Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Blakey]

Wow, good thing I just left Winnipeg 2 hours ago...............................to go back to Shilo  ;D

Tomorrows post leave run should be........"interesting".

 

[xo31@711ret]

Ahhhh, but 'they't call it 'global warming' anymore...now it's 'climate change'... :

 

[Marshall]

Ahhhh, but 'they't call it 'global warming' anymore...now it's 'climate change'... :

Yea, the term Global Warming is a misconception because it'll do the extremes of both hot AND cold.  :boring: bluh.

 

[Kirkhill]

Al Gore - "Under the bus?"

Huffington Post publishes article debunking Global Warming.

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
     
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:

1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).

So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. ......

Source

Now that the Climate Change cudgel has achieved its desired end - mobilizing poorly educated university students to effect regime change - it now seems that Obama needs to be cut some slack on that front.

Maybe he can now convince his followers that Cnut was right after all.

Canute the politician

"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".

So spoke King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was "So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back". Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations - even if his courtiers did not - so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn't, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear 'great' in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God's power.

Edit: PS

Cnut's courtiers were concerned about rising waters at the beginnning of the Mediaeval Warm Period that saw one of the longest periods of prosperity and advancement in European history (along with the advance of the Inuit from Alaska to Greenland subsuming the indigenous peoples of the north).

 

[GAP]

Wow, good thing I just left Winnipeg 2 hours ago...............................to go back to Shilo  ;D

Tomorrows post leave run should be........"interesting".

That's just........sad.....at least in Winnipeg you had buildings, etc....  ;D

 

[Blakey]

No run today, yippie

 

[a_majoor]

The link between solar activity and the Earth's climate gets dramatic new proof (as if we really need it). given the dramatic reduction in solar activity in the recent past, we should be thinking ahead indeed....lay more coal on the fire, Jeeves!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010400.html#comments

The Sound Of Settled Science

That big burning ball in the sky affects the earth in some way? How can that be?

    ...geographer Robert Baker of the University of New England, Armidale, in Australia, has linked solar magnetic activity to Earth's climate--at least regionally. Using sunspot counts and Australian meteorological data, as well as NASA satellite data for more recent years, he tracked sunspots and rainfall in Australia from 1876 to 2006. In this month's issue of Geographical Research, Baker reports that the amount of rainfall in most regions of the country tracked the 22-year magnetic cycle almost exactly. "It was unbelievable," Baker says. At the height of magnetic activity, rainfall across most of the country was plentiful. At the other end of the cycle, many of those same regions experienced severe droughts. The findings are particularly compelling, Baker says, because even though the lengths of the magnetic cycles are not precise and can vary by several years, the rainfall patterns followed them.

    So what's behind the connection? Baker thinks it has to do with the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation hitting Earth. When the reversing of polarity approaches, he explains, the sun's magnetic field weakens, allowing more UV energy to reach our planet. More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans' plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall.

    [...]

    "This could be an important paper," says climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He explains that current climate models don't give the solar effect much weight in general, because scientists think it is overwhelmed by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if there's a mechanism by which the sun's variations are tied directly to weather patterns, such as the effect of UV radiation on cloud formation, he says, the sun may have a greater impact than the models are showing. As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.


Man, just when you think you've heard everything...

 

[Infanteer]

As usual, nature dwarfs anything of which we are capable.  To claim that this would never have come to pass but for our own miniscule efforts is a competition between arrogance and basic stupidity.

And there is the crux of it all - and why I approach "Global Warming", as an Al Gore political issue, with buckets of suspicion.  The planet has been around for 4.5 billion years or so with lifeforms and climatic and geological shifts that defy anything we can really comprehend.   To assume that, suddenly in the last 50 years we've been able to trump the world's ability to deal with flux or that we're capable of really throwing things out of wack smacks of failure to put the human condition into proper perspective....

 

[Kirkhill]

And there is the crux of it all - and why I approach "Global Warming", as an Al Gore political issue, with buckets of suspicion.  The planet has been around for 4.5 billion years or so with lifeforms and climatic and geological shifts that defy anything we can really comprehend.   To assume that, suddenly in the last 50 years we've been able to trump the world's ability to deal with flux or that we're capable of really throwing things out of wack smacks of failure to put the human condition into proper perspective....

......we're just along for the ride.

 

[old medic]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/spain-trains
Spain's high-speed trains win over fed-up flyers
by Giles Tremlett in Madrid
The Guardian, Tuesday 13 January 2009

Spain's sleek new high-speed trains have stolen hundreds of thousands of passengers from airlines over the last year, slashing carbon emissions and marking a radical change in the way Spaniards travel.

Passenger numbers on fuel-guzzling domestic flights fell 20% in the year to November as commuters and tourists swapped cramped airline seats for the space and convenience of the train, according to figures released yesterday.

High-speed rail travel - boosted by the opening of a line that slashed the journey time from Madrid to Barcelona to 2 hours 35 minutes in February - grew 28% over the same period. About 400,000 travellers shunned airports and opted for the 220mph AVE trains.

Last year's drop in air travel, which was also helped by new high-speed lines from Madrid to Valladolid, Segovia and Malaga, marks the beginning of what experts say is a revolution in Spanish travel habits.

In a country where big cities are often more than 500km (300 miles) apart, air travel has ruled supreme for more than 10 years. A year ago aircraft carried 72% of the 4.8 million long-distance passengers who travelled by air or rail. The figure is now down to 60%.

"The numbers will be equal within two years," said Josep Valls, a professor at the ESADE business school in Barcelona.

Two routes, from Barcelona to Malaga and Seville, opened last week. Lines are also being built to link Madrid with Valencia, Alicante, the Basque country and Galicia. The government has promised to lay 10,000km of high-speed track by 2020 to ensure that 90% of Spaniards live within 30 miles of a station. The prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, boasts it will be Europe's most extensive high-speed network.

The high-speed train network is also helping Spain control carbon emissions.Straight tracks and few stops mean AVE trains use 19% less energy than conventional trains. Alberto García, of the Spanish Railways Foundation, has calculated that a passenger on the Madrid-Barcelona line accounts for one-sixth of the carbon emissions of an aeroplane passenger.

High-speed rail tickets are often cheaper. The lowest one-way price on the 410-mile Barcelona-Madrid route this month is €44 (£40). Rail operator Renfe says 99% of trains on the route arrive on time.

That sort of efficiency was sorely missed at Madrid's Barajas airport at the weekend. Tens of thousands of passengers suffered delays of up to 30 hours because of snow, a work-to-rule by Iberia pilots and a lack of air traffic controllers.

Zapatero, who has put infrastructure projects at the heart of an anti-recession surge in public spending, plans to invest €108bn (£96bn) in the high-speed rail network until 2020.

 

[Kirkhill]

Having dodged slides to get back from BC to Alberta after Christmas a high speed train through the Rockies would be appreciated.

I just saw this in the  Wall Street Journal

JANUARY 14, 2009 Chu Softens Views on Coal, Nuclear Power Article
By STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON -- Physicist Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Department of Energy, softened previously critical comments about coal and nuclear power, and distanced himself from earlier statements that U.S. gas taxes should be higher.

Testifying before a Senate panel considering his nomination, Mr. Chu warned of "dramatic, disruptive changes to our climate system in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren" if the U.S. and other nations don't speed up efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Making vehicles and buildings more efficient -- rather than increasing access to oil on federal land -- is the best step for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, he said. "I do not underestimate the difficulty of meeting these challenges, but I remain optimistic," Mr. Chu said.

Mr. Obama has pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, through new legislation. He also seeks to double over three years the amount of wind, solar and geothermal generating capacity, currently around 25,000 megawatts -- steps that have aroused skepticism and resistance from some industries.

In a speech Tuesday in Washington, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, James Mulva, called for being "realistic about the cost of green energy," and suggested policy makers were in danger of "inadvertently creating unattainable public expectations."

Lawmakers who attended the hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources praised Mr. Chu's credentials, which include a Nobel Prize. Lawmakers pressed Mr. Chu with competing demands, and he responded by toning down or qualifying statements made when he was running the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Republicans demanded Mr. Chu be a more forceful advocate for nuclear energy. Mr. Chu promised to accelerate the disbursal of loan guarantees that his agency is authorized to give to companies seeking to build nuclear reactors. In response to Democrats' unease about the expansion of nuclear plants, Mr. Chu said his agency needed to develop a better plan for waste disposal than the Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada.

Lawmakers from states with big coal-mining interests challenged Mr. Chu on his stance toward coal, which generates half of U.S. electric power. Mr. Chu two years ago referred to the expansion of coal-fired power plants as "my worst nightmare." On Tuesday, he offered Senators a more upbeat assessment of coal's future, calling it a "great national resource." He said he was optimistic his agency could help develop technology capable of capturing and safely storing the greenhouse-gas emissions from coal plants, and indicated he would oppose a "hard moratorium" on the construction of coal plants that lack such technology, as some Democrats advocate.

—Ian Talley contributed to this article.

It appears that once the dog caught the car it must now figure out how to drive it.  (No I am not call Dr. Chu or Obama a dog).

The reality of driving a real economy, versus a theoretical one, is forcing the realistic appraisal of energy.

I have to credit Obama, if he is doing what I think he is doing, by appointing people who have been used to support extreme positions, when those people come round to centrist positions then it is harder for the extremists to sustain their opposition. 

Stay tuned for the Secretary of the Environment to declare that Global Warming is in abeyance indefinitely due to solar inactivity.

 

[Flip]

Kirkhill

I read this today on Tom Nelson's blog.....

Dr. John P. Holdren | “De-development” Advocate is the Wrong Choice for White House Science Adviser

In December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama nominated Dr. John P. Holdren to be White House Science Adviser. The White House Science Adviser heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which “serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government,” according to the OSTP web site.

John Holdren’s 40-year record of outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices makes him unfit to serve as White House Science Adviser. The Senate should not confirm his nomination.

Mysteriously the links broke some time today........
I also found this.....

Gateway Pundit: Surprise!... Obama's Climate Czar Is Board Member of Major Carbon Offset Company ...Update: Her Husband Lobbied on Energy Issues

It was reported yesterday that Barack Obama picked a radical socialist as his climate czar. Carol Browner belongs to organizations that call for "global governance" and demand that rich countries shrink their economies to address climate change. But since her pick, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from these socialist websites.

Now, it was discovered that this same radical eco-socialist is a board member of one of the leading carbon offset trading companies, APX!

William Teach passed on that Carol is a board member of a leading carbon offset trading company.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about the big "O" and his pragmatism.

It might be more, a matter of "putting lipstick on a pig".  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Flip,  I stand ready to be "disappointed".  No major shift as my bar is set pretty low.

I'm basing my assessment in part on what I perceive as Obama's key to success.  He started off as ACORN's saleman, gravitated to Daley's salesman, shifted to Soros's salesman and now is working on becoming salesman of the Democratic Party.  NOT Moveon.org and Codepink etc but that centrist bunch that supplies the Senators and disburses pork.

This time round they out-Roved Rove.  Like Canada's Liberals the campaigned from the extreme and will govern from the centre (LEFT of centre admittedly but as others point out Canada's Right is pretty close to the US Centre).  They got a whole bunch of activists riled up and created a sense of crisis requiring a change of regime.  A variant of the "its the economy stupid" meme that sank Bush 41 and put Clinton in office.

Once in power it isn't the rhetoric that matters.  Its the votes.  And as is shown time after time there is a whole lot more commonality between the parties on substantive issues than the rhetoric would suggest.

As to the appointment of Browner I am willing to bet that she is no more a "socialist" than Gore or Kennedy.  They have their principles......and if you don't like those for the right price they have others.

A lot of pigs wearing lipstick.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting view on how real science (as opposed to "junk" science or politicized science) is done:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2009/01/13/how-scientists-think.aspx

How scientists think

By dangardner 01-13-2009 COMMENTS(2) Citizen Katzenjammer

Filed under: psychology, science

Paul Kedrosky -- a geek on a mission -- crunched the texts of all the papers presented at the American Economic Association annual conference and created a tag cloud. Note what word looms largest.

Yeah, baby! Evidence!

An esteemed toxicologist once described to me how he reviews scientific papers.

I don't read them, he said. No, not a word. I go straight to the data. Then I look at the methodology that produced the data. But the authors' interpretations of their data ? Their conclusions? Never read them. All that matters is evidence. Everything else is noise.

"Anecdotes aren't data," scientists like to say. But to human nature, the axiom is "data aren't anecdotes."

And that is the essential difference between how scientists and laypeople think.

 

[Kirkhill]

A propos of nothing at all..... a hare-brained idea.

The "solution" to the "problem" of Global Warming and an investment opportunity.

Invest in Hewlett-Packard, Canon and Xerox

I am told that paper doesn't degrade in land-fills.

10 lbs of paper is actually 10 lbs of cellulose.

Cellulose is nx C6H12O6 with a molecular weight of nx 180.

It is created from 6x CO2 + 6x H2O.

The molecular weight of CO2 is 44.  6x 44 is 256.

Thus 10 lbs of paper actually represents 10 x 256 / 180 lbs of CO2.

Or 14.67 lbs of CO2.

Thus a box of paper actually represents 46.7% more than its own weight in captured CO2.

Bury that paper in a landfill (after it has been used of course) and you are permanently capturing and sequestring CO2.

So in future, don't feel gulty about printing out reams of erroneous drafts.  Crank up the printers. Crank up the shredders and eschew the recycling bin.

Do your bit to capture CO2 and stop Global Warming.  Kill Trees.

 

[bradlupa]

I don't see a point in believing that golbal warming is occuring when the forecasters are saying the temperature is rising, but they can't even forcast the weather 24-48 hours.  Seems hard pressed to believe them that far in the future

 

[Rifleman62]

bradlupa, I believe you are speaking of Environment Canada when you state "but they can't even forcast the weather 24-48 hours".
Some of the local US Television stations I have viewed during my travels, have Chief Meteorologists who hold a Ph.D, even in small market areas such as Sioux Falls, ND (pop 140K). Now many Ph.D does Environment Canada have?
I find US weather forecasting with the assistance of Doppler radar very accurate. The Weather Underground websites by location is very accurate in my estimation.
As far as Environment Canada is concerned, where else can you be regularly and consistently wrong, and not get fired.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Parliament?  Human Rights Commissions?  NDHQ?

 

[JBG]

The Weather Underground websites by location is very accurate in my estimation.
As far as Environment Canada is concerned, where else can you be regularly and consistently wrong, and not get fired.

From what I've seen, comparing predictions to actuals they aren't bad.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Parliament?  Human Rights Commissions?  NDHQ?

:rofl:

You forgot the Supreme Court of Canada.