun for the doomsayers like Andrew Dessler by mentioning (oh, horror!) FACTS.

Shame on you!

(But keep it up, someone has to do so.)

Regards,

Max

]]> Jabailo confuses the issue by bringing FACTS

Golly, jabailo, you're spoiling all the fun for the doomsayers like Andrew Dessler by mentioning (oh, horror!) FACTS.

Shame on you!

(But keep it up, someone has to do so.)

Regards,

Max

]]> Comment #23 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:28:07 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/23 Teddy-Polar Bear's Picnic

Max discussed the hyper-hype about those poor cuddly polar bears being "threatened with extinction" because of so-called AGW.

Gee what jerking tearfully emotive stuff!

If our world does get even warmer than in the Medieval Warm Period, don't underestimate the high intelligence of bears to adapt to changing conditions.  For instance, if they can't find seals or humans to eat, it has been shown recently that they depart the ice and visit bird colonies.  They could also probably learn to eat salmon, from their darker cousins, whom might become displaced from the current bonanza by the larger white predators. ETC.

Polar bears do-real-fine around the world in warm zoos when fed by their human carers, so it is obviously a case of finding an alternative diet for them to survive.  They even do better in warm sunny conditions because of their white reflective coat, and there are food gathering skills that do not require good camoflauge.

When "Australia's Huskeys were removed from Antarctica, because they were not indigenous, they were sent initially to Southern Canada.  The first thing the males did was cock their legs and piss at trees, yet they were generations removed from ever having seen a tree!  So, it seems, dogs and bears have a collective genetic memory of their origins.

In that wonderful film documentary series by Allen Titchmarsh "A natural History of Britain (?)", he discussed how during the last ice-age, the ice-shelf came (surprisingly) to an identifiable point in Greater London.

He went-on to identify a whole bunch of furry and feathery survivors from the ice age, of which the most poignant for me was the large now protected population of grey seals.  Their pups still to this day, retain their ice-age signature of a white coat, on a breeding colony that is no-longer white!  They have adapted, and are doing-fine

Who are these alarmist clowns whom claim that wildlife cannot adapt to changing conditions?

Did not you and I come from a warm Africa?

OK, IF the existing coral reefs do decay decadally, the oceans are swarming with their spores, and new colonies will unavoidably evolve probably nearby and concurrently but additionally at great distances away.

Don't sound like Armaggeddon to me!

]]> Teddy-Polar Bear's Picnic

Max discussed the hyper-hype about those poor cuddly polar bears being "threatened with extinction" because of so-called AGW.

Gee what jerking tearfully emotive stuff!

If our world does get even warmer than in the Medieval Warm Period, don't underestimate the high intelligence of bears to adapt to changing conditions.  For instance, if they can't find seals or humans to eat, it has been shown recently that they depart the ice and visit bird colonies.  They could also probably learn to eat salmon, from their darker cousins, whom might become displaced from the current bonanza by the larger white predators. ETC.

Polar bears do-real-fine around the world in warm zoos when fed by their human carers, so it is obviously a case of finding an alternative diet for them to survive.  They even do better in warm sunny conditions because of their white reflective coat, and there are food gathering skills that do not require good camoflauge.

When "Australia's Huskeys were removed from Antarctica, because they were not indigenous, they were sent initially to Southern Canada.  The first thing the males did was cock their legs and piss at trees, yet they were generations removed from ever having seen a tree!  So, it seems, dogs and bears have a collective genetic memory of their origins.

In that wonderful film documentary series by Allen Titchmarsh "A natural History of Britain (?)", he discussed how during the last ice-age, the ice-shelf came (surprisingly) to an identifiable point in Greater London.

He went-on to identify a whole bunch of furry and feathery survivors from the ice age, of which the most poignant for me was the large now protected population of grey seals.  Their pups still to this day, retain their ice-age signature of a white coat, on a breeding colony that is no-longer white!  They have adapted, and are doing-fine

Who are these alarmist clowns whom claim that wildlife cannot adapt to changing conditions?

Did not you and I come from a warm Africa?

OK, IF the existing coral reefs do decay decadally, the oceans are swarming with their spores, and new colonies will unavoidably evolve probably nearby and concurrently but additionally at great distances away.

Don't sound like Armaggeddon to me!

]]> Comment #24 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:47:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/24 Global Temperature Update

Max asked for comments on the following, which among other things showed regional temperature anomalies around the globe ranging up to maybe 19 degrees C:

"NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has published a January 2008 update on global temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ... ... "

Let me start with a little analogy:
When I was working in Italy some 25 years ago, I met an English teacher of English whom used only English, being unable to construct a single sentence in Italian.  Asked why she did not learn Italian, she replied, I can't get past:
Uno = one (masc.) and una = one (fem.)

I have a similar problem with diurnal temperatures.  I can't get past them being the simple average of the minimum and maximum temperatures reached during any 24 hr period, given that there is nothing linear or repetitive between them.

Living close to the South Coast of Australia, the presence or absence of a north wind over the hot interior makes an enormous difference to temperatures.  Spring XC skiing makes one aware of how brutally icy, the morning snow that melted the day before can be, OR, it may soft, depending on overnight sky conditions.  There were a few seasons recently in the Arctic, where (per NASA) an unusual north wind blew sea-ice south into warmer regions, and resulted in rapid ice melting.  I was in Detroit one April in 81 - 83 (?) when the Detroit River was frozen over, and the next April, they were water skiing there. All such things are chaotic, and amount to "Deafening Noise" in the temperature data. (which to a lay-person may seem a very simple matter)

Throw-in all the other problems with quality and varying distribution of the measurement sites, including huge areas of "bare" ocean, UHI effects and so-on and it is difficult to make real sense of it.

Consequently, we are stuck with data that must be treated with caution.  What can be said is that there is large regional variation in the data....but again, what is the sense of making an average of it?

Some 500 years ago, monsoonal patterns changed at Angkor and it was abandoned.  There is a long history of similar civilization collapses largely because of such regional climate problems.  Professor Chris Castro (Who was misrepresented by Dr. Dessler on one of his blogs) has gone on record as saying that regional variations are more important than the way that AGW is treated.

The ClimateAudit web site run by Steve McIntyre, a highly respected data handling expert has much more to say, and Max advises other sources above, such as Watts.  




]]> Global Temperature Update

Max asked for comments on the following, which among other things showed regional temperature anomalies around the globe ranging up to maybe 19 degrees C:

"NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has published a January 2008 update on global temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ... ... "

Let me start with a little analogy:
When I was working in Italy some 25 years ago, I met an English teacher of English whom used only English, being unable to construct a single sentence in Italian.  Asked why she did not learn Italian, she replied, I can't get past:
Uno = one (masc.) and una = one (fem.)

I have a similar problem with diurnal temperatures.  I can't get past them being the simple average of the minimum and maximum temperatures reached during any 24 hr period, given that there is nothing linear or repetitive between them.

Living close to the South Coast of Australia, the presence or absence of a north wind over the hot interior makes an enormous difference to temperatures.  Spring XC skiing makes one aware of how brutally icy, the morning snow that melted the day before can be, OR, it may soft, depending on overnight sky conditions.  There were a few seasons recently in the Arctic, where (per NASA) an unusual north wind blew sea-ice south into warmer regions, and resulted in rapid ice melting.  I was in Detroit one April in 81 - 83 (?) when the Detroit River was frozen over, and the next April, they were water skiing there. All such things are chaotic, and amount to "Deafening Noise" in the temperature data. (which to a lay-person may seem a very simple matter)

Throw-in all the other problems with quality and varying distribution of the measurement sites, including huge areas of "bare" ocean, UHI effects and so-on and it is difficult to make real sense of it.

Consequently, we are stuck with data that must be treated with caution.  What can be said is that there is large regional variation in the data....but again, what is the sense of making an average of it?

Some 500 years ago, monsoonal patterns changed at Angkor and it was abandoned.  There is a long history of similar civilization collapses largely because of such regional climate problems.  Professor Chris Castro (Who was misrepresented by Dr. Dessler on one of his blogs) has gone on record as saying that regional variations are more important than the way that AGW is treated.

The ClimateAudit web site run by Steve McIntyre, a highly respected data handling expert has much more to say, and Max advises other sources above, such as Watts.  




]]> Comment #25 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:51:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/25 Black Wallaby's comments on Global Temp Update

Hi Black Wallaby,

Yes, if you look at the January 2008 NOAA NCDC map of global temperature anomalies around the world, it is apparent that the largest positive temperature anomaly (the dark area on the map) comes from Siberia and other Arctic and Sub-arctic regions of the former Soviet Union, which represent a major portion of the world's land surface area.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ...

As Ross McKitrick demonstrated, around two-thirds of all the weather stations world wide, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993.  This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature anomaly (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend.  This can be clearly seen on the January 2008 map of temperature anomalies (as compared with the 1951-1980 average, during the days of the old Soviet Union).  For a graph showing this correlation see:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

If this distortion were removed from the latest temperature anomaly, we would actually see a globally averaged temperature anomaly in January 2008 close to zero (as compared to the 1951-1980 average).

So much for global warming, once the discrepancies are removed.

Max



]]> Black Wallaby's comments on Global Temp Update

Hi Black Wallaby,

Yes, if you look at the January 2008 NOAA NCDC map of global temperature anomalies around the world, it is apparent that the largest positive temperature anomaly (the dark area on the map) comes from Siberia and other Arctic and Sub-arctic regions of the former Soviet Union, which represent a major portion of the world's land surface area.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year ...

As Ross McKitrick demonstrated, around two-thirds of all the weather stations world wide, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993.  This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature anomaly (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend.  This can be clearly seen on the January 2008 map of temperature anomalies (as compared with the 1951-1980 average, during the days of the old Soviet Union).  For a graph showing this correlation see:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

If this distortion were removed from the latest temperature anomaly, we would actually see a globally averaged temperature anomaly in January 2008 close to zero (as compared to the 1951-1980 average).

So much for global warming, once the discrepancies are removed.

Max



]]> Comment #26 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:48:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/26 Spam much do we?

Hey, I have an idea; why don't the three of you or twelve of you or however many sweat-box AGW are sitting in that bunker with the Exxon intern waving the whip.

Why don't you use different talking points on different days? That way your obvious attempts to raise the Google standing of your hack pseudo-science articles wouldn't be so freakingly obvious.

Oh, there where a few short stories and one, count it one, very poor science fiction novel supporting the Ice Age theory. All of it based upon somebody's wild-assed guess.

I don't think it ever had any scientific validity or support beyond "there were ice ages before and there will be more sometime in the future."

Oh, and please, please quit the chatty, "hi norm" bit. We know you're all sitting in the same room.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Spam much do we?

Hey, I have an idea; why don't the three of you or twelve of you or however many sweat-box AGW are sitting in that bunker with the Exxon intern waving the whip.

Why don't you use different talking points on different days? That way your obvious attempts to raise the Google standing of your hack pseudo-science articles wouldn't be so freakingly obvious.

Oh, there where a few short stories and one, count it one, very poor science fiction novel supporting the Ice Age theory. All of it based upon somebody's wild-assed guess.

I don't think it ever had any scientific validity or support beyond "there were ice ages before and there will be more sometime in the future."

Oh, and please, please quit the chatty, "hi norm" bit. We know you're all sitting in the same room.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Comment #27 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:07:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/27 Pangolin "has an idea"...

Hey Pangolin,

You started off with "I have an idea" and a reference to Exxon (who's that?)...

It turns out your "idea" is kind of goofy and your reference to Exxon is totally off the wall.

Come up with something a little more intelligent next time, if you can.

Regards,

Max

]]> Pangolin "has an idea"...

Hey Pangolin,

You started off with "I have an idea" and a reference to Exxon (who's that?)...

It turns out your "idea" is kind of goofy and your reference to Exxon is totally off the wall.

Come up with something a little more intelligent next time, if you can.

Regards,

Max

]]> Comment #28 by josullivan58 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:16:05 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/28 Pangolin is right

"Oh, and please, please quit the chatty, "hi norm" bit. We know you're all sitting in the same room."

Yes we do know, manacker and black wallaby are sock puppets of the same person. They both misuse the term blog. Manacker/black wallaby here is some basic web terminology: Gristmill is a blog, meaning a website where topics are posted and the public can submit comments. Dr Dessler submits a series of posts on different topics. Each post is is not a different blog.

Manacker/black wallaby should try not to be as clueless on basic web terms as he is on basic science.

As far as the cold January temps disproving global warming, pro-warming and climate change alarmist scientist Patrick Michaels thinks this:

"Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)

But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the 'predictable distortion' of extreme weather 'goes in both directions.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?th& ...

]]> Pangolin is right

"Oh, and please, please quit the chatty, "hi norm" bit. We know you're all sitting in the same room."

Yes we do know, manacker and black wallaby are sock puppets of the same person. They both misuse the term blog. Manacker/black wallaby here is some basic web terminology: Gristmill is a blog, meaning a website where topics are posted and the public can submit comments. Dr Dessler submits a series of posts on different topics. Each post is is not a different blog.

Manacker/black wallaby should try not to be as clueless on basic web terms as he is on basic science.

As far as the cold January temps disproving global warming, pro-warming and climate change alarmist scientist Patrick Michaels thinks this:

"Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)

But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the 'predictable distortion' of extreme weather 'goes in both directions.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?th& ...

]]> Comment #29 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:06:51 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/29 Josullivan58 is right

Hi Josullivan58,

You wrote: "But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the 'predictable distortion of extreme weather' goes in both directions."

This makes sense, as Michaels says, whether one is "trumpeting global cooling" or "trumpeting global warming".

Finally, something you and I can agree on.

Regards,

Max

PS But I am not a "Doppelgänger" for Black Wallaby, even though I often agree with his "words of wisdom" on this and other sites.

]]> Josullivan58 is right

Hi Josullivan58,

You wrote: "But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the 'predictable distortion of extreme weather' goes in both directions."

This makes sense, as Michaels says, whether one is "trumpeting global cooling" or "trumpeting global warming".

Finally, something you and I can agree on.

Regards,

Max

PS But I am not a "Doppelgänger" for Black Wallaby, even though I often agree with his "words of wisdom" on this and other sites.

]]> Comment #30 by manacker http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:47:16 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/30 Message to josullivan58


Hi Josullivan58,

Back to your earlier message on a "global cooling" scare.

I believe most everyone can agree that the cooler temperatures starting in mid 2007 and going into early 2008 do not constitute any kind of trend, and do not prove anything.

Nor does the fact that there appears to have been a slowdown in temperature increase in the past decade (1998-2007) when compared to previous decades from 1976 to 1998.

Nor does the fact that solar cycle 24 is starting off with no sunspots and very low solar activity.

Earth still appears to be in a long-term warming trend, for whatever reason.

The data do show us that it is not at all unusual to have "swings" in "global average temperature" (rather than long term "hockey sticks"), but that, based on the observed facts (rather than on model outputs), a long term rate of increase in the 21st century similar to that of the 20th century (0.6 to 0.7°C over 100 years) would not be unusual, if all known, assumed and currently unknown natural and anthropogenic forcing factors remain where they are today.

In other words, the "take home" from all this is NOT that we are entering a period of "disastrous cooling".  

It is rather that we are also not approaching some horrible warming "tipping point", from which the planet, the environment and human civilization will be unable to recover, as some doomsayers would have us believe.

So it is actually good news, not bad news.

Regards,

Max


]]> Message to josullivan58


Hi Josullivan58,

Back to your earlier message on a "global cooling" scare.

I believe most everyone can agree that the cooler temperatures starting in mid 2007 and going into early 2008 do not constitute any kind of trend, and do not prove anything.

Nor does the fact that there appears to have been a slowdown in temperature increase in the past decade (1998-2007) when compared to previous decades from 1976 to 1998.

Nor does the fact that solar cycle 24 is starting off with no sunspots and very low solar activity.

Earth still appears to be in a long-term warming trend, for whatever reason.

The data do show us that it is not at all unusual to have "swings" in "global average temperature" (rather than long term "hockey sticks"), but that, based on the observed facts (rather than on model outputs), a long term rate of increase in the 21st century similar to that of the 20th century (0.6 to 0.7°C over 100 years) would not be unusual, if all known, assumed and currently unknown natural and anthropogenic forcing factors remain where they are today.

In other words, the "take home" from all this is NOT that we are entering a period of "disastrous cooling".  

It is rather that we are also not approaching some horrible warming "tipping point", from which the planet, the environment and human civilization will be unable to recover, as some doomsayers would have us believe.

So it is actually good news, not bad news.

Regards,

Max


]]> Comment #31 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:37:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/31 Do Something Useful

Pangolin and Lovely Jo;  If you click the "Support Grist" tab top of page you will see that there is a means offered for you to donate cash to this excellent site.

If you Email Tech Support, and say that you will make a recommended minimum donation to Grist of $35, if they can show that the computer(s) of Black Wallaby and Max Manacker are located in two different countries, I'm sure that they will assist.

The answer, which has already been stated, is available in our registration details, eg our computer IP's

]]> Do Something Useful

Pangolin and Lovely Jo;  If you click the "Support Grist" tab top of page you will see that there is a means offered for you to donate cash to this excellent site.

If you Email Tech Support, and say that you will make a recommended minimum donation to Grist of $35, if they can show that the computer(s) of Black Wallaby and Max Manacker are located in two different countries, I'm sure that they will assist.

The answer, which has already been stated, is available in our registration details, eg our computer IP's

]]> Comment #32 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/ Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:01:58 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/another-one-bites-the-dust1/32 OK, you don't want to spend $35!

Fair enough Pangolin and Lovely Jo, I wouldn't either, but use your imaginaaaation, and frame the question to Tech. Support such that you don't have to part with cash.

Oh BTW did you notice the little clue that Max gave to you "lawyers" (?) with a non-universal German word.  I worked in Cologne on-and-off for about two years back in the 60/70's but only know the meaning of 'doppel'.  Max wrote:

"PS But I am not a "Doppelgänger" for Black Wallaby, even though I often agree with his "words of wisdom" on this and other sites."

Did you notice the funny little dot thingies over the 'a'? I think it is called an 'umlaut', or would that be a line over the a?.  I don't know how to do that without a lot of trouble.  (Why would I bother?) Do you?  

]]> OK, you don't want to spend $35!

Fair enough Pangolin and Lovely Jo, I wouldn't either, but use your imaginaaaation, and frame the question to Tech. Support such that you don't have to part with cash.

Oh BTW did you notice the little clue that Max gave to you "lawyers" (?) with a non-universal German word.  I worked in Cologne on-and-off for about two years back in the 60/70's but only know the meaning of 'doppel'.  Max wrote:

"PS But I am not a "Doppelgänger" for Black Wallaby, even though I often agree with his "words of wisdom" on this and other sites."

Did you notice the funny little dot thingies over the 'a'? I think it is called an 'umlaut', or would that be a line over the a?.  I don't know how to do that without a lot of trouble.  (Why would I bother?) Do you?  

]]>