Redstate

And yes the AGW should remember the old adage about people who live in glass houses (would that be a greenhouse?) not throwing stones.

I thought I was on a different thread. My apologies 29Victor.

No harm done, I think I did get blamed there for a bit.

Just like the Reverend Gore and his High Church of Global Warming is doing right now!

Oh NOES! The poor polar bears! Something must be DONE!

Those college educated Republicans had enough sense to see through the liberal/communist bullcrap being spouted by their professors and actually, I don't know, learned something in college.

And I bet if you did an informal poll this weekend at your local college's frat parties, I doubt you'd find too many McCain supporters getting plastered and making idiots of themselves...

And I bet if you did an informal poll this weekend at your local college's frat parties, I doubt you'd find too many McCain supporters getting plastered and making idiots of themselves...

Hmmm, I think you just described my entire college experience...

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

Virtually no non-science, save a couple on US history, introductory law, and the Supreme Court [Edit: But I guess that doesn't count because Caltech isn't politicized enough with a radical left feminist/racist studies faculty to balance out all those pesky facts].

HTML Help for Red Staters

MS in ME, way back in '55. It was an humbling experience!

Leftists NEVER take real science classes (science classes that involve use of Calculus level math or higher). The range of people in real science/engineering courses seemed to range from Center-Left to Right. I can't think of a single classmate who was to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Scientists tend to lean left. (Esp Academic Scientists: Frustration over their perceived excess intelligence not translating into tangible wealth seems the cause).

With the Engineers the fact they have to solve problems that actually matter to other people seems to tilt them right. There is of course the counter influence of dealing with the really inept that will tilt them back left.

I live in Seattle, the great bastion of software engineering, and the software engineers around here are liberal as heck to the point that I've never once let my political leanings slip in a professional setting for literal fear of it impacting my career.

Now other kinds of engineers (electrical engineers such as power systems and control systems guys) they all tend to be a bit more conservative. But then again they all tend to be the best and brightest from India, China, Egypt, who had to work their tails off to get here.

Still, my personal work experience aside (I mean come on what does one expect from Seattle), I would think that in general your correlation between people who took high-level math (e.g. hard stuff) and conservatism is a pretty good bet.

you have to factor in social engineering as well.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

You took my comment, dpayton :) I was going to invoke Godwin's Law on the enviro-wackos and end the debate once and for all :)

Brian

Godwin's Law is descriptive, not proscriptive.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I love this bit. I had to find the whole clip.

It's awesome, but recorded at the wrong aspect ratio or something.

But it looks good in preview...hmmmm.

references into everything!

You have white coats, and models, and papers, and equations, and conferences... everything but the testing of theory that lies at the core of how science works.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Mostly for referencing cargo cults. I have not seen/heard anyone do that since about 2000.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

They have one small set of facts.
(1) Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere
(2) Carbon dioxide is a (weak) greenhouse gas

And from that they extrapolate the most ridiculous scenarios.

They ignore the fact that ice core samples show that carbon is a lagging indicator of climate change

They ignore the fact that carbon dioxide and slightly warmer temperatures would be a godsend for food production to a hungry world.

They ignore or downplay the much larger roll of sun warmth.

It's not any sort of science at all, it's an outright lie.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Hah! Like the "doctors" in lab coats with the mirror on the forehead that used to tell us our T-zones would be best satisfied if we only smoked Camels.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

There *can't* be any. Humanity hasn't been around long enough, with the technology long enough, to take the measruements needed to do it.

So shill for Al Gore's "credits" scam all you want, but know that that's what you're doing. I hope he's giving you your cut though, because it's pretty silly to be doing it for free.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm not sure exactly what you mean to say, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that you mean that we've only been able to take direct samples of surface temperatures for the past few decades.

That is true. However, that isn't our only way to reconstruct a reliable record of past temperatures.

Borehole readings can establish a temperature record for the past 500 years. Using this method we can see that temperatures have not been consistently this high as far back as this method allows us to look. To learn more about the borehole record, please read:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

Going further back, we can use proxy data, such as tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others.

This also establishes a warming trend, with data reaching back up to 1,000 years.

To read more about proxy data, please read:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Other methods allow us to go even further back.

So, as you can see, a variety of avenues of research have allowed us to construct a long term temperature record.

This, of course, isn't surprising. Many branches of science routinely gather data on global conditions far into the past - examples include our magnetic field, ocean levels, the position of the continents, and the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the surface.

Someone does this every couple of months.

and the fact that he hasn't answered proves it. These people know that these methods aren't verifiable. They are no more accurate than throwing darts at a dart-board.

I don't know where to start with this. It's hard to have a real debate with one line drive-by comments.

I'm going to assume, based on:

"Is borehole temperature evidence verifiable"

That this is what we're discussing.

I'm also going to assume that what you mean is:

"We have, another, more reliable record of climate over roughly the past 500 years - the time range that boreholes cover - that contradicts borehole data."

What is this?

If you want to share some information about this competing method, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you're just making unsupported statements.

In addition, I'll point out that borehole data is just one of a wide range of reliable information sources on past climate.

Precisely what actions would you, as Emperor, take to reduce CO2 emissions in the US, what would the cost to our economy be and what impact would it have.

Note: you have to be specific. Things like "ban cars that get less than 40mpg" or "build 500 nuclear power plants and scrap the fuel fired ones" are acceptable solutions because the are specific. Touchy feely answers like "reduce emissions to 1941 levels don't count because you don't tell us how to get there. And don't forget the cost estimate, both in terms of out of pocket dollars and the longterm economic impact.

Now, put up or shut up. Thanks either way.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I think this is where a real, valid debate can be had.

As you've seen, I'll argue strongly for the existence of human caused global warming. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

Now the question of how to deal with it is something that reasonable people can disagree over and have a genuine discussion about.

Since you ask, I'll tell you what I feel is the right way to handle this.

I'm not really interested in answering the king-for-a-day scenario, because that doesn't really map to any real policy choices.

If I was president for a day, however, I would introduce and champion carbon tax legislation, with all proceeds from the carbon tax being returned to the taxpayers as a dividend, to the total tax burden would not increase.

I prefer this over a cap and trade system, because I believe the cap and trade system is more vulnerable to political interference in the allocation of carbon allowances. We've seen the Europeans having this problem.

Cap and trade worked well for the SO2 problem, but the CO2 emission spectrum is too diffuse for this system, in my opinion.

I would also work to make the carbon tax system a multilateral agreement on an international level, including the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, etc.

I'd also direct more federal research dollars into next generation nuclear reactor designs and battery research.

Tall order? Yes? Achievable? I believe so. The fact that both presidential candidates support carbon legislation is a good sign.

that you can't read.

You avoided, on purpose I'd guess the part about the cost. As in the ECONOMIC IMPACT to the US economy.

Second, what will the net impact on climate be. Crickets chirping.

Let me be really clear (most everyone not of lefty persuasion will get this, I doubt you will). I don't give a damn about what you "feel". We shouldn't be doing anything that might have a negative impact on the economy based on "feelings". You make policy based on fact (and AGW ain't fact) and based reasonable assumptions drawn from said facts.

Now then, cost? Impact based on what assumptions?

Also, just how do you plan to convince the elected members of your party that nuclear energy is a good thing?

As I said earlier, put up or shut up. Right now,
I'm voting for shut up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was going to go for full out disembowel but decided to pull the reply out of sympathy for the differently abled.

I'm interested in having a mature discussion. You're starting to have a temper tantrum. I write respectfully, and I expect to the same treatment. If you can't handle it, this is my last reply to your thread.

Now, to answer your points.

I most certainly did not dodge the issue of cost. I proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Revenue neutral means the additional taxation would be zero. That is the cost. If you don't believe me, I invite you to read an informative report advocating the same position from the American Enterprise Institute - which is, by the way, a conservative think tank:

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26286/pub_detail.asp

Secondly, I've spent quite a bit of time already this evening sharing a great deal of scientific information on global warming. Those are not "feelings". That is "proof", so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I apologize, but I don't know what AGW stands for. If you define it, we can continue on that point.

Thirdly, what is the effect? The goal is to reduce global CO2 levels to
between between 445ppm and 535ppm. I assume you know that a carbon tax, unlike a cap and trade system, is a bottom-up approach, and does not specify specific targets. That is why it's a more robust system - it depends less on central control.

It's interesting to me that you assume I'm a Democrat. As I've mentioned, both George W Bush and John McCain agree with me that global warming is a real, man-made phenomenon. Why are you trying to make this a left-right issue? I never brought that up.

You are advocating increasing it.

you are the worst advocate of this cause we have ever had on this site.

for the Pittsburgh Steeler fans.

What is the effect of your little tax scheme on the economy and on the climate?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

because they are already putting out more than we are and by 2030 will be emitting more than the entire world does currently.

Getting India to agree would be interesting as well (Seeing as they are on a path to overtake us)

BTW did you actually think this through ?

Because if you return the full amount of the Tax to the purchaser it has zero effect. (Think of a rebate.

If you return it preferentially you have created a regressive tax on those that have to travel for a living. You have increased the cost of goods that have to be transported and shut down sectors of our economy.

You did work that out before you decided to publish this here didn't you ?

Again, I invite you to read the American Enterprise report that I posted above, which should answer your questions.

Parenthetically, I'd also say this. We have a moral obligation to fix a problem that we're contributing to. That's the first thing. Then we can get China and India to the table. But when you're in a hole that you dug, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Secondly, you're confusing energy with fossil fuel derived energy. They aren't the same. Just because we need to de-carbonize our energy supply absolutely does not mean that we have to stop using energy or cripple our standard of living.

Naive? Not really. And the example is staring us in the face. After the first oil shock in the 70s, both France and Japan took major steps to reduce fossil fuel use by aggressively rolling out nuclear energy. Neither of their economies collapsed. Neither of them returned to the stone age. In fact, France is a net exporter of electricity, and enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe.

So yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Their Kyoto commitments.

Japan doesn't seem to have bothered to make an effort.

So it seems that no you can't.

BTW before accusing someone of being confused it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Fossil fuels are cheap energy. Even writing down the cost of the initial change over (10 trillion plus dollars) the other forms are considerably more expensive. So not only don't you get to have your cake you won't ever be able to afford it again.

I don't recall coming out in favor of Kyoto.

Thank you again for not reading my posts.

Plus, Kyoto legislated a percentage reduction under a country's baseline emissions. So that doesn't say really have anything to say about how CO2-efficient the country already was.

So you're not really bringing anything to the table, here. Thanks again for proving my point.

No one argues that fossil fuels are cheap. Another straw man.

But so is nuclear. Again, the French are an example that you're not inviting economic apocalypse by moving away from carbon.

earth temp for

liberty?
equality?
maximum happiness pursuits?

What is the #1 cause of death of the homeless?

These are serious questions.

More

Before man walked the earth, much less before SUVs rolled same, nature managed to warm the globe so much that half of NC and SC were under the Atlantic.

Yes, when I fart or breathe, I warm the Earth.

Answer the questions or you will be stalked.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

"What is the #1 cause of death of the homeless?"

I think it is freezing to death in the winter, but I could be wrong.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

There is no way (barring time travel) to accurately measure past temperatures without a level of guesswork. That, to me, disqualifies the evidence when pushing for policy discussions. I really don't buy any argument that these guesses are 95% (or whatever percentage they claim to be) confident. I say they are next to nil because they are not verifiable. They have not been observed. They have been extrapolated.

Do you disqualify the evidence for astronomy because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of the universe?

Do you disqualify the evidence for geology because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of the earth?

Do you disqualify the evidence for archeology because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of human society?

The past state of the universe.

When we look at the light from distant objects we are peering into the past.

You look at Andromeda you are looking a million years into the past.

You look at quasars you are looking billions of years into the past.

OOPS.

Two out of three isn't bad on the first pass. Now, to help you with astronomy. You realize, of course, that astronomers also study our solar system. The whole light speed thing doesn't really apply there on a scale that helps you win your argument.

Oops.

And you just proved my point on ice cores. Ice cores are a direct measurement of the past state of the earth's climate.

Double oops.

Plus, Joliphant, I'd appreciate it if we can discuss things like adults as opposed to snarky 13 year olds. It makes me take you much less seriously.

The past is still the past, whether it is the 8 minutes we peer back in time to look at the sun or the hours we peer into the past to look at the outer planets.

Second: JUST WHAT POINT ABOUT ICE CORES AM I PROVING ???? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE MENTIONED THEM AND YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING

Well that is about all fun I can stand for one evening.

Shame though it's not often we get someone who knows so little about the field they chose to argue about.

You switched it up this time by repeating something I already took care of *first*, *then* insulting me. Thanks for keeping it fresh.

I mentioned boreholes and ice cores in the first post I made. The first one. Thank you for showing that you don't read my posts.

Here's another link. Repeated for you. Again. Joliphant.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

did you subscribe to the theory of Global Cooling?

Just curious.

Wasn't involved in that debate.

opposite conclusion 30 years ago?

State of the art climate models that predicted the exact opposite conclusions of the current models?

When is the last time a scientific theory was 100% wrong?

Kind of makes you question the "scientific" nature of the theory, doesn't it?

How's that for a proxy?

I dispute your statement.

Here's my evidence:

"But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooli...

Where is your evidence?

published articles on each position?

The fact that scientific articles are diametrically opposed to each other makes my point.

It is rare that scientific theories are opposite of each other.

Some say the universe came to being in a big bang and is expanding.

Others say the universe has always been.

Virtually nobody says the universe is contracting.

When it comes to climate, there are people on both sides of the issue---cooling and warming.

AGW is less established than the Big Bang, and thats pretty much on the "decent guess" shelf of scientific theories.

You claimed that climate theories were "100%" wrong in the past.

I showed you that wasn't true.

Now we're talking about the big bang?

What?

It's incorrect to say there there are people on both sides of the issue.

That implies equality.

It is correct to say that a large majority of scientific opinion agrees that human caused global warming is a real problem.

Given that, the risks of doing nothing, and the manageable costs of doing *something* - that would also, by the way, get us off foreign oil - I think there is a strong argument for action.

An example I would do well to emulate.

Your first post makes no mention of Ice Cores unless you consider other as being the same as Ice cores.

As to insulting you. Its not an Insult.

So far you have been wrong on
1. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
2. The Nature of five sciences.
3. The warmest year on record.
4. The predictions of global warming models.
5. The nature of logical argument.

And to use your quaint rubric OTHER!

Is there anything new here? I'm not going to repeat my knockdowns of your points for the third, fourth, or fifth time.

Let me know when you have something new.

Read the thread.

"Two out of three isn't bad on the first pass."

I have worked in a several school systems in two different states, and to be blunt 67% to 68% correct has always been an F.

because the arguments are based on feelings and pronouncements of doom not on even remotely provable fact.

No model can replicate history in any reasonable way, let alone make a reliable projection. None. Not one. No one can explain the current anomolies like the fact (note: FACT) that the earth has been cooling since 1998. Or that the oceans are cooling and the recently measured ocean temps run 100% contrary to what the models and the AGW proponents have been squalling about.

AGW arguments don't hold water. They are crap. If you believe them you are either a fool or an idiot. I opt for both.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"No model can replicate history in any reasonable way, let alone make a reliable projection."

Already handled.

"No one can explain the current anomolies like the fact (note: FACT) that the earth has been cooling since 1998."

False. A red herring and a cherry pick attempt. First, NASA reports that 2005 was the warmest year on record:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

Second, as I'm sure you well know, 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which boosted temperatures. So it's not representative.

Third, you don't seem to understand statistics. The claim is that there is a trend to increasing average global temperatures. That is different than saying that every year will be hotter than the last. No one is arguing that.

If the first day of spring is colder than the last day of winter, does that mean spring is colder than winter? By your logic, it would.

As to the rest, topic is average global temperatures. No more red herrings, please.

Redstate1546 - I, for one, certainly appreciate your attempt to bring in evidence to argue for your points. As you can tell however, I don't think you'll find a particularly warm crowd for that here, at least with respect to global warming.

I appreciate that.

I welcome a mature debate. That's what I enjoy.

In science you make a prediction, and you test it.

When you're on the globowarmo gravy train, you get paid to make declarations without testing a single thing. Negative results are not asked for or wanted, because those threaten the gravy train that keeps Al Gore so well off.

HTML Help for Red Staters

What would you consider to some "tests" that could be done. I'm not sure what your definition of the term is as it relates to this field. Let me know and we can continue to debate.

The theory must make a prediction, such that an experiment can be run, where the experiment's results could either confirm or falsify the theory.

And I mean a real live experiment, not a computer simulation.

HTML Help for Red Staters

You simply don't understand the scientific method. Science isn't always like your high school lab. See my other posts. Do you run experiments in astronomy? Do you run experiments in geology? Do you run experiments in archeology?

Astronomy and astrophysics experiments can and have been run. That you don't know about them suggests to me that I'm the better informed about science of the two of us here.

I can think of four right off the top of my head:

- Water tanks in mountains to try to detect particles

- Scanning the entire observable universe to check if the background radiation is uniform

- Watching stars behind the sun during an eclipse for gravitational lensing

- Measuring the orbit of Mercury for relativistic deviations from classical mechanical predictions

And I'm sure there are others, related to supernovae and other rare events.

Some science requires a great deal of patience, and must be conducted over lifetimes. I have to think that climate science is one of those.

So I refuse to be bullied by cargo cultists who demand instant, world-changing reactions to untested theory.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Which is deeply silly, of course.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He knows where I live, and I think he has a whip or something.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

AK.

Moe, better watch out :-)

You just defined "experiment" as "observing a natural system, gathering data, and making predictions"

Which is exactly what global warming's science is based on.

Thank you.

Astronomers can measure past data because it takes the light a long timeto get here.

Climatologists lack that luxury.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Proxies are riddled with assumptions that we cannot test.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Please define what you mean by "proxy", and show how the use of proxies is not, in fact, widespread throughout science.

And again, thanks for letting the light thing prove my point yet again. Astronomers regularly use light as a proxy. Example - using the spectra of light emitted from a star or planet as a proxy to determine it's elemental makeup.

We can create absorption spectra effects in the lab in minutes. We can't create the effects that are mueasured in tree rings and ice cores and such that are the backbone of GW theory.

And note that even in astronomy proxies are called into question. Read up on the debates over red shifts and the Hubble constant sometime, to find out how the granddaddy of astronomical proxies may be bunk.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Using your own examples, you can certainly compare tree rings and ice cores to known data of recent temperatures.

Next.

So.. wrong.

It's the same problem the Hubble constant has: Under some theories it goes out the window as a way to get distance from recession speed, because as the geometry of the universe changes over time, so too does H nought.

HTML Help for Red Staters

A spectral analysis is a direct measurement/observation using a framework that has been dispositively proven on earth. Nothing in AGW approaches that level of precision or predictability.

AGW models are not the equivalent of carbon dating or spectral analysis.

At best AGW models are like gravitons or tachyons, theoretical constructs that based on some intuitions of the universe but incapable of being verified.

Please see my previous post on hindcasting.

Plus, no one is saying that the theory is 100% proven. That's a straw man. Scientists are saying that there's enough evidence to be concerned enough to change our behavior, given the data available, the magnitude of the risks, and the cost of making changes.

My point is that AGW is indistinguishable from statistical noise.

The temperature is always changing. keep flipping a coin over and over, and there will be strings of consecutive heads and consecutive tails.

Doesn't mean that there is a meaningful trend.

Do you have evidence that the data is no different than statistical noise? I'd like to see it.

How else do you propose testing climate models other than testing them on past data? Answer - there is no other way. And you know it. It's a false argument.

My friggin graphing calculator from highschool can do regression equations on past data. That's called a good guess of the future, not proof, not anything else. I'm not about to ask the free world to gather berries for the rest of their lives because my TI-82 said so.

Real science predicts the future, and is verified or discredited by the results. Until you do that, you aren't using the scientific method.

"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"

don't know how I got myself here. I'm going back to

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2008/jun/19/overflow_blog_for_eri...

"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"

If you can't even state the debate correctly how do you expect to make your point ??

The hypothesis is that mankind is causing the climate to warm and further this is a bad thing.

Your statement is that the climate is changing and warming.

They aren't the same and proving the later does not make your points about the former.

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make. Perhaps you can help me to understand.

"The hypothesis is that mankind is causing the climate to warm and further this is a bad thing."

I think the hypothesis is:

1. Amospheric levels of CO2 are rising, causing the planet to warm.
2. Human beings are responsible to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
3. The effects of warmer global temperatures are, on the whole, more of a bad thing than a good thing for humanity.

Which of these points do you feel are unsupported? Let me know and we can continue the discussion.

1. Increased levels of CO2 cause the planetary temperature to rise.

1A. The Temperature increase from CO2 is significant
1B. It is greater than the changes from other sources
1C. There is no mechanism that that counteracts temperature increase from CO2.

2. Human production of CO2 from burning fuels is responsible for the net increase in CO2 levels.

3. Absent 1 (A,B,C) and 2, the climate would not change or would change in a more beneficial manner than it currently is.

Now rather than ask me, you might try asking yourself if you find all the above validated.

Falling into that categorical error of not expressing the proposition correctly myself.

4. Given 1, 1A,1B,1C,2,3 will anything proposed as a solution have the desired effect ?

I really have to remember when arguing with people that have fallen down a rabbit hole, not to let them pull you in.

I'm going to assume you want me to reply to your last post. If not, let me know and we can back the discussion up.

Your #4:

"4. Given 1, 1A,1B,1C,2,3 will anything proposed as a solution have the desired effect ?"

Is the very interesting question, and the one that should really concern policymakers. Clearly, if human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are causing the planet to warm, the solution is to de-carbonize our economy. Although there will, of course, be a lag, this will eventually return the levels of atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels as the natural carbon cycle removes the excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

So - what are the costs of de-carbonizing our economy? I, for one, believe them to be extremely affordable - a much better deal than doing nothing and hoping for the best in the face of a great deal of scientifically supported cause for concern.

Even if you discount renewable energy as an option, the solutions exist today, and are affordable. Nuclear power gives us the opportunity to remove fossil fuels from our electricity generation system. Good reactor designs exist right now, and better, more reliable options will continue to become available. The French, and to a lesser extent the Japanese have already proven that nuclear is a safe - and cost effective - way to power a modern industrial economy.

Couple that with incremental research into plug-in hybrid electric cars like the Check Volt, and you close the circle on transportation.

Problem solved. No need to wait for hydrogen, fusion, or other long horizon technologies. And if you do get solutions such as hydro, wind, or solar on the table, the equation gets even better.

The science is strong. The problem is real. The solutions are available.

If the united states were to completely stop emitting carbon (We are actually carbon neutral when you consider the effects of agriculture and the logging industry) We would do nothing to reverse the upward trend.

Two years ago China became the worlds largest polluter, and they are on a steady march up.

They also have no interest in Decarbonizing their economy as they are opening 2 coal fired power stations every week.

And no 4 was not the point.

You need to be correct on every point 1->4 with all their sub points to have a valid argument. That is before we get into 5

5. If 1,1A,1B,1C,2,3 and 4 are correct would it be cheaper
to solve the problem or live with it ?

So far you haven't made any of your points except perhaps people emit carbon.

"If the united states were to completely stop emitting carbon (We are actually carbon neutral when you consider the effects of agriculture and the logging industry) We would do nothing to reverse the upward trend."

I challenge this as false. Please provide evidence.

"Two years ago China became the worlds largest polluter, and they are on a steady march up."

True.

I agree that a multilateral agreement on a global scale is the way to solve the problem.

"You need to be correct on every point 1->4 with all their sub points to have a valid argument. That is before we get into 5"

I posted my initial link so that I didn't have to retype their entire report into Redstate's comment system. It takes care of your concerns.

If you don't want to read it, we can do it the hard way and I can walk you through the evidence.

Just let me know.

It will be even harder for you to make your points.

For the sake of argument I will surmise you were responding out of reflex and had disengaged your cognitive thought.

But too answer your first point.
1. If the upward trend in CO2 is due to human activities.
2. If the U.S. does not compose the whole of Human emissions.
3. If the U.S. Is not the majority source or even the largest source.
4. If other sources are not only large but increasing.
5. If china is on the way to equaling the entire current worlds output http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2.html
6. Just how will removing us from the equation reverse the trend ?

The fact that I have to break this down into bits and pieces does not speak well of the level of this debate.

I have to give you credit for approaching this in a logical manner. However, your refusal to read my other posts is a little annoying.

Here we go:

1. The cliff notes, for you. I can't make it any easier.

Upward temperature trends:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Upward CO2 trends:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air yearly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

And, how do we really know that our CO2 emissions are ending up in the atmosphere? Isotope dating confirms that the CO2 gain is coming from the burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to being from some other natural source:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

That takes care of the science. Considering that both George W. Bush and John McCain agree with the science, I'd say the debate is pretty much over.

Any way you slice it, we are one of the major global emitters. We need multilateral agreements to solve this problem. It's hard to convince other nations to meet us at the table when we are doing nothing to solve the problem.

"Removing us from the equation" will, in fact go a long way to helping the problem, and encourage the Chinese and the Indians to sit down with us and negotiate.

to these over an hour ago here

http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/hey_you_if_you_are_reading_this_...

What is most impressive here is the way the you repeat the same things over and over again as if they should be convincing.

Here let me try to construct your argument.

1. Over the period of 1970 to 2008 the temperature has increased.

2. Over the same period the number of telephones has increased.

Conclusions the number of telephones in a country causes it to warm.

Of course the warmest year on record in the U.S. was 1938 so that really wouldn't have worked if I chose a different window for my data.

This would be much the same way the earth began to warm in the mid 1700's before there could be any effect from greenhouse gases.

Or it could be comparable to the way the hottest year on record was 1998 but global temperatures have been declining for the last decade despite increasing CO2.

Keep repeating your points though. If you stubbornly repeat repeat without addressing the points raised, its very convincing to some people.

Now for the funny part: You expect China to respond to our good example

Thank you that made my evening.

By starting out with a reductio ad absurdum.

I don't know where you're going with the telephone thing, but have fun getting there.

On to the rest:

"Of course the warmest year on record in the U.S. was 1938 so that really wouldn't have worked if I chose a different window for my data.

...

Or it could be comparable to the way the hottest year on record was 1998 but global temperatures have been declining for the last decade despite increasing CO2."

See my post on 1998. Already covered.

"This would be much the same way the earth began to warm in the mid 1700's before there could be any effect from greenhouse gases."

Logical mistake. Probably intentional. No one ever said that CO2 was the *only* thing that affects global climate. No straw man, please.

"Now for the funny part: You expect China to respond to our good example"

More than if we do nothing? Yes.

What that was, was argument by analogy.

What I did was construct an argument with the same type but more glaring flaws as yours.

If it had of been a Reductio I would have shown the temperatures hadn't increased since the 70's

You see that is how the Reductio ad Absurdum works.

I can add this to the list of things you got wrong ? Or would you like a mulligan ?

Now on to the rest.

2005 That would once again be by Mr. James Hansen's data set ?

If you have to reach to a man who forged the data for the Hockey Stick and is known for making changes to the data he keeps without informing the world about it. Fine, It does not lend credence to any point you wish to make.

Every climate data set save his disagrees. Including others at NASA, the UK meteorlogical office and the USHCN.

Logical mistake. Probably intentional. No one ever said that CO2 was the *only* thing that affects global climate. No straw man, please.

NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT. IF other factors can push the earth into an ice age or lift it out of one, what are they going to do next over the time period we are talking about fixing AGW ??

CAN YOU SAY ??

If Not you can't say what the consequences of any change we make to the climate will be.

---

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

First, I'll repost the debunking of the hit on Hansen:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/21360/608

Second, a good point! Finally!

"NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT. IF other factors can push the earth into an ice age or lift it out of one, what are they going to do next over the time period we are talking about fixing AGW ??"

Interesting. But flawed. To make another example with the same logic.

1. Dirty power plants cause acid rain by emitting Sulfur Dioxide.
2. Natural factors, such as volcanic eruptions, can also cause acid rain by emitting Sulfur Dioxide.
3. Since we don't know when volcanic eruptions will occur, we were wrong to implement the provisions of the clean air act that (successfully) introduced a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide. We should have done nothing, even though our action had clear environmental benefits at a reasonable cost.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

With SO2 you have identifiable sources of production limited in number, real-time measurable impacts (acid lakes downwind, for instance), methods of reduction at a knowable and controllable cost, and the ability to quantitate impact.

With CO2 you have almost innumerable sources and feedbacks, historical measurement based on proxies of questionable precision, uncertain impacts, uncertain methods of reduction, unknown benefit vs. costs assessment, and no feasible plan to monitor effectiveness of intervention.

Much different situations...

And Rightly So!

I'm the first to agree that CO2 control is more difficult than SO2 control. You're absolutely correct. That's why I advocate a carbon tax system for CO2, and opposed to the cap and trade approach we used to SO2.

First, there is no way this is revenue neutral because of the huge administrative costs for something as ubiquitous as CO2 generation.

You've got costs in identify the CO2 content of each source, devising a taxing mechanism, collecting the taxes, redistributing the proceeds back to the citizens (not to mention all the money being spent to lobby the Congress etc. to determine tax rates, exceptions, method of rebating - plus the desire of politicians to spend this revenue elsewhere than on rebates. For this last example, just see how the politicians wanted to spend the "cap and trade" bill debated a few weeks ago and how little actually was going to CO2 mitigation and/or alternative energy research compare with pet projects that had nothing to do with energy).

Either you're going to create a deficit if you want the all gross tax receipts to go back to the citizens - or a fair amount of the receipts are going to get siphoned off enroute back to the tax payers.

The other key problem again is in setting the basic carbon tax rate - how do you determine the rate when you can't measure the impact of that rate. You're just shooting in the dark as to the correct rate - and you're underestimating how many sectors of the economy will be affected by a CO2 tax - and the downstream impacts. For instance, high gas prices aren't just affecting primary users, higher fuel-related farming costs and transportation expenses lead to higher food prices, etc.

And Rightly So!

There are roughly six billion of us now, compared to three billion, say, forty years ago. The problem is clearly intensifying through this alone.

Suggestions?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

The previous periods of GW and cooling had nothing to do with anthropogenic causes, because industrial technology has only been around for two centuries.

So the burden of proof is to show that the causes of any current warming (assuming reliability of measurement) are different than those of the preceding warming/cooling periods.

We actually experienced Global Cooling.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

To answer your first point, I don't think you'd be able to find anyone who would deny that the planet has gone through many warm and cool periods before the advent of the industrial revolution.

What do you mean by "different"? That there's never been a period this warm or cool in all of Earth's history? Or that the difference is that human activity is responsible for this period of warmth?

I think the point is that the historical record teaches us that temperature shifts can have great effects on humanity, and life in general - and that our activity is responsible for this warm period.

If you have specific objections, perhaps we can talk about those.

I think the point is that the historical record teaches us that temperature shifts can have great effects on humanity, and life in general ...

Agreed.

... - and that our activity is responsible for this warm period.

Nope ...

PS: Your username is something of a misnomer.

Which part of:

"and that our activity is responsible for this warm period."

Do you feel is unsupported?

1. Temperatures are rising?
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
2. Levels of atmospheric CO2 are rising?
3. Human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

Help me to have an efficient debate. "Nope..." isn't really debatable.

1. Temperatures are rising?

... some parts of the world and falling in other parts - some people call it summer. Glaciers are melting here and there and getting thicker at the same time there and here. That's why the in thing is to call it "Global Climate Change."

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Yes. So is water vapor. So is methane. Both are much more potent as greenhouse gases.

3. Levels of atmospheric CO2 are rising?

They've been higher in the past and they've been lower.

4. Human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

Certainly the explosive growth in the human population would result in more CO₂ being released into the air due to respiration alone. Bovine flatulence is also known to release massive amounts of CO₂ (and methane - CO) into the air, not to mention the significant amount released by termites. Volcanoes are also shooting huge amounts of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases into the air every single year.

So when it comes right down to it, isolating exactly what amount of CO₂ is being put into the atmosphere by humanity as opposed to other organic/non-organic sources of it is as yet to be determined.

Furthermore, I see nothing in your four point progression with regard to the many complex interactions between the biosphere (i.e. how are plants - eaters of CO₂ - reacting to the increase in CO₂), hydrosphere, atmosphere, solar output, etc. that play a huge role in determining the nature of climate in various parts of the world.

"... some parts of the world and falling in other parts - some people call it summer. Glaciers are melting here and there and getting thicker at the same time there and here. That's why the in thing is to call it "Global Climate Change."

Well, yes. I acknowledge the existence of summer. I think the point is that there is a long term trend of increasing global temperature. I covered that in an earlier comment. I don't want to repeat myself. I can't help it if you won't read my earlier posts. That's not debating - that's just a refusal to read.

"Yes. So is water vapor. So is methane. Both are much more potent as greenhouse gases."

Yes. But you assume that models of climate change don't incorporate water vapor and methane, which of course isn't true. They all do. As far as water vapor goes, you're also missing the distinction that water vapor is not a climate "forcer". It varies as a function of temperature, which means that it actually amplifies the effect of placing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

To learn more:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

"They've been higher in the past and they've been lower."

Yes. And that correlates to temperature change in the climate record. Put that together with the fact that human activity is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you just proved my point.

"Certainly the explosive growth in the human population would result in more CO2 being released into the air due to respiration alone. Bovine flatulence is also known to release massive amounts of CO2 (and methane - CO) into the air, not to mention the significant amount released by termites. "

What? Are you claiming that the only CO2 that human activity releases is from breathing? Please see this for the real data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

Burning fossil fuel is by far the major source of human-produced carbon in the atmosphere, followed, I believe, by concrete production.

"Volcanoes are also shooting huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air every single year."

Not true, relative to human activity. See my earlier comment.

"So when it comes right down to it, isolating exactly what amount of CO2 is being put into the atmosphere by humanity as opposed to other organic/non-organic sources of it is as yet to be determined."

Not true, see my earlier links.

"Furthermore, I see nothing in your four point progression with regard to the many complex interactions between the biosphere (i.e. how are plants - eaters of CO2 - reacting to the increase in CO2), hydrosphere, atmosphere, solar output, etc. that play a huge role in determining the nature of climate in various parts of the world."

Anything specific here? You're kind of shotgunning me here.

IPCC is the Living Word of AlGod according to the AGW Cult
Worshippers.

IPCC is bought and paid for by the UN. Yes, that UN.

Give me a single reason that we should believe a word of it. Even the much-acclaimed '600 scientists' did not sign off on the report. There was no peer review, there were no extensive efforts to duplicate and verify experimental results.

It is well that you use the word 'hypothesis' because that perfectly describes the story the UN is selling. According to the actual Scientific Method, it is not the job of the skeptics to refute a hypothesis. It is the job of the hypothesizer to demonstrate the veracity of his hypothesis.

So, we're still waiting on the IPCC to actually produce some scientifically valid evidence in favor of their pet hypothesis.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

My first thought about this was that you know what I'm just not wired to believe in global warming because the libs believe in it so strongly and this is the same group that discounted the threats of communism, terrorism, and just about every other real threat out there. They're terrified that places like Gitmo represent an irreversible loss of our civil liberties (casually ignoring that American citizens will always have their constitutional rights) and not terrified at all of the signal it sends when we close down a Gitmo because it might make us look mean.

My BS meter goes into overdrive when they're concerned about something.

I did a quick search through factcheck and politifact (not that they are the ultimate authority) and they asserted that global warming was actually occurring, but my BS meter tingled so I came back here and sure enough, you point out that the IPCC is a U.N. construct and the IPCC was basically the trump card for both fact-checking websites.

Now, this doesn't mean I think "climate change" is for sure not going on, but it does mean I'm more likely to view their findings as hypothesis. Now FactCheck did mention that the United States National Academy of Sciences, along with Science Academies from 11 "leading industrial nations" (code for Euro-nations, which doesn't enhance credibility in my book) also thinks climate change is real.

Climate Change is one of those things where if we can do something that isn't terribly hurtful but might help with it, fine, I'm all for it. But the second it conflicts with anything I know is an actual concern (economy, security, etc.)...not so much.

Again, is there a specific conclusion that you feel isn't justified? You're speaking in such general terms it's impossible to even begin a discussion.

How about you assert something yourself, and I'll refute it. State something, put your reputation at risk, because that is what you are asking me to do.

I have a degree in Zoology, I have over 100 hours in life and physical science courses. What I tell you I am willing to stake my rep on. I do not forward some lame link and let that speak for me.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

"Gristmill" is a propaganda site.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

"Propaganda" implies a lie being deliberately spread.

Is there something specific in the links that I've posted that you feel is incorrect? You need to justify your use of the term.

Look at all the postings on the front page of the site and they all reinforce the liberal agenda. To put it more mildly, it's not impartial. They're against drilling in ANWR, they talk about the "Angry Earth"...it may not be the most rabid site out there but it isn't rhetoric free, which harms the case for it as an absolute authority to prove that climate change exists, that's all.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. By that logic:

1. All the postings on the front page of redstate.com reinforce the conservative agenda.

2. It's not impartial.

3. Everything that redstate.com posts must be a lie.

As a global response to the comments - if you have a specific scientific finding in the global warming hypothesis that you feel is untrue, let's talk.

Otherwise, it's just a shouting match that wastes everyone's time.

Look I know you're itching to try out your responses to specific denial strategies as outlined by Gristmill but I'm not your guy; I freely admit I have doubts about the IPCC and U.N.'s impartiality so really there's not much out there that's going to convince me. Such a position is really immune to any sort of logic that attempts to argue from authority, and since that argument is the only sort that's out there for AGW, this is tantamount to me saying I'm closed-minded on the subject. For the moment.

However, my statement was of the form that partisan rhetoric means that a given source should not be put forth as the absolute authority on a subject. My statement was NOT of the form that partisan rhetoric = all lies. Good try for the strawman though. I would never, have not, and did not, assert that information on Redstate should be taken as ultimate authority.

You, on the other hand, argued that you were seeing arguments here that could be refuted by things found on gristmill; an implication that gristmill was an authority above a partisan source (Redstate). The only threshold I needed to meet to damage that argument was one of showing that gristmill was not some sort of impartial source.

If I've misrepresented you or put up my own strawman by all means call me on it, but you surely misrepresented me.

I think we may be at the end of our discussion, akopp54. You're not giving any specifics to debate. That's fine. However, I am curious. You say:

"However, my statement was of the form that partisan rhetoric means that a given source should not be put forth as the absolute authority on a subject."

What would you consider a reasonable scientific authority on this topic? Why? Why would you consider them more valid than the IPCC?

Additionally, many of the pieces of information that I've tried to share are actually NASA and NOAA research. Our own government's scientific bodies. Do you consider them more valid than the UN and the IPCC? If not, why?

Finally, what are the scientific sources that you've used to construct *your* opinion? I think that's a reasonable question.

A general sense of unease isn't really a valid position, or even a debatable one.

seriously, that's why I admitted I'm closed-minded on this for now and specifically advised you that I wasn't a person to argue this with, and that I wouldn't be dragged into specifics. I don't have the depth of knowledge on this particular issue.

In cases such as this I formulate what I call a "weak" opinion using other methods as a proxy for exhaustive research, methods such as going against whatever liberals or greenies think is important. I make no denial that my position is based upon anything other than this crude sort of logic.

My only point was just that I did do enough looking to determine that gristmill wasn't unimpeachable. If you have information from NASA and NOAA then my instinct is that they will be above the U.N. in terms of reliability, which is in turn above gristmill, but since I refuse to pore over the NASA/NOAA stuff at the moment I remain unconvinced (through no fault of your own I might add).

You might reasonably ask "so why nit-pick my use of gristmill as an authority?" and I'm afraid I don't have a good answer to that. I don't think it's particularly fair to surgically nit-pick, yet that's what I did.

...

Akopp54's response is good, but I wanted to add and expand.

Actually, "propaganda" is "information that is often biased or misleading, used to promote a political cause or point of view" (Compact OED, my emphasis added) It doesn't have to be untrue. It's basically information that's provided to convince others that a particular position is the correct one.

Perhaps the key is that a propagandist doesn't care much about what he says as long as he gets the desired results, and that is what separates real propaganda from simple advertising and from honest partisan rhetoric (both of which could be considered subsets of propaganda).

In its most benign form, it's admitted up front that the information is coming from proponents of one side of an argument, and the information itself is not misleading (that is, it's accurate) but it is aimed at supporting only one side's position. It is left up to the other side(s) to present contradictory evidence. And in that form most people wouldn't even call it propaganda; they'd call it advocating a position, even if it happens to be from a biased source. ("Biased" in this case means "coming from a certain ideological perspective.")

And that is why your analogy to RedState falls apart--Point 3 doesn't logically follow from Points 1 and 2.

The situation at RedState is we advocate certain Conservative and Republican positions, but we don't advocate lying or even shading the truth to convince you we're right. In fact, winning an argument by false premises isn't really winning. It's the kind of victory that works in court (where it may still be overturned on appeal) and at the ballot box (where we get to try again in a few years if the lie or error is discovered). There may be some people here who think that's OK, but I couldn't identify who they would be. We all spend too much time trying to convince one another that we're right about some minor detail to waste time lying about Big Reality on paper.

To touch on Gristmill, "Environmental News and Commentary:"

What I see there is a site that includes the usual disclaimer: "The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?"

It also claims that "We exist to tell the untold stories, spotlight trends before they become trendy, and engage the apathetic. We're fiercely independent in our coverage; we throw brickbats when they're needed and bestow kudos when they're warranted."

This amounts to a claim that they're "unbiased" and "science-based." However, one can look far and deep into the grist from the Mill and find little to no respectful acknowledgment of the legitimate observations of the shortcomings of the AGW theory. Of course, they might say that those observations are specious and therefore don't deserve respectful acknowledgment, but once they do they become advocates, not unbiased observers.

By pretending to be unbiased, they convert what would otherwise just be advocacy rhetoric into partisan propaganda. It's propaganda because it presents only one side while claiming to be the result of carefully considering all sides of the argument and coming to a conclusion based on that consideration. It presents "information that is often biased or misleading," and uses it "to promote a political cause or point of view."

To respond to "if you have a specific scientific finding in the global warming hypothesis that you feel is untrue, let's talk" I will only say that there are thousands of comments in the blogosphere that point out such "scientific findings." They're made by more authoritative people than I. Some of them were even made upstream in this thread. That'll have to suffice.

RedState is a partisan, advocacy website, presenting reasoned arguments about the political scene.

Gristmill is a propaganda site, posing as an unbiased source of scientific information, presenting one side as if it were the entire argument.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

While I appreciate your comments on the definition of propaganda, I hope you'll respect my desire to stick to the discussion of global warming on this thread. If you have something specific to rebut as far as the evidence goes, I'd be happy to continue.

You responded to my criticism of Gristmill.

You misconstrued the meaning of propaganda, then tried to use that to imply that if Gristmill was propaganda, so was RedState.

I rebutted your false analogy, and provided the reasoning behind my original statement. You must have either found my logic irrefutable or you didn't read it, since you didn't mention it in your response.

I also told you to find your AGW arguments elsewhere.

This thread is not all about AGW. It's half about the use of the "Hitler Analogy" against people who disagree with the High Priests of AGW. My contribution was merely to point out that one of your reference sources was highly questionable; not to be taken at face value.

But here's a specific objection to the AGW claim that we can mitigate the effects of worldwide "pollution" (to use non-scientific shorthand) by cutting "carbon usage" in the US while China and India pollute willy-nilly in an attempt to achieve first-world status. The AGW acolytes can't even prove their own case, and they never talk about the cost of what they propose to do to "solve" the supposed problem. And even if they're right about the problem, their solutions have been shown to be ineffective.

You can tell that AGW is a scam the same way you can tell there won't be a real "Half-man/Half-alligator" in that sideshow tent, that "therapeutic touch" (which doesn't actually touch anything) is just the placebo effect, and that taking small amounts of high-priced distilled water will not cure the gout.

What do they all have in common with AGW? They all have a sort of sideshow barker saying "Come on in, see and solve the mysteries of the universe for just one thin dime." Only True Believers think those things are real.

After exchanging comments with you and reading your comments to others, my considered opinion is that you're a classic time-waster. You are interested in neither teaching nor learning. You just want to waste our time.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I'm trying to share valuable information with you. If you consider that a waste of my time, fine.

I don't want to get into the Hitler thing. I know that the story talks about it. It's just not what I'm choosing to debate. So I'll cede the floor on that. I'm here to talk about the science.

To this:

"But here's a specific objection to the AGW claim that we can mitigate the effects of worldwide "pollution" (to use non-scientific shorthand) by cutting "carbon usage" in the US while China and India pollute willy-nilly in an attempt to achieve first-world status. The AGW acolytes can't even prove their own case, and they never talk about the cost of what they propose to do to "solve" the supposed problem. And even if they're right about the problem, their solutions have been shown to be ineffective."

I think I've covered this pretty extensively at this point.

OK. I won't be wasting my time. But where is your hindcasting comment?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

An invisible comment about Ice Cores
Invisible comment about Hindcasting.

We'll hit double digits for you, soon.

Hindcasting:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

Plus some bonus debunking of your other shots on regional change:

Sea Surface:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5302/957

Lower vs. Upper Atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

what you think they do.

First your graph

If you had actually read the article in science you linked to (It helps if you are a member of the AAAS) You would see it states the that the observed temperatures are not consistent with the models.

And all I can say is that there is no discernible point to the others. You have a simulation and an article about boreholes.

Do these things hold any meaning except in your demented ramblings ?

Makes my point about the downward inflection in temps since 1998

Still more for you.

More on ice cores:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

I went for a popular discussion this time, although I'm sure it will fall into your odd link blind spot.

"And all I can say is that there is no discernible point to the others. You have a simulation."

Yes. Remember how you asked about hindcasting. That is a "simulation" the page I directed you to is a hindcasting run started at a point in the past, and matched with recorded data. That is the definition of "hindcasting". It is a "simulation". I know you know this.

And yes, I posted another link refuting 1998. The I demolished your larger argument on points vs. trends. Again.

And I'm happy to see you're still hiding from the 1998 El Nino. Every time you bring this up again, it makes you look worse. I love it.

At this point I can scarcely credit your lack of reasoning ability.

Yes it is easy to have simulations match old data. This is nothing special. Most people can do it by picking up an old newspaper. I suspect even you might have a fair chance of telling me what happened yesterday. What would be interesting is predicting something in the past that is then confirmed by digging it up

The real trick is of course, getting the future right. What neither you nor the climate models have been able to do.

You see this is Hansen's model from the mid 80's.

The red scenario is the one closest to what has actually happened. Increased CO2 output and no major volcanic eruptions.

The blue scenario that we match closest. Assumes major volcanic activity and significantly reduced CO2 output.

That is called getting it wrong.

P.S. Do you understand what looks worse means ? I don't think the words mean what you think they do.

man and buicks traversed the Earth, before human and bovive flatulence, Edison's light bulb, snail darters and ideas to protect frozen tundras. An ant just damaged by front porch. The damage is quite minuscule.

I am not posting graphs on ant stomping damage. I can't discern the beginning of a non-manmade global warming era that would dwarf me and China's efforts to grow corn atop Mt Everest.

My solutions to global warming:

umbrella
ac
I-40 to tsunami free Kansas

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

being in the ground almost everywhere in the coastal plains of NC.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/21360/608

How else do you propose testing climate models other than testing them on past data? Answer - there is no other way. And you know it. It's a false argument.

Still ducking 1998 El Nino? Priceless.

the future is far more impressive. Otherwise, you get the . .. well the models are accurate when you factor in particular circumstances X, Y, and Z.

Much more impressive to factor in X, Y, and Z BEFORE the data is captured rather than say "of course . . ." after the fact.

Uhmm You make your prediction then wait for data to happen.

This is called predicting.

What is your point about El Nino ? You keep repeating it like a deranged parrot ? Is your point that you should be able disregard any year you don't like ?? Can you actually say something that makes any sense ??

Finally once again what you post doesn't say what you think it does.

I did not erase the two bottom lines from the graph.

Mount Pinatubo was in 1993 not 2000, CO2 emissions accelerated invalidating the line B.

Finally Line C has the best match to observed data.

I ask again are you really this stupid that you post an article that doesn't even address the point you are trying to make.

Well, it seems that it's down to just you and me, joliphant.

I can't say I relish the special hell that would be re-introducing you to the same data that you keep on ignoring through the small hours of the morning, so I'm going to pack it in.

Last points. Again. Seriously.

"What is your point about El Nino ? You keep repeating it like a deranged parrot ? Is your point that you should be able disregard any year you don't like ?? Can you actually say something that makes any sense ??"

My point is that El Nino is a climatic event that warms the planet. 1998 was an El Nino year. It was, in fact, the strongest El Nino in a century. So yes, I am calling shenanigans on you clinging to it as the gold standard.

It's like measuring the temps in your backyard all summer long, and only paying attention to the one day you had a BBQ, instead of looking at the long term trend.

Is that simple enough for you?

Plus - and this is the perfect point - it wasn't even the warmest year!

I really, honestly fail to understand why you're saying the NASA article doesn't say that on the graph.

This is the graph from that article:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif

Are you holding the graph sideways? What are you doing?

Since you've pretty much abandoned the field on everything else, I guess this is the best I can expect.

Nobody did though. What has been said is that global temperature peaked in 1998 and has been on a downward trend since then.

Oddly enough 2008 is at the point where it looks like it will nail the lid on that coffin. once and for all.

2005 warmest ??

Data from the Goddard Space Sciences institute refutes the data set that Hansen maintains.

Data from NOAA refutes it.

DATA from Hdcru refutes it.

USHCN refutes it.

why don't you try googling for Hansen Adjusts temperature data.

So yes I rule out GISS data as adjusted by Hansen because he has a rather lot on the line in how it comes out. And he has acted in the past to change things to a more favorable out come.

Seeing as you like to argue trend vs data point. Here is a question for you.

If you have a set of experimental data and you have to make adjustments to compensate for random error at collection points what are the odds that all of the adjustments will be in the direction of your pet theory ???

P.S. If you think 2005 is the hottest year why did you put up a link to the graph showing it clearly wasn't.

Like I said: Are you really this stupid ?

First line of the article:

"The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world."

Plus - bonus - the 3rd, 4th, and 5th warmest years were 2002-04.

And you're still ducking trend vs. data point.

Once again your own graph from your own link disputes your point.

As to the data. It seems the people at Goddard got a different result from Mr. Hansen. It seems the people at NOAA got a different result from Mr. Hansen. It seems the National academy of sciences could only say that Mr. Hansen's Hockey stick was possible.

As to trend vs data point. The current trend since 1998 is -.07 degrees per decade. It is looking like 2008 will pull that down -.2 or more per decade.

What is your point ??

I consider the two sides of the AGW argument to be reasonably well divided into the theoreticians with their computer models and the experimentalists with their emphasis on observations. A good sourse for the latter is:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

I invite you to read if you wish.

As an example of what you will find: They offer a graph of GT over the last four hundred years, i.e., from the time the Earth began recovering from the Little Ice Age. It shows no change in slope that correlates with the beginning of significant anthropogenic CO2 production. Inferrence-- CO2 ain't that important! It becomes incumbent on the AGW types to produce a climate model that explains the GT increase before 1800, and why CO2 has become THE major forcing factor without increasing the slope.

No one claims that CO2 is the only controller of global temperature historically. What is claimed is that:

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.
2. We're pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. Global temperatures are increasing.

3 is false as shown to you above, temperatures have been dropping since 1998. Try again.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

I'm just one guy. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. Please at least do me the courtesy of rea ding what I write. I already showed that:

* It's not true that 1998 is the hottest year on record. 2005 was.

* That confuses at trend with a single data point. The topic is the long term *trend*.

Hadcrut disagrees with you.

So does the IPCC

So does the NASA at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Climate Research Network.

Well done.

Actually, NASA agrees with me:

Another link. Repeated. Again. For you. Joliphant.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

And, I feel like we're close to getting you wrapped up, if 1998 is what you're clinging to.

First, you haven't rebutted the point that 1998 was the strongest El Nino in over a century.

Second, the five year trend line on your own graph - your own graph - continues to rise. I love it when you help me out.

Third, you continue to misunderstand the difference between "trend" and "data point"

Is there a "1998 had a strong El Nino" movement that you mistake me as being an advocate of? I'm discussing the long-term trend to Global Warming.

I'm going to repeat it for you.

I'm discussing the long-term trend to Global Warming.

When you want to discuss that, let me know.

and global warming is really a question of chemistry.

Its a tad bit difficult.

Second. We are talking about a ten year period and a ten year trend. We have had this conversation about picking time windows to shave off data before

Here
http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/hey_you_if_you_are_reading_this_...

BTW just a note when I say I said something I can actually point out where I said it.

As to my misunderstanding I think not. Please take a look at the top graph and the bottom graph.

The top Graph is from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit who responsible for most of the historical data that underlie your position.

The bottom is from the Goddard institute. The difference between it and what you present is that is Mr. Hansen did not get to doctor the data.

http://www.google.com/search?q=hansen+adjusts+temperature+data&ie=utf-8&...

Its not good when someone who has a history of fabricating data is providing you your argument.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504563

Committee chair Gerald North of Texas A&M says they have high confidence that the last few decades have been the warmest in 400 years. But if you ask whether the past few decades have been the warmest in a thousand years, the committe uses a much weaker word: "plausible."

And "plausible" is another way of saying it doesn't meet the scientific standards of certainty. That's because it's also possible there were major warm periods long ago that don't show up in the hockey stick data.

Or would you like to accuse NPR of being in the pay of big oil ???

Is this the same Hansen Partick Michaels got caught in a lie about?

Yep. So who's really doctoring the info?

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/04/rtfr-i-rather-strange-push-back-has.h...

Plus, I seem to be the one talking about a trend. You're the guy stuck on the phantom 1998 data.

nothing to see here

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

some of us ignore you and others of us would be happy to spit on you.

How about...
1. I love my wife more now than I di 27 years ago when we got married.
2. The earth is warmer now than in 1981.
3. I should divorce my wife so the earth will cool.

That has all logic and provable stuff that your statement does.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

This is what you're reduced to? Trying to throw up the correlation/causation smoke screen? You're making me work hard by arguing for you, then against you.

Do you mean:

No correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and what we emit? If not, I can keep coming up with arguments for you.

first Chevy spat its first fume, half of my state was under the Atlantic.

http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/05/the_sun_and_john_coleman_vs_...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

You are wasting your (CO2-laced) breath. The people here are not knuckle-dragging, drool-emitting morons. Many of us have spent a lot of time studying this topic. Go back through the archives and read the plethora of threads on this. Some of us have even studied meteorology and climatology at the university level. We are not ignorant of the alleged evidence.

The fact is that the vast majority of the residents here, with one or two notable exceptions, simply don't buy what you're selling. We have either completely written off this so-called evidence, or we feel that it is sufficiently weak to avoid driving the world into an economic holocaust to fix a problem that MIGHT exist.

You are not bringing some sort of big revelation to Redstate. We've seen it. We've heard it. We bought the t-shirt.

No sale.

First, I don't think you're morons.

Second, have you really had this discussion before? Because the evidence that I've heard so far this evening has all been either debunked for years, or is simply made up.

What does the "1546" part of your name represent? I like this sort of thing so I'd love to know what meaning it has behind an otherwise random appearance.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Don't know what to say about that. It is true, I am a new member.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

or maybe just plain inaccurate and unable to make actionable predictions would be more precise?

N/T

Does this actually work in other debates?

Open up with an insult, than follow up with something that the other person already disproved?

Nothing like declaring debate to be closed.

When debate is truly closed, there is no reason to declare it.

Note the lack of people declaring the debate on general relativity closed.

Is there a question in there somewhere about the science?

Now I have a question for you, and I hope you answer truthfully.

Have you ever taken a chemistry class in college?

routinely do what you accused someone here on RedState of doing.

for sun rises to crow. I am a patient cock. It's my game.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum multiple times on Redstate. Take some time and read back through the archives.

And we've had others who have thought they were the smartest man in the room here before. Are you by chance the AGW-reincarnation of BrooksRob? (inside joke...)

It's really AnthropoGENIC Global Warming, but I like yours better! ;>))

I've probably made that mistake before. Guess I've been reading "Get Fuzzy" and "Pearls Before Swine" too much lately. My carbon footprint is starting to wonder where my carbon handprint is.

In fact, the whole thing is just too anthropocentric for it to be anything but a conceit.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

means "made in the image of Man" or "made out to be Man".

Anthropopathic means attributing human feeling to inhuman things.

Anthropogenic means Man-made.

Anthropocentric means "centered on Man", and this is how I see the A in AGW. The pro-AGW crowd believes Man to be the source of all evil in the universe.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

I see we agree on the "anthropocentric" part.

However, there must be some disagreement among dictionaries about "anthropomorphic." My Compact OED defines it as "treated as if having human feelings," which you say is "anthropopathic." I believe that "anthropopathic" is somewhat more directed to assigning human feelings to God, while "anthropomorphic" refers more commonly to inanimate objects, animals, and the Disney and Warner Brothers back lots.

"Dueling Dictionaries:"
do do doo do doo do doo do d...

(falls out of rocker and off the porch)

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

HTML Help for Red Staters

HTML Help for Red Staters

It must be all that yiffing.

If you don't know what that means, trust me, you don't want to.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Everyone can just get a dolphin alt, and we're set.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I don't know if it's even fair to go after you. This is more about what you believe that what probable reality is. But, since I feel that a lot of people share your opinions, here we go:

"How big must man's ego be to assume that he can cause damage to something as big and complex as this planet, which has experienced drastic climate changes since God made it."

So, I guess what you're saying is that we can never cause any damage to the planet. Do you really believe this to be true? Even stone age man had huge effects on the environment.

Also, this isn't the question. The question is if global warming will negatively affect the conditions for the human race.

"Climate science is too new a science for man to even begin to have a grasp on it."

What does this mean? If science finds evidence to support a hypothesis, it's valid. Science isn't a banana - it doesn't have to ripen for a certain amount of time before it's good.

"Computer models can be, and often are, wrong because they're only as good as the people programming them."

True in general, but - many climate models have already made predictions that have been confirmed. James Hansen's 1988 predictions, based on his computer modeling, have been proven true.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/21360/608

Also - but not an exhaustive list -

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5302/957

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected:

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html

And, of course, models are tested using hindcasting - that is, starting the model at a point in the past and seeing if it correctly predicts current conditions. The has also been done successfully:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

The only other thing that you said that was really debatable was:

"No matter how many "greenhouse" gasses we spew into the atmosphere from all parts of the globe, they won't equal what is sent from one volcanic eruption"

If that were true, every time there was a volcanic eruption we would see a huge spike in CO2 for that year. That simply doesn't show up in the data. In fact, human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. To learn more, please see:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Notice this is the USGS, not the UN or the IPCC.

Global warming predicts accelerated warming in the tropics

It hasn't happened

It predicts accelerated warming in the Antarctic

Hasn't happened

It predicts rising ocean temperatures

Hasn't happened.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

It predicts global ice levels to drop

Hasn't happened
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wit...

It predicts and that CO2 should be the primary correlation to temperature

It isn't

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167#B18

Have you noticed that the topic is "global warming."?

No one has ever claimed that there wouldn't be regional differences. Please don't Straw Man me.

What scientists claim is that global temperatures are increasing. Please see my many, many other posts.

Judging from this and the other thread, Joliphant, you seem to have a real aversion to actually reading what I post. It makes it hard to have a discussion with you.

I state quite clearly

That these are predictions made by the theory of AGW that are contradicted.

The regions I specified are supposed to warm.

The troposphere discrepancy is very Damning as 22 global warming models predicted the opposite of what happened.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

Now let me explain something to you.

When a model makes predictions that don't pan out there is a word for that model.

The word for that model is WRONG !!!

Understand model makes predictions that don't happen model is wrong.

Ignoring this and saying the science is settled is not called science it is called wishful thinking.

Nobody is that dumb. He's yanking your chain.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

By nationalizing the oil industry.
They aren't the dumb ones, the people that vote for them are.

But yes I think you are correct Flagstaff. Nobody could be this stupid.

You didn't read my earlier post on hindcasting, which handles the model prediction question.

Here it is. Another piece of evidence repeated for you. Again. Joliphant.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Which post was that?

Your link certainly doesn't refute J's assertions. His link refutes yours.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

My information shows that models are able to run predictions correctly starting in the past.

I don't know if it's even fair to go after you.This is more about what you believe that what probable reality is.

Did not the title of my comment say: How about as unscientific as you can get?

I wasn't trying to be scientific. I could care less if you "go after me."

Every species on this planet creates a footprint upon it... always have. If people foul up their living space they die, plain and simple. I don't need the government to tell me that. Common sense will tell me that.

And the sad part is I probably use less energy and leave a smaller "carbon footprint" than just about everybody else who visits here... and not because I'm afraid of global warming or global cooling or the more correct way of saying it now: climate change.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

at least with respect to fighting cocks

so go on with your minor league sparring with ...as serious growth is unavailed

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

to this "Man on A Mission." This person is here to educate us poor stupid conservatives. They have their little website that supports their "beliefs" and they don't want us to just "Say No!" when it comes to denying their convenient conclusions. Somewhere, dinosaurs are laughing.

When I said "I could care less..." it should have been "I couldn't care less..."

http://hillbillypolitics.com

Fair enough.

It's interesting that you think I'm anti-conservative. Both the current Republican president and the current Republican presidential nominee agree the human caused global warming is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Why is it anti-conservative?

HTML Help for Red Staters

The former is a particular philosophy. The latter is a national coalition political party.

HTML Help for Red Staters

You are new here, aren't you? The current Republican presidential nominee and the current Republican president are hardly considered dictionary definitions of conservatism. I consider their opinions on global warming about as valid as my Boston Terrier's.

Seriously? I'm an independent, so this is a surprise to me. I did not know that. Interesting.

up whimpering in the fetal position on the floor as a result of jousts with GC, but, hey, are you a chicken hawk?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

here they are

http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/hey_you_if_you_are_reading_this_...

and since we can control the climate, what is the optimum climate?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

anti-conservative.

Both theories are used to justify policies with costs far in excess of and out of proportion to any proven validity of the models.

Any theory that C02 is a pollutant (given that C02 is necessary for plants, and plants create oxygen) is anti-conservative in my book.

A does not follow B.

CO2 is poison for us. It's a waste product of our metabolism. That's why breathing into and out of a bag makes you pass out. That is why we exhale it. Does that make it a pollutant?

No.

It's a pollutant because it causes the climate to warm.

A follows b, here

Baby

now answer my questions

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

with CO2 poisonings. Per victim.

call BR549

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

One of the first things you learn in a college chemistry class is that no chemical reaction goes to completion. In other words, all reactions are about equilibriums going both ways. Biological and ecological systems, which are really just complex chemical systems, are constrained by the same feedback loops.

First, warming per se increases plant growth which increases the C02 metabolized from the atmosphere by plants. As a whole, plants like warm weather. Lots of plants at the equator. Not so many around polar ice caps. Plants themselves act against any kind of prolonged C02 based warming. There are more trees in North America today then there were in 1776.

Second, increase C02 itself increases plant growth which in turn increases the C02 metabolized from the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that there are a million different ways that the atmosphere of the earth reacts to increased C02, and virtually all of them will act in the other direction---by reducing C02.

C02 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas in any case.

First.

Thank you for making valid points in a respectful manner.

I really do appreciate that.

Yes, that is a great point. Plants, among other things, do pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. And yes, there are more trees in the US now than in the past, which is great news.

However, there's a limit to how much plants can pull out of the system. And that limit has, in the case been reached - as seen by the increasing rates of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This isn't just because of man-made CO2 - the plant based CO2 sink has been overloaded before by geologic processes that dumped huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the the air.

PS - Please notice that I said the past. Volcanoes, etc, today are nowhere near that active.

It's dangerous to assume feedback processes pull the earth back to a base temperature - the earth's history has really been one of extreme temperature swings - with dire consequences for life.

That's why it's a shame that we're currently causing such a shift to happen.

Yes, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. But, we're dumping enormous amounts of it into the atmosphere. More than enough to make a difference.

PS - What's up with gamecock? Is he some sort of Redstate inside joke?

Both as a result of temperature increases and C02 increases?

I am not aware of any model that even attempts to do so.

It is precisely these types of biological and chemical feedback loops that AGW doesn't even attempt to take into consideration.

If I was going to attack AGW in a single scientific phrase it would be as follows:

AGW models presume that all reactions go to completion when in fact the OPPOSITE is true

The fact that the earth has had all sorts of wild climactic swings unconnected to C02 makes the current apocolypse less credible.

The fact that the earth recovered from such heat waves in the past itself suggests that the feedback loops I am talking about are far more robust than you give them credit.

If greenhouse cases were a one way ticket to GW, how did cooling ever happen?

I think it's not true to say "recovered" historically, shifts have happened in both directions. There's plenty of evidence that climactic systems can get stuck in runaway climate change. See Mars for a system that's stuck on the cold end, and Venus for a system that's stuck on the warm end.

I'm not saying that the planet will end up in either case, but making the point that an assumption of recovery is not always valid.

Previous climatic cycles, once they settled in, stayed that way for thousands, even millions of years.

Is that what we want? Especially when we can avoid it at a reasonable cost?

"go to completion" is indicative of your position on AGW. Reactions do not go to completion--all chemical reactions are really just states of equilibrium.

Interesting how Mars has lots of C02 in its atmosphere, and yet it is suffering from Global Cooling. I thought greenhouse gases where supposed to result in Global Warming?

To be honest, I do think some global warming would actually be good for mankind.

Quick point.

Mars has a high *percentage* of CO2 in it's atmosphere.

However, it has a very *thin* atmosphere. I think that's the distinction that may be getting missed here.

Venus, on the other hand has a high *percentage* of CO2 in it's atmosphere, and a very *thick* atmosphere. And lead melts on it's surface.

Difference between percentage composition and absolute amount.

more than the contents of the atmosphere? In which case, C02 omissions should not be our focus, should they?

I am fully aware of the distinctions. Additional variables not addressed by any AGW model I am aware of.

All sorts of additional variables in a complex equilibrium.

yes having 90 times the atmospheric pressure of earth a nearly tidaly locked rotation and receiving nearly 40% more sunlight than the earth are insignificant.

You must be mistaking me for someone who's trying to talk about CO2 on other planets. You guys are the ones who brought that up as a valid comparison to the carbon cycle on Earth, not me.

So again, you kind of proved my point, joliphant.

Want to talk about 1998 some more?

If Mars is loaded with C02 and yet is stuck on cold, then there are other factors which negate the greenhouse impact of C02.

Every AGW model ignores so so so many variables.

Actually you are proving the maxim about arguing on the internet.

If you don't understand what I am saying well, at least that will be one thing you don't understand and are actually aware of the fact.

Have a good evening perhaps pick up a couple of puzzles and see if you can solve them on your own.

Sure I'd love to talk about 1998 are you ever going to say something about it ?? Oh unless you write gristmill it doesn't count as your saying something.

P.S. No I am taking you as the person who posted about Venus here http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/hey_you_if_you_are_reading_this_...

as a result of too much C02.

Earth suffered from Global Cooling from too much C02 until about 1980, when the too much C02 caused Global Warming.

When does Mars start to warm up from Global Warming?

You've stated several times that we can avoid excessive temperature rise by the U.S. sharply reducing CO2 (which you hope will convince the rest of the world to do likewise - a dubious contention, but one which is tangential to the questions I'd raise).

What is the marginal cost curve for U.S.-based CO2 reductions? How much would it cost to go to 10% reduction vs 20% reduction vs 50% reduction - and at what time scale (i.e. reduction by 2015, 2025, 2050, for example would have a different cost association)?

Of course, this reduction does depend on your strategy for reducing CO2 emission. For instance, you've mentioned nuclear favorably (which is going to be a very hard sell politically with the a Democratic party-controlled Congress in the foreseeable future). But arguendo that we can drop all the obstructions to nuclear, what impact will that have on CO2 emissions (keeping in mind the increasing energy demands of an increasing U.S. population, which is a function of how far out your projecting these projects come on line)? And what will it cost to bring these plants on line?

And finally, how do you measure whether these interventions are actually working? How will you measure the impact on world climate of the U.S. reducing by 20% vs. 50% vs. 75%. Without being able to measure this to come up with a benefit curve, you can't define the benefit of intervention. And without defining the benefit, there's no way to assess whether the cost is worth incurring - are to define an optimal level of intervention. After all, more is not better after some point (and that point may be the starting point, but that's another matter).

I'll stop here for now

And Rightly So!

Good economic discussion.

My main goal tonight, and I need to wrap it up, is to discuss the scientific basis of human-caused global warming.

I'd invite you to read the American Enterprise discussion of their carbon tax proposal. I found it very informative, and it has far more data than I'd be able to provide in the discussion thread.

and none of the veterans here at redstate that engaged in the discussion of irrelevant minutia with you answered my questions either, and never have. Because to do so would reveal the puniness of the preoccupation with MAN's puny contribution to climate on planet earth and thus diminish the contributors to such an iconic indulgence.

Every word spoken lends credibility to a vote for Obama. Good work 1546. You made this Redstate take a vacation from its mission.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Is the Breakfast Club still open in Charlotte?

lesterblog.blogspot.com

with no access to take out menu was made public

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Gamecock is definitely not an inside joke. He is kept outside at all times and is allowed on the porch only if it's raining, but never, EVER, allowed on the porch swing. (He's been know to suffer from motion sickness after enjoying too many Southern Comforts.)

He is the Guardian of the Gate, the Young Turk of the Yard, and woe unto the interloper who dares to attempt entry into our community by means of flummery. Strangely attractive to hens of all types, he can't be bribed with chicken feed of any kind, but he can be distracted by SEC football, especially if the currently unfortunate but still valiant true USC is involved.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

feels the love and abandons evangelistic effort to convert navelgazers, video game addicts, those concerned with digits to the right of the decimal and, well, nerds. I rarely use this word, but I "feel" (yes, the tough ass rooster has feelings) like spat lukewarm spue evaporating on cracked concrete.

Maybe the civil truth is that once my distraction with the Braves (even more loved than the garnet and black) was over, I shouldn't have peeked under the circus tent to discover joli' and 'ski's indulgences.

My questions remain ignored and thus unanswered and admitted under FRCP discovery rules.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

answer my questions.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/hey_you_if_you_are_reading_this_...

Do you hate the homeless? Have you determined the optimum earth temp for:

liberty?
equality?
maximum happiness pursuits?

What is the #1 cause of death of the homeless?

These are serious questions.

More

Before man walked the earth, much less before SUVs rolled same, nature managed to warm the globe so much that half of NC and SC were under the Atlantic.

Yes, when I fart or breathe, I warm the Earth.

Answer the questions or you will be stalked.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

North America than there were in 1776.

For me, that means he is not a kook.

Kooks always fight back on that representation.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

strawmen. You guys are navel gazing. Penny wise and pound foolish.

And if I am wrong, and man really can significantly determine climate, then let's

a - determine the optimum climate

and

b - dial it up before more homeless die of frostbite so rich folks keep their Myrtle Beach investments

I am only half kidding.

Seriously, can anyone claim that its best for the climate not to get warmer?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Seriously, can anyone claim that its best for the climate not to get warmer?

Nature has to shut down from time to time, to replenish the earth from which plants gather the nutrients they need for growth. Plants don't get it out of the atmosphere,they get it from the grounds, through their roots.

Earlier on this thread I made a statement about how it feels and smells after a long period of freezing cold and after a rain. There are reasons for those.

Yes, I worry about the homeless, too, and especially homeless veterans, but there are some things beyond man's control and that does not sit well with man's ego.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

I don't really care about homeless people, poor people living on the streets or flophouses. There is a reason for my callousness.

I spent several years working poor missions for churches and a program for the government. In that time my sympathy turned into scorn.

People in this condition don't get there overnight. You have to work hard at it. You have to not give a damn about yourself or anyone else.

Almost universally they were stupid, manipulative, drunk or high, and prone to violence.

They should be swept off of the streets and put into camps. You can give them all the drugs or booze they want in the camp and let them kill themselves which is what they really want. Or offer rehab if they are serious about trying to help themselves.

What we should NOT do is what we do now, let them rule the streets and make it less safe for the normal citizens.

Misplaced compassion is one of the hallmarks of the failed policies of socialism and the immorality of playing with other peoples lives just so that you feel good about yourself.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

ing more people from becoming same.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

the height of hubris for tiny man to deign to think he warms the globe to an significant degree. I am the lawyer for The Sun in a slander lawsuit.

http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/05/the_sun_and_john_coleman_vs_...

And unlike Kyle, I do care about the homeless and act on it.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

global warming would actually be a benefit to mankind

embrace technology and leave a large footprint

A similar issue that enrages me are fellow lawyers that loathe these dangerous activist scotus opinions but always say that its essential that bush says he will abide them. I guess if they rule that we all cut our throats, we will have to defer.

see my sig line

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

side). I need these science-based discussions to equal out some of the legal theory discussions that we get stuck into.

Besides, I like the words gravitons and tachyons and try to use them whenever possible. Geek points to make at a favorite watering hole (easy bets to win free drinks)

(1) The speed of light is NOT constant. It is constant in a vacuum, but light slows down in non-vacuum environments, such as air, water, or diamonds.

(2) Nutrinos actually do have mass (this fact was discovered relatively recently, but most of learned to the contrary in college)

(3) There are theoretical particles known as gravitons (had 2 science PhDs think I was making this up)

(4) Although Einstein's theory of general relativity suggests that it takes infinite energy to accelerate something to the speed of light (ergo, it can't be done), it is theoretically possible for a particle to always be moving past the speed of light, and such a particle is referred to as a tachyon (a star trek favorite).

These four points have kept free beers flowing over the years.

in 4 dimensions, and that we've only been taught Heaviside's 3-D simplifications?

I've been a fan of "frontier science" for a long time. Just wondered how much you've gotten into some of the "hyperdimensional" stuff.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

of relativistic mechanics?

I find the "hyperdimensional" stuff fascinating because I don't understand any of it. I tried reading a paper on superstring theory once and I found it both fascinating and incomprehensible.

And I have no idea how gravity can be both a wave and a particle like photons are, while be a fundamental force at the same time. Of course, it may not be. These concepts are cool, but way over my pay grade.

If *anyone* had yet succesfully gotten gravity going at quantum scales, we'd have heard of a nobel prize for it by now I think :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters

the person was even talking about. Its like there would be 2 people in the world who could distinguish between a 100% quack and a 100% Einstein.

I once had a cab driver in Chicago claim that he had a device that could perform pure mass to energy transfers at 100% efficiency. He said that the world was not ready for his inventon.

I played the odds and assumed he was a nut. If he wasn't, who would listen to him anyway?

J'ski, a fellow called in to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he seemed quite rational. He made his point and then mentioned that he was "the guy who first showed how to trisect an angle with just a straight-edge and a compass. But of course somebody better connected than (he) took the credit."

Last time I checked, (10th grade algebra, 1958-59), that had been proven mathematically to be an impossible task. Is that still right, or did Rush speak to a geometric genius?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

...and that trisecting an angle is in the same category of problem as squaring the circle. The impossibility of both, as I recall, has to do with the mathematical nature of Pi, in particular with Pi being a transcendental number.

And Rightly So!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

although Newton's expression of gravity as a force is very different from relativity defining it as the displacement of space-time by matter.

I wasn't really thinking so much in terms of the superstring theory as the tetrahedral model, if you've heard of that. That's the model that shows a higher dimensional source of energy drawn as a tetrahedron within a sphere (or a planet), with one of the vortices (about 19.5 degrees latitude) being an outlet for the energy. This latitude just happens to be about the same for Mt. Kilauea on Earth, the big volcano on Venus, Olympus Mons on Mars and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. I wish there were a better source for this information than Enterprise Mission but it's entertaining stuff, anyway.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Always a pleasure to hear more about other dimensions.

Like these guys?

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Did they really need the chubby guy to play the tambourine, or did he just to give them their "Fifth Dimension"?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

when a student asked, "if the 4th dimension is time, then what is the 5th dimension?" He'd answer that the 5th Dimension is a black vocal group that sings "Up, Up and Away in My Beautiful Balloon."

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Beat you to the reference.

Awesome woman.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Maybe a little Denny Terrio and dance fever to go with it. You had more music on television before MTV.

Discover the history of The Now Explosion (not to be confused with the band of the same name):

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Outstanding, Lester. I'll finish it in the morning.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

As I said, I'm mainly concerned with arguing on the scientific basis for human-caused global warming.

I think there's a lot of room for discussion on if global warming would be a bad or good thing for humanity.

I, personally, think that the possible risks call for taking - dare I say it - a conservative approach and avoiding climate change.

stone age and/or euthanasia cause a climate shaped by Buicks, change?

How does one live a climate neutral life so as to allow The Sun to again cover Raleigh, NC and Columbia, SC with the Atlantic?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

or exhaling into a tank that is then emptied into space.

The reduction in food yields from a new mini ice age (let alone a full blown one) would cause massive famine. We don't want that (though I'm not sure the radical green left is entirely with us on that).

HTML Help for Red Staters

and sea levels.

Since neither is happening on Mars, I think they should move there ASAP.

Of course, there is a lot of C02 on Mars . . .

serious questions from a serious chicken...

Lakers 08-09 will rule

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I have yet to hear anyone advocate for a mini-ice age.

I certainly don't.

GC, that's the best one yet. So apropos to lawyers, engineers, scientists, and political junkies.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The Knicks exist to make the West look good.

The Lakers will not go all the way in 2008-09.

The only team in the West that can both play an Eastern defense and score against an Eastern defense in the playoffs is San Antonio.

I seem to recall arguing with all of you Western fans (EPU, are you out there?).

The East plays a higher level of game. The Celtics looked better against the Lakers than they did against Atlanta, Cleveland, or Detroit.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

GC, don't miss my tribute to you at about comment #234.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!