Keep Repeating.....Global Warming Is Coming.....

[Carl C]

-12*F this morning in Michigan. Here are pics of Lake Huron I took a couple weeks ago too. My sis in Alaska is enjoying lows in the 20s right now. wtf

[Morgan's Cloud]

You surely understand by now that it's NOT about how cold your personal winter is , it's about global weather pattern change ..........................

Just this morning , I checked the (US) weather channel before I left (also always ck the local one too) and they have a 'new' factfile that they've just started showcasing .

Apparently in the last YEAR alone , records highs have out numbered all records for the previous TEN years by a margin of 2 to 1 .

Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming !

[gcarter]

You surely understand by now that it's NOT about how cold your personal winter is , it's about global weather pattern change ..........................

Just this morning , I checked the (US) weather channel before I left (also always ck the local one too) and they have a 'new' factfile that they've just started showcasing .

Apparently in the last YEAR alone , records highs have out numbered all records for the previous TEN years by a margin of 2 to 1 .

Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming !
I think it's amusing how the all time high temps were set in the '30's.
The example used may be correct (or scewed to show whatever they want) but the absolute highest temperatures took place 75-80 years ago.

[Ghost]

Global warming is very real. Global cooling is very real. There are multiple cycles involved. For starters, there's a 1500 year cycle and about a 125,000 year cycle that go back a long way in the geological record. There are probably others, but these two are well documented.

About 2/3 of the last 450,000 years, those cycles have been in down spots where the globe is covered by a LOT more ice, and is not capable of supporting all the people who live here today. The mankind-friendly warm portion of the big cycles is only about a third of the time. ALL of modern human life as we know it (10,000 years plus) has existed in one of these friendly warm spells, that only exist about 1/3 of the overall time.

Two things are certain.


Global cooling is a lot scarier than global warming.
The vast majority of those (like 99 to 99.999 percent of the people) who support the politics of global warming based on the assumption of man-made influence from "greenhouse gases" are simply taking the word of wholly unknown people based on no real inspection of any evidence themselves.
Now, I ask, how is that functionally different from those who throughout history have signed on with witch doctors, seers, priests, etc, who claimed to channel higher truth? Slaughter this lamb and the weather will get better. Dance this dance and the weather will get better. Do what I say or the world will come to an end.

Our "educated" society has both the gall and the naivete to mock the people of history who fell for that crap 400 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago. Sickening. When will people start thinking for themselves again? The average American 100 years ago had more common sense than a whole city block does today. The average American today can't find his a$$ with both hands.

Why? Because he hasn't HAD to. It's been easy. Change is coming, and it ain't going to be pretty. Watch out for Morlocks.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Strangely enough we're supposedly overdue for another ice age.

One thing is for sure though , there's no way our wildly rising carbon emissions of the last century haven't had an impact on weather (and other )patterns.

It would probably be accurate to say that the greatest denial of the subject comes from the people who are most unwilling to recognise their nation's contribution or willingness to change personal consumption habits.

Not tryin' to pick a scrap , just sayin '

[Carl C]

I tend to side with Ghost. Folks shivering up here right now do not want to hear any more about "global warming". Even 2 friends who had bought into it now think it is a farce and a money grab to finance their pet projects. It wasn't my intention to start a new debate about climate change, really just a tongue in cheek comment because I haven't seen -12* here for some years. That pic was taken at 2 AM. By 6:30 it had "warmed" to only -7*. It has been a rough winter up here and not a good time to build a case for man made global warming. Tonight may be even colder.:frown:

[gcarter]

This time it's all about the politics.
The scheme is scary, calling for the developed Western World to shut down their economies to lower their carbon emmisions, and on top of that nightmare, send huge payments to third world countries to help develop their economies amd clean up their industries.

The hit for us would be about 15-20% unemployment. How else do you lower activity?

If you like the way things are now, you'll really love the future.

[Ghost]

Strangely enough we're supposedly overdue for another ice age.

One thing is for sure though , there's no way our wildly rising carbon emissions of the last century haven't had an impact on weather (and other )patterns.

It would probably be accurate to say that the greatest denial of the subject comes from the people who are most unwilling to recognise their nation's contribution or willingness to change personal consumption habits.

Not tryin' to pick a scrap , just sayin '

NP, I'm ALL for rational debate.:)

No doubt that our carbon emissions, our everything, is part of the overall equation of weather. But the truth of the statement that our emissions "have an impact" is much like the flapping of a butterfly entering into the subsequent typhoon. There is no denying the sensitivity of complex systems to initial conditions. It's a virtual truism, but to the point of being meaningless. The particular typhoon is influenced, but the warming and cooling cycles of the day or year, the annual monsoon, etc, do not cease to continue because the butterfly flapped his wings. So, the question is whether our behavior is a drop in the bucket or a tsunami, in terms of what it changes and how.

Extrapolations are ridiculous. If you don't think so, try this one. This morning at daybreak it was 15 degrees. Now it is 35. We'll all be dead in a day or two!! Nonsense. There are understood cycles. Lots of them. Rotation of the Earth. Orbit of the Earth. Wobbles in the orbit. Sunspots. And on and on. The first ridiculous assumption is that there was anything static in the first place. The second ridiculous assumption is that we are causing a change. Show me the evidence that our contribution to increasing CO2 levels has changed anything notable except for CO2 levels. (Of course our burning of fossil fuelss has had some impacts, it's undenyable, like the butterfly, but WHAT impacts?) Are the changes we have seen in climate inconsistent with the trends and cycles shown in the fossil record, when man was now burning fossil fuels en masse?

This question requires standing back and understanding the big picture. So, what is that big picture? Look to the geological record.

I see very real denial, on the part of the global-warming political money/power grabbers, that the geological record shows we have had higher temperatures and carbon levels, predictably and repeatedly, in cycles, before ANY of the large scale burning of fossil fuels. Where is the acknowledgement that what we are observing right now, in terms of climate, is not inconsistent with what the geological record has shown in large scale patterns before we burned any oil or coal? In short, where is the anomaly?

I would ask you also to re-evaluate the truth of your statement"Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming!" I mean no offense, but this seems like an absolutely ridiculous statement IF when you say 'global warming' you are referring to anything due primarily to man and his burning of fossil fuels.

On to some theorizing on my part. Anybody know where the CO2 in the air actually comes from? As I understand it, plant rot is the major source. Now stand back and look at the geological record. Take a look at the globe and see how little land is at the equator--most of it is up in the northern hemisphere. The cold parts of 125,000 and 1500 year cycles see ice sheets cover most of the land mass of the planet. Few plants. Little rot. CO2 levels drop. When the planetary geometry and other factors push us into other parts of the cycles, we see warming, the ice sheets retreat, and we have a plant boom. And a CO2 boom. Now, I will admit I am speculating, but frankly, it makes more sense than a bunch of computer models where people write their own logic about how the system ought to behave, and then jerk off on each other when, surprisingly, it predicts what they wanted it to. I said it before, I could write a model that predicts global warming based on pubic hair levels. Much of this stuff is a complete sham. The answers will only come from getting the REAL big picture from the geological record.

The air is remarkably good at cleansing itself. Evaporation is a purifying process, and rain combs a lot from the air quickly. The same BS artists who push this stuff are pushing compact fluorescent light bulbs. Full of nasty metals that will poison the groundwater. That damage will be around for a long time. Why don't they stop pushing toxic light bulbs? $$$$. That's what all of this stuff is about. Money and power.

And BTW, if you think there is anything sacred or non-political about the "science" being employed, take a closer look at what really happens in university research circles. It's become the most fascist subsection of society we have.

We face a massive economic crisis that will force us to get back to pull-your-own-weight or disaster. Those who are politically threatened by this have in the lie of global warming their ultimate trump card: THE END OF THE WORLD. Just another scheming witch-doctor--we all ought to know better.

[BUIZILLA]

The scheme is scary, calling for the developed Western World to shut down their economies to lower their carbon emmisions, and on top of that nightmare, send huge payments to third world countries to help develop their economies amd clean up their industries. sounds like California's plan for 2010...

[Tony]

You surely understand by now that it's NOT about how cold your personal winter is , it's about global weather pattern change ..........................

Just this morning , I checked the (US) weather channel before I left (also always ck the local one too) and they have a 'new' factfile that they've just started showcasing .

Apparently in the last YEAR alone , records highs have out numbered all records for the previous TEN years by a margin of 2 to 1 .

Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming !

Carl, carefully read the quote above. Global warming, aka Climate Change, is characterized by unusual weather patterns such as extreme temperatures (both highs and lows), more frequent and potent storms (hurricanes, tornadoes...), and prolonged and widespread drought.

Ghost, on many topics your logic is sound, even though it may take a while to decipher. But...how can you claim that 85% of scientists worldwide are "wholly unknown people" basing their assertions on "no real inspection of any evidence"?

I know there are some pretty staunch global warming non-believers on this site, but come on you guys, even George Bush finally conceded that man-made carbon emissions have dramatically contributed to this problem.

So...there goes my attempt to avoid conflict on this site! :bonk: :)


:beer:

[Carl C]

I must admit that it's good to see some actual informed opinions as opposed to cut & paste debates. Either side can find credible evidence to support their take on climate change. As for those "compact fluorescent light bulbs", I purchased some a few years ago only to find that they are very easy to break. Sooo I am back to using old bulbs direct from Tom Edison's laboratory.:shocking: There must be a more efficient light source but it is not those little curly que thingies. Maybe LEDs?

[Ghost]

Ghost, on many topics your logic is sound, even though it may take a while to decipher. But...how can you claim that 85% of scientists worldwide are "wholly unknown people" basing their assertions on "no real inspection of any evidence"?

I know there are some pretty staunch global warming non-believers on this site, but come on you guys, even George Bush finally conceded that man-made carbon emissions have drmatically contributed to this problem.


1. Citing George Bush's opinion on this issue, in any way, shows an utter lack of focus on anything meaningful.

2. They are wholly unknown people. Who do you know in the scientific community? What do you know about their "science?" What do you even know about what actually passes for scholarly rigor in the fascist climate of modern research universities and government agencies that do research for their political masters who control the purse strings? Citing a preponderance of the "scientists" who you don't know and about whose methods and trustworthyness and rigor you are utterly ignorant, and ignoring what evidence you can see with you own eyes, is the definition of foolish. By your version of evaluation, you should conclude that that Earth was flat when more people say it is flat, and spherical when the vote tips the scales. This makes you a sheep, not a thinker.

Citing "85% of scientists" with no more rigor than you do is claiming that ignorance times some large number = wisdom. Hooey.



I will say it again, eventually it may take. Two things are CERTAIN here:
Global cooling is a lot scarier than global warming.
The vast majority of those (like 99 to 99.999 percent of the people) who support the politics of global warming based on the assumption of man-made influence from "greenhouse gases" are simply taking the word of wholly unknown people based on no real inspection of any evidence themselves.
I don't claim to know all the answers. But I do know the people who claim that they know ALSO don't know. And I'm not talking about 2% uncertainty. They don't know jack. They have untestable theories. Not really a lot of scientific method there. I also know (yes, know) that the probability that those who claim global warming is man made and apocalyptic are correct does not merit the 100% probability of surrendering power and sovereignty and huge percentages of our wealth to known charlatans.

It is my understanding that the geological record shows hundreds of thousands of years of climate cycles, cycles that our current conditions are quite reasonably consistent with, that pre-date any massive burning of fossil fuels. Do you AT LEAST agree that IF this is true, that even a layman on the street has reason to question the legions of "scientists" in whom you put so much faith? That the average Joe has plenty of reason to call bull$hit?

[Tony]

The scientists of that era were not saying the earth was flat, the people were. Presumably, GW's scientific staff eventually advised him to relent in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge man's contribution, in the face of almost unanimous worldwide scientific opinion. Of course, Ghost, I do not know any of these scientists...that observation has absolutely no bearing on the topic! Lastly, your second "certainty" listed above assumes that no research was done by any of the experts studying this problem! How on earth can that be stated with certainty? It would seem to me to be the polar opposite of a certainty.

Sorry for the cut and paste, but maybe it helps explain the "rigor" surrounding the scientific opinion on this topic. Below is an example of a position statement taken from this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations) which references about 47 credible organizations recognizing the evidence for global warming, two noncommittal statements, and one statement disputing global warming. The last one, interestingly, is made by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists).

The American Quaternary Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Quaternary_Association) (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.”

:beer:

[Ghost]

Tony,

With all due respect, do you EVER answer a direct question?!

It is my understanding that the geological record shows hundreds of thousands of years of climate cycles, cycles that our current conditions are quite reasonably consistent with, that pre-date any massive burning of fossil fuels. Do you AT LEAST agree that IF this is true, that even a layman on the street has reason to question the legions of "scientists" in whom you put so much faith? That the average Joe has plenty of reason to call bull$hit?

Regards,

Mike

[Tony]

See post #13 above, likely compiled as you wrote yours.
It takes a while to discern your replies, especially when you so vigorously dispute universally accepted facts.
I was getting there...

:beer:

[Ghost]

Tony,

I will not further dwell on the strange approach where you have inserted something into a post above and then referenced it as if you had said it and I missed it. Let's keep it chronological, ok?

Now, let's try this one more time.

Will you please answer this question?

It is my understanding that the geological record shows hundreds of thousands of years of climate cycles, cycles that our current conditions are quite reasonably consistent with, that pre-date any massive burning of fossil fuels. Do you AT LEAST agree that IF this is true, that even a layman on the street has reason to question the legions of "scientists" in whom you put so much faith? That the average Joe has plenty of reason to call bull$hit?

Please answer this question.

Regards,

Mike

[Tony]

Gotta go for now...
Morgan's Cloud, where the heck are you? You rile up the natives, open up a can of worms, and then disappear? :shocking:

:beer:

[Carl C]

It is a debate that cannot be won, especially through cut and paste. Probably should let it go. I know I'm freezing my ass off up here and I have a fire going. It looks like it will be pretty cold for a few more days and I'm running out of firewood:nilly:. It's hard to find wood when everything is under a foot or more of snow:(.

[smbarcelow]

I think Carl is warming himself by the heat generated by this thread. :cool:

[Carl C]

And this fire.....

[zelatore]

I must admit that it's good to see some actual informed opinions as opposed to cut & paste debates. Either side can find credible evidence to support their take on climate change. As for those "compact fluorescent light bulbs", I purchased some a few years ago only to find that they are very easy to break. Sooo I am back to using old bulbs direct from Tom Edison's laboratory.:shocking: There must be a more efficient light source but it is not those little curly que thingies. Maybe LEDs?


Yes, LEDs are massively more efficient and long-lived than either incandescent or CF. However, they are (at least at this point) also massively more expensive. That is partially off-set by the long life expectancy - effectively they last 'forever'.

There are some other issues with LEDs, but technology is working them out. It used to be very difficult to get high output from them...now we're using them for headlights. ‘White’ light was also difficult to do but it’s been solved. They also used to suffer from being too much of a point source. Basically, they acted like a small spotlight instead of a flood light. However improvements in reflector designs have made them much more suitable for broad lighting applications like a standard fixture in a home.

If you really want to hear waaay too much about LEDs, I'll give you Michele's phone number. Her company is a distributor at the component and design level for lots of LED and other optics stuff.

[zelatore]

And this fire.....

Can you really get stuff that big in your furnace? Doesn't look like it will fit.

I've wanted to replace my insert with somethign that would take bigger pieces, have a blower, and an external vent, but I can't see dropping the coin - this one came with the house when we bought it and I was shocked at how much they cost when I started looking around on-line.

[Ghost]

Sorry for the cut and paste, but maybe it helps explain the "rigor" surrounding the scientific opinion on this topic. Below is an example of a position statement taken from this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations) which references about 47 credible organizations recognizing the evidence for global warming,...

You make my case for me. All you've done is dodge discussion of the science itself, instead arguing over who can aggregate a longer list of acronyms or organizations that says their answer must be right.

After the Challenger disaster, a largely typical bureaucratic commission was formed with lots of people, the exception among them Richard Feynman, a brilliant physicist and well-respected honest scholar. The commission produced reams of paper and all sorts of credentials and acronyms and so forth, all cleverly politically steered and spun to keep anyone from getting too blamed for anything. Feynman was smart and honest and called BS. And no amount of paper, or fancy degrees with raised seals and gold leaf, or white labcoats or anything else could change the fact that when he stuck a piece of the shuttle's o-ring material in his icewater glass, live on TV, that he was able to show the material ceased to be pliable.

Can't you at least see that arguing about whose scientists have bigger dicks is idiotic for the purposes of a forum like this, and focus on the direct evidence of the science itself? Why, for example, do the sources of the schlock in your Wikipedia article include things like the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association? (This one is rhetorical--please don't waste our time with an answer.) WTF do they know about global warming and to what extent we influence it? Why are they putting out position papers on it? For the same reason they put out positions on gun control policy and other things. Not because it has $hit do do with medicine or anything they know anything about, but because these are political entities living and currying favor in a world increasingly fighting over tax dollars and political favors. Better cozy up to the Gestapo and say all the right things--failure to do so can be very detrimental to your business, if not your health. Let's cut out those foolish discussions, and focus on the science, directly.


The scientists of that era were not saying the earth was flat, the people were.
I made no argument about that subject. I said that by using your logic, your personal belief in whether the earth was flat or spherical would be based on someone else's vote, and not on your own analysis of any direct analysis of the answer that you had assessed with your own eyes or mind.

I. On re-reading, you would agree, no? PLEASE ANSWER.:yes:


Of course, Ghost, I do not know any of these scientists...that observation has absolutely no bearing on the topic!
Nonsense. It has everything to do with it. I do not mean 'know' in the sense of whether you go to cocktail parties and argue about astroturf with them and talk about what the kids got for Christmas. I mean 'know' in the sense of having some understanding about their work, what they did, the approach, the rigor, etc. THIS is vital. That would enable you to distinguish between a scientist who examined ice cores that showed that we've had cycles of climate much like what we see today, versus a "scientist" who wrote a computer program designed to predict global warming based on carbon dioxide emissions and surprise, it predicted global warming.


Lastly, your second "certainty" listed above assumes that no research was done by any of the experts studying this problem! How on earth can that be stated with certainty? It would seem to me to be the polar opposite of a certainty.
Not at all. Please read it again and let's make sure we're on the same page here:

"The vast majority of those (like 99 to 99.999 percent of the people) who support the politics of global warming based on the assumption of man-made influence from "greenhouse gases" are simply taking the word of wholly unknown people based on no real inspection of any evidence themselves. "

This does not assume no research was done by any of the experts studying the question. (Saying "problem" reveals your assumptions, no?) My statement doesn't assume or claim anything about the researchers and what they do or do not do. It states that 99+ percent of the people who support politics based on theories of man-driven-global-warming do not themselves know anything about it. They don't understand anything about the research, who is doing it, how it is conducted, what rigor it has, etc. It says the political constituency of people like you are utterly uninformed about how the sausage is made. It says nothing about how that sausage is made. It says the sheep are obeying the shepherd blindly. It neither says nor depends upon whether the shepherd knows anything useful or not. ("Themselves" in my italicized quote above refers to the subject of the sentence, "The vast majority of the people who support the politics...", not the "scientists.")

II. On re-reading my words, you do agree, do you not? PLEASE ANSWER.:yes:

Lastly, for convenience to you, I will paste in my thrice-unanswered question again.

It is my understanding that the geological record shows hundreds of thousands of years of climate cycles, cycles that our current conditions are quite reasonably consistent with, that pre-date any massive burning of fossil fuels. Do you AT LEAST agree that IF this is true, that even a layman on the street has reason to question the legions of "scientists" in whom you put so much faith? That the average Joe has plenty of reason to call bull$hit?

III. PLEASE ANSWER.:yes:

[BUIZILLA]

shouldn't you be chopping that wood up BEFORE you bring it in the house? :nilly:

not that I know anything about that.. :shades:

[gcarter]

I universaly accept very few things, one being, the sun will continue rise and set for the forseeable future.
Barring things like that, I'm NOT likely to accept opinions of people no matter how well educated they may believe they are.
1) If the basis for their "beliefs" is temperature observations of NASA which DIDN'T exist before the late '70's, then we don't have data over long enough time. Barring the spacebased observations, the only other data is anecdotal.
2) If the majority of data is anecdotal, like thousands of recording thermometers located all over the place, then anecdotal evidence of earlier periods can't be ignored, like the extraordinary high temps recorded in the '30's along with a trend of much more destructive storms during the '30's and '40's, and other '30's phenomina like the dust bowl.
3) If there were indeed spikes in temperatures, storms, and other phenomina in the '30's, what caused them?
4) Why did things moderate in the late '40's, '50's, and early '60's?
5) Why were many of the same people who now trumpet global warming prophesied global cooling only 25 years ago?
6) Has science advanced so far in the intervening years that we now know so much more than we did 25 years ago?
7) Have any of the global cooling folks that now believe the opposite ever appologise for the mis-information? (I doubt it)
8) Do those of you who believe this PERIL is real, believe the citizens of the US can have any impact on it?
9) What if that attempt cost us 20% unemployment?
10) Would that be worth it? 11) Do you believe it to be worthwhile to even try to do something if the largest countries (China and India) do nothing or continue to expand burning even more fossil fuels? (Remember the Olympics?)
I think these are pretty practical questions and observations, I would appreciate anyone here to answer or comment on any of them.

[Carl C]

Those big chunks are the all-nighters! I'm down to gnarly chunks and pieces and they are wet, that's why there is so much wood stacked around the stove. It's kind of like a humidifier:).

[Tim Morris]

8) Do those of you who believe this PERIL is real, believe the citizens of the US can have any impact on it?


Whelp! I'm feelin' a little like the mouse that couldn't roar. The population of the whole country (Canada) is less than 10% of you guys, but we're behind you.......way, way, behind.

[Tony]

The scheme is scary, calling for the developed Western World to shut down their economies to lower their carbon emmisions, and on top of that nightmare, send huge payments to third world countries to help develop their economies amd clean up their industries.

Like a big conspiracy, George?
If so...it must be massive in scope!
Perpetrated by who?

:beer:

[zelatore]

Those big chunks are the all-nighters! I'm down to gnarly chunks and pieces and they are wet, that's why there is so much wood stacked around the stove. It's kind of like a humidifier:).

I don't recomend you actualy sit a piece of wood on the stove to dry it out.....Somebody who shall go nameless once did that only to discover that not only did the moisture come out of the wood, but so did the smoke.

[Tony]

Ghost, speaking of reams...your posts continue to elaborate (at great length) hard to follow arguments that presume to follow rules of logic.

Regarding your call for chronological order...I don't sit at a computer all day, I visit and re-visit at various times. You were posting as I was composing/editing, which I think I already noted in a short reply earlier.

To attempt to assuage your persistence, here's my answer to your "thrice-asked" question; Do you AT LEAST agree that IF this is true, that even a layman on the street has reason to question the legions of "scientists" in whom you put so much faith? That the average Joe has plenty of reason to call bull$hit?

That is a huge "IF", but...sure.
The difference is, apparently, I leave science to the scientists, while you seem to discount all of them. It is their domain, they are the experts. Similar to going to the doctor and trusting their opinion.

Bottom line? Most people, scientists, and governments believe that carbon emissions have contributed to an increase in earth's average surface temperatures that will, if left unchecked, have ramifications. Apocalyptic ramifications? Probably not. Die-hards may disagree that global warming/climate change exists, which sometimes makes for interesting discussion, but it is a little like evaluating presidential terms in office...only time will tell.

:beer:

[Tony]

Carl, you probably know not to burn wet wood on a consistent basis. Allowing flue gasses to cool too soon creates a creosote buildup, leading to a possible chimney fire. Make sure you burn a hard, hot fire at least once a day to (harmlessly) burn off any slight buildup from the dampered-down slow overnight burn , or the cool burn from your wet wood.

Get one of these, and put it a foot or two above your stove.
Helps to monitor flue temps...

http://www.woodlanddirect.com/core/media/media.nl;jsessionid=0a01074e1f43e2b68faf522b4b01a1 ccddb66cc87959.e3eTaxeKbh0Te34Pa38Ta38Nb3z0?id=694 5&c=483668&h=6eb24900524a5fe4b9bc

:beer:

[gcarter]

Like a big conspiracy, George?
If so...it must be massive in scope!
Perpetrated by who?

:beer:
The Kyoto Treaty was a first step in setting national targets for emmisions limits (thank God we didn't sign on), now since it soon expires (or already has), there is a follow on that Mr Obama has stated he will be in favor of. There is no signee of the Kyoto Treaty that has attained their targets. Why not? Because it's an impossibility to do so w/o wrecking their economies (reducing the size of their economies to match carbon emmisions to targets). You know, restricting transportation of goods because it uses and burns petroleum to move them, reducing manufacturing because it requires power to manufacture the goods. Get this, recently Mr Gore's organization was successful in killing a new coal fired power plant......even though it would replace four old coal fired power plants that emmited significantly more (a lot more) than the new replacement.
The other part of the agreement that was a killer for me was that India and China were exempt. Both of these countries have publicly stated they will do nothing to slow their growth.
In the next 20-30 years rhe growth of these two countries will represent a large percentage of total world industrial growth. How do you compensate for these two powerhouses?
Do we reduce our output to compensate for them? Do we then live in caves?
Tell me how you do all of these things?
It's not a conspiricy that I'm aware of. It came right out of the Left and Green segments of the world as we know it.

[Ghost]

Ghost, speaking of reams...your posts continue to elaborate (at great length) hard to follow arguments that presume to follow rules of logic.

Lovely, you have again lobbed an unfounded generality. I suppose you will cite wikipedia on the logical efficacy of my posts, rather than address some specific thing I actually wrote?

My last post was so long because in an attempt to unsnarl your thinking. You made multiple arguments against positions I never argued. I courteously took the time and put forth the effort to help you understand. And your reponse is to mock the length of my post rather than to read it and acknowledge whether it has helped you understand what I wrote the first time, which you misunderstood, for whatever reason.

How about items I and II from my post, marked "PLEASE ANSWER"? Where I have shown clearly how your statements about my post simply failed to understand? Do you care to answer? Do you yet get what I said the first time, or are you still confused?

[Tony]

The other part of the agreement that was a killer for me was that India and China were exempt. Both of these countries have publicly stated they will do nothing to slow their growth.
In the next 20-30 years the growth of these two countries will represent a large percentage of total world industrial growth. How do you compensate for these two powerhouses?

The twenty most polluted cities in the world are all in China. They are where we were in the 1970's.

Slow the economic growth of China? Stop buying sh*t made in China.

Slow the economic growth of India? Stop buying sh*t made in India.

Our trade deficit has set records for 8 consecutive years...the playing field needs to be balanced.

:beer:

[Carl C]

Hey guys this is kind of like debating religion. No one can win. JMO. Didn't mean to start this.

And thanks for the tips but I've been burning wood for a long time. Just need to find more soon.:crossfing:

[Tony]

Do you yet get what I said the first time, or are you still confused?

Ghost, my only confusion is why I keep entering into these quasi-discussions! :bonk:
I have been pretty successful keeping a low profile, but when I read of those who resolutely deny something as universally accepted as global warming, well, my resolve faded. My bad...:cool:


:beer:

[fogducker III]

"Global Warming"......../ Isn't that when your left nut gets hotter than your right........??:frown:

[BUIZILLA]

"Global Warming"......../ Isn't that when your left nut gets hotter than your right........??:frown: if your a Democrat, then yes..

[boxy]

"Global Warming"......../ Isn't that when your left nut gets hotter than your right........??:frown:
I spent a couple of hours outside today, once I find them again, I'll let you know which one is warmer. :nilly::nilly:

[gcarter]

The twenty most polluted cities in the world are all in China. They are where we were in the 1970's.

Slow the economic growth of China? Stop buying sh*t made in China.

Slow the economic growth of India? Stop buying sh*t made in India.

Our trade deficit has set records for 8 consecutive years...the playing field needs to be balanced.

:beer:
While I don't disagree w/the statements you make above, they have nothing to do with the question I asked.

BTW, in your response to Mike, you make a statement about manmade climate change being universally accepted.....not only is your statement not true, except in the minds and hearts of the people who believe as you do, but there's a large group of climatologists who believe differently.

[gcarter]

There's a list of "unbelievers" ......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming


I tried to post it several times, even breaking it up into sections....but, alas, it's too long of a list.

[dfunde01]

Ghost, my only confusion is why I keep entering into these quasi-discussions! :bonk:
I have been pretty successful keeping a low profile, but when I read of those who resolutely deny something as universally accepted as global warming, well, my resolve faded. My bad...:cool:


:beer:

Tony,

Eugenics was as universally accepted in the first half of the 20th century as you believe global warming is today. The last half of the 20th century it was almost impossible to find anyone that lived in those times that would admit that they even knew what it was, much less supported it in those days. Do a Google search on "eugenics movement" and you will find 174,000 entries quoting science just as compelling in those times as the science for global warming is today.

The moral of this story is that universal acceptance is proof of nothing but the ignorance of the masses. It is not science.

Dave

[roadtrip se]

that attempts to make me install a catalytic convertor on my smoker.....

Keeper of the carbon credits...

[Tony]

While I don't disagree w/the statements you make above, they have nothing to do with the question I asked.

Well, I thought my reply addressed your main question...but if you want I can answer the other three you posed, even though the last two are kind of rhetorical.

How do you compensate for these two powerhouses?
Slow the economic growth of China? Stop buying sh*t made in China.
Slow the economic growth of India? Stop buying sh*t made in India.
(my reply in an earlier post...)

Do we reduce our output to compensate for them?
No need, moot point, since our output is pretty reduced right now!
Hopefully the trend reverses soon, utilizing more efficient technologies.
Plus (as I said in my earlier post) our trade deficit has set records for 8 consecutive years...the playing field needs to be balanced.

Do we then live in caves?
Everybody has individual choices to make. :)

Tell me how you do all of these things?
Ask Ghost, he's got all the answers! :)


:beer:

[Tony]

Spartans hang on for a tough win over PSU in Happy Vallley.

:woot: :woot:

I'm outta here..


:beer:

[RedDog]

Ghost, my only confusion is why I keep entering into these quasi-discussions! :bonk:
I have been pretty successful keeping a low profile, but when I read of those who resolutely deny something as universally accepted as global warming, well, my resolve faded. My bad...:cool:
:beer:
I almost hate to interject into the on going discussion, but Tony, I think your position of "universally accepted" is out-dated. The consensus is rapidly moving toward a new consensus that the "global warming due to greenhouse gases" is likely an erroneous theory. Try a little a little research - here is a basic primer - http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skepticshandbook1-4.pdf
One significant point in my view from page 8:

Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.
The carbon that's already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only ‘soaks up’ its favourite wavelengths of light and it’s close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance...
Do you follow that? It is diminishings returns. You can quadruple or more the CO2, but it will have no more greenhouse effect than what we have now.
Rely on science and physics - not political rhetoric
And page 10 addresses the so-called consensus:

Consensus? What Consensus?
How many scientists does it take to prove the debate is not over? Over 30,000 scientists have signed The Petition Project. Over 9,000 of them have PhD’s (not that that proves anything about carbon, but it does prove something about the myth of ‘consensus’). The wording is unequivocal: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/

[CJmike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKqdFdkUA5g

[CJmike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&feature=related

[Ghost]

Ghost, my only confusion is why I keep entering into these quasi-discussions!

Tony,

You still have failed to address simple questions I and II above, which only existed in the first place because you completely failed to read and comprehend the letter of previous posts. After many hours you finally answered question III, which a bright 6th grader could have answered in 30 seconds 12 hours ago when it was asked. Further, the bright 6th grader would be well on his way to healthy skepticism and would be digging through the geological record to see if what we are seeing now does or does not fit historical trends.

The substance of all of your arguments is that only an "expert" can make any sense out of any of this, and though you know NOTHING of the subject, with a bunch of people claiming to be experts and reaching different conclusions, you can with certainty pick which ones are and which ones aren't correct in their analysis. This is the dumbest thing since powdered water.

En masse, that kind of non-thinking is how a Bernie Madoff can get away with his scam. Just leave that money thing to the experts. They know more than we do. They can borrow their way out of debt. They can tax us all to prosperity. They can slice and dice good loans and bad loans with MATH, and turn them ALL into good loans.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know some things are bull$hit. You DO need to be something other than a lazy intellectual sheep to avoid falling for such abject bull$hit.

God bless you Tony, for you are truly the Earl Mott of Reasoned Debate.

(from Ruthless People)
Lt. Bender (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0262543/): <into megaphone> GIVE THE BAG TO BOZO, DROP THE GUN, AND PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR.
Earl Mott (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000597/): Who said that?
Lt. Walters (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0270948/): This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him.
Lt. Bender (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0262543/): <into megaphone> IT'S THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Earl Mott (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000597/): ...Really?

All Due Respect,

Mike :)

[Ghost]

By the way. For clarity, the post above is not in any way saying that no one can make a case that global warming is happening and is driven by human causes. It is simply saying that the case for that has not been made here.

Rather, the only case that has been made here is a claim that global warming is happening, is driven by human causes, and that the scientists know this, and somehow (not yet explained here) that some people who freely admit not knowing anything of the science or of how it is conducted, nonetheless know which scientists are correct.

Though farfetched, this made more pure theoretical sense when it was earlier claimed that ALL scientists agreed. But seeing as how it has since been made clear that there are scientists who say the opposite, and also that there are those who say it is not known, it is clear that some method must be available to decide which scientists are right in order to know the truth of the original claim.

[Carl C]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&feature=related Now that is funny as all Hell:shades:. If their little pink flamingos in Florida were buried in snow they just might understand........Palm trees and 'gators in the north........bring it on. But wait, polar bears in Minnesota? Hmmmm........

Things are looking up today. Only -6*F this morning. We might set a new record low tonight though.

PS, CJmike, I'll forward that clip to my family in Alaska. My bro-in-law is from Minn.

[CJmike]

-27 this morning. Diesel daully said no thanks I don't think I am going anywhere today. So I limp it back into the driveway and I think I'll take my Landcruiser. It went just about as far as the diesel and overheated. Limped it home and put it in the garage. Antifreeze must have been slushy and I didn't give enough time to unthaw. Wife ain't going to like I took her garage spot to unthaw the landcruiser.

So at this point I ain't going to work. But the bright side is I get to spend the day getting at least one vehicle unthawed so I can go to work tomorrow.

I need me some global warming.

Twenty below is no fun.

[Carl C]

My sister in Eagle River Alaska wrote back that she has little sympathy for me since they were sitting between -20 & -25*F for a week and her car wouldn't start the whole time but yesterday they shot up to 40* and her car started:yippie::convertib:. I think I know where the cold air went:frown:.

[BUIZILLA]

don't you guys have block heaters? :confused:

[Morgan's Cloud]

It's very difficult to comment on this issue without sometimes being mistaken for doing nothing other than lobbing a grenade and bowing out.

Basically it comes down to ...

1) Do you believe that something is going on with global weather patterns ?
2) Do you think that we have contributed to it/can do something to aleviate it ?

A long, long time before 'Global warming' became the catchphrase we were noticing definite changes in our weather patterns out here.
Believe me , living on a 20 sq mile coral reef in the Atlantic breeds a population of people acutely aware of weather conditions.
It's routine for us to greet each other and talk about the weather before even asking about family .... :tooth:

Weather patterns we experience here now are nothing like when I was a child.
Unquestionably our winters have gotten much milder .. Don't even ask me about the summers .... :mad:

Despite our remoteness and size we are lucky to have one of the oldest and most respected oceonographic research stations in the world located here .
They frequently play host to some of the world's best scientists and researchers who often give public lectures on this very subject.

I've been to a few .

After most Q and A sessions they nearly always comment how much they enjoy the audience participation here.
They say we're receptive , hungry for info and it never becomes a political bash fest.

Their reason for that ...... We're not in denial

(Bear in mind , 'hungry for info' does'nt mean we buy everything we hear either.)

Nonetheless , DW , just because you've had an extraordinary snowfall this winter (so far) understand that it's about 'weather patern change' NOT 80F winters in your neck of the woods ...
(thanks to Tony for understanding that point so early on !)

[roadtrip se]

I am in and the check is in the mail.

[gcarter]

Here's a bit of data backing up the point I made earlier;

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

If I counted correctly, 36 of the 50 highest temps on record were set BEFORE 1940.
Most of those occured in the '30's.
That has to mean something.
What was going on then?
100 years before that, the Northern Hemisphere was experiencing the "Little Ice Age".
Doesn't this seem a bit cyclical to you?
Can any of you "believers" explain it away?

[zelatore]

So how's come we's havin' record highs here in the Bay area this week?

(much as I don't enjoy it, I'm hoping it will start raining soon - we're looking at a drought again if it doesn't)

[gcarter]

Here's a bit of data backing up the point I made earlier;

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

If I counted correctly, 36 of the 50 highest temps on record were set BEFORE 1940.
Most of those occured in the '30's.
That has to mean something.
What was going on then?
100 years before that, the Northern Hemisphere was experiencing the "Little Ice Age".
Doesn't this seem a bit cyclical to you?
Can any of you "believers" explain it away?

I would suspect that if there were as many recording stations in the '30's as there is now, that ALL the record temps were set in the '30's.

[CJmike]

don't you guys have block heaters? :confused:

Yep, at almost -30 they put a dent in keeping the vehicle warm. They don't help at all with getting the -30 below diesel up to the fuel filter.
Hence the diesel problem. But hey by ten oclock it had warmed about to about -18 below. Changed the fuel filter and had left it idleing. Finally got it running down the highway and made it in to work. :nilly:

Can't wait till January 31 st and getting on a plane to Mexico.:shades:

[Ghost]

It's very difficult to comment on this issue without sometimes being mistaken for doing nothing other than lobbing a grenade and bowing out.

Basically it comes down to ...

1) Do you believe that something is going on with global weather patterns ?
2) Do you think that we have contributed to it/can do something to aleviate it ?

A long, long time before 'Global warming' became the catchphrase we were noticing definite changes in our weather patterns out here.
Believe me , living on a 20 sq mile coral reef in the Atlantic breeds a population of people acutely aware of weather conditions.
It's routine for us to greet each other and talk about the weather before even asking about family .... :tooth:

Weather patterns we experience here now are nothing like when I was a child.
Unquestionably our winters have gotten much milder .. Don't even ask me about the summers .... :mad:

Despite our remoteness and size we are lucky to have one of the oldest and most respected oceonographic research stations in the world located here .
They frequently play host to some of the world's best scientists and researchers who often give public lectures on this very subject.

I've been to a few .

After most Q and A sessions they nearly always comment how much they enjoy the audience participation here.
They say we're receptive , hungry for info and it never becomes a political bash fest.

Their reason for that ...... We're not in denial

(Bear in mind , 'hungry for info' does'nt mean we buy everything we hear either.)

Nonetheless , DW , just because you've had an extraordinary snowfall this winter (so far) understand that it's about 'weather patern change' NOT 80F winters in your neck of the woods ...
(thanks to Tony for understanding that point so early on !)

Morgan's Cloud,

Thanks for your comments. I have understood that point for years--I was one of the people who the first day I ever heard anyone talk about about "global warming", man made otherwise, understood inherently that it could not mean universal warming, but rather could only mean that established patterns would be altered. Some places might get more cool, more wet, more dry, more sunny, more cloudy. I am with you on that.

I live in the Mid Atlantic and our winters of the last 15 years definitely seem milder than they typically did when I was a child, on average.

I do, however, challenge the authority and usefulness of statements such as:

Apparently in the last YEAR alone , records highs have out numbered all records for the previous TEN years by a margin of 2 to 1 .

Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming !

And now, two brief departures which I swear have meaning here, and will help clarify why I challenge these quotes.

Superstition in the Pigeon:
The Father of Behavioral Psychology, B.F. Skinner, wrote a great paper called "Superstition in the Pigeon." Short version is he came in one morning and a lab pigeon was repeating this consistent, elaborate but slowly evolving dance, with multiple twists and jumps and pecks. A random-interval reinforment toll (dispenses pellets at random intervals) had been left on in the cage. The pigeon, like a person trying to get a can from a sticky Coke machine, has begun something WHOLLY unrelated to the dispensing, correlated it mentally, and embarked on a lengthy and exhausting ritual, thinking it was cajoling out pellets of food.

Mad Cow:
Mad Cow disease is very interesting. It isn't a bacterium, nor a virus, like most things that we're used to having infect living organisms. Mad Cow disease is actually a warped kind of protein that has no living cell structure, nor does it take over a cell structure, called a prion (PREE-on). But it does an amazing thing: when it bumps into some other types of protiens, it flips their geometry and converts them to its own form. It is as if this pollution can bump into something in nature, and turn that into more pollution. This is why cooking doesn't kill it, nor make it safe to eat. It's amazing, and a little creepy. To most, it was a bit like the intro to climate change--thought to be something brand new.

When people started finding out about this, they said, well, that's crazy, why just Cows? There would have to be more of these things. They started looking. They found them right away. Elk, cats, mink, etc. (What was different about cows was that modern slaughterhouse techniques that stripped all the bones and put the nastiest leavins into foodstocks, distributing the pollution. In the wild, an infected animal was eaten by only a small number of animals, where it lay dead. Orders of magnitude less transmission.) Prions, it turned out, were not new at all. Just new to common knowledge. Naturally occurring, and with us for a long time, though shockingly foreign to the layman on the street.

Thinking Clearly About Climate Change:
So what does any of this have to do with climate change, and whether mankind is driving it? Let's start with the prions. We are accustomed to daily and yearly cycles in our weather and climate. But what is our climate expected to do over the long haul? Gradually cool? Gradually warm? Stay exactly the same? Who knows? Good question. Most of us know we've been told about the ice age, when glaciers came way down into the US, for one thing.

Let that revelation of the "Ice Age" be like first learning of Mad Cow--your first known prion disease. What?! What do you mean weather was totally different? Start digging there. Are there more examples? That leads rapidly to trying to get the biggest picture data set you can, showing the longest record you can. (Otherwise, obviously, things that change over periods approaching a human lifetime might well go practically unnoticed, especially since we have a tiny record of useful historical measurements.) What you'll find is that we have hundreds of thousands of years of NOTHING BUT climate change. 1500-ish year cycles and 125,000ish year cycles are two of the known, important ones.

Now, statements like the two quoted ones I challenge above are exactly like the randomly dispensed pellets that have the superstitious pigeon so devoutly and earnestly and exhaustingly wasting his time. Climate changes naturally, of its own, a LOT. Any observation not considered in the context of the historical climate change patterns and ranges, is AT BEST a discussion about whether the climate is shifting, BUT IN NO WAY meaningful in assessing whether it is man made. Funny how the same people who mock anyone who doesn't accept animal evolution as a gospel that any fool can understand with common sense, these same people act as if anything that changes in the climate is caused by us. They are ignoring natural climate change.

Every "wow, this is a really hot day--almost certainly man made global warming" or "what an extreme storm--probably be man made global warming" is as scientifically unfounded as that pigeon thinking he is affecting the coming of pellets with his dance. And yet, the skeptics who ask what is really happening are non-dancers, are to be mocked as "non-believers." In fact, the political religion of "global warming" is SO unscientific as to omit the "man made" from the common lingo. To say "global warming" inherently means "man made global warming." This detail alone betrays the reliance on faith and lack of real insight.

We live in a very dynamic climate. We are only scratching the surface in terms of understanding what we should expect our climate would do if not a single person were here on Earth.

Useful Takeaways:
1. THINK about climate change. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Be smart. Learn what you can about the methods employed, the data gathered, the rigor of the studies. Is something observed a significant trend? Is is consistent with natural cycles we have seen going back half a million years in the geological record? Don't sign on with a camp (God help you a political camp)--go at least a layer deper and think about the science itself. Get familiar with some of it.

2. Make a habit of always, forcing yourself and others to distinguish between "climate-change" and "man-made-climate-change." Climate-change is natural, everywhere, to be expected, and to be studied with great rigor. Without that, man-made-climate-change will never be scientifically identified or understood in any way whatsoever. Most all of us are guilty of this at times. We should all strive to end this in ourselves and others.

3. Avoid any claims of any kind based on small samples or trends. A particular "snowy winter" is just insignificant nonsense in any meaningful examination of climate change, man made or not. The only distant, remote hope of anything along these lines is in the context of comparing it to the known variations in climate that nature has brought, as observed in the geological record. And even then, a single snowy winter is probably hopelessly statistically insignificant. Thus, I believe it is clear that making a statement like the one I quoted at the start is not useful thing to say, for this reason.

4. Uncertainty is certain. Please note that most of my claims of certainties, (which, misunderstood, I think set Tony off yesterday), were certainties about uncertainty. It is certain that the people who claim to know the truth are overstating their case--I admit do not know, but I can know that they do not know. I also know that the method for reaching a hard conclusion, outlined by Tony yesterday, is devoid of reason. It relies simply on trusting select others about whose work and its rigor and methods he admits he knows nothing. And yet he has not outlined any means to know how to decide whom to believe. Anyone on either side of the issue should agree that this "logic" is actuall not logic at all.

5. If you are going to talk about it, be prepared to get into the science itself. An argument about whom to trust without rolling up ones sleeves and looking at the science to make a case why someone is trustworthy is probably a waste of time. This cannot be overstressed. Signing on with one or the other group of "scientists" based on the conclusion they have reached, with no insight into their work, how they conduct it, whether it is a sensible approach--this is an appallingly anti-intellectual act. Further, it is doubly despicable in that it is an act of blind faith that falsely invokes the claim of science and the scientific method.

Back to the quotes, to which I objected:
So, Morgan's Cloud, I absolutely commend you for being hungry for all you can hear. I think this is a healthy attitude to have. It is the only way to dig far enough in that we can make sense of what we should or should not do, and how much of our precious wealth to spend in so doing. But I must say that the two quotes I picked above, for all the reasons outlined here, strike me as wholly inappropriate to furthering useful discussion.

I would be very interested in your thoughts on this, in light of my points above.

Regards,

Mike

[Morgan's Cloud]

Mike , with all due respect I will attempt to keep to posts of a duration that actually encourage people to read them in their entirety ....


The statement about weather statistics came from a US weather channel .. That is a weather channel in YOUR country ... not mine . Why don't you take it up with them what THEY meant ?

On the second statement that I made .... If you can't understand what I was getting at with that I'm sorry ..... really , I am .


If you don't mind , I'm finding your tone a bit disturbing .... I think I know what the scientists who've been here mean now re what I said above ..

[Ghost]

The statement about weather statistics came from a US weather channel .. That is a weather channel in YOUR country ... not mine . Why don't you take it up with them what THEY meant ?
Huh? I don't follow at all. Because it came from my country...what? Lots of things come from lots of places. I don't care what country it came from. You chose to repeat it, the assumption being that you thought it added value to the discussion. I wrote why I think the statement is statistically meaningless to the point of being counterproductive. There are useful things to discuss. I believe that in the context you cited it, it detracts from the useful discussion. And I explained why I thought that.


On the second statement that I made .... If you can't understand what I was getting at with that I'm sorry ..... really , I am. You mean "Your outstandingly 'snowy' winter is in fact probably an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming !", correct?

What have I misunderstood? There seem two relevant points. One is that "global warming" actually means climate change, likely to result in patterns evolving, some places actually getting colder, etc. I acknowledged this in my second sentence--I agree--that aspect of thinking about overall effects on the system is useful, and I agreed with you.

The other aspect is what I criticized, which is that your calling it "in fact probably [emphasis added] an EXAMPLE of the effects of global warming" is:

uselessly vague in that it fails to distinguish between man-made and non man-made global warming, and
scientifically and statistically meaningless to the point of counterproductivity, in that nobody should be talking about examples like that as evidence of either side of the debate.
These were my basic takes--if I am missing something, please say what it is, rather than just telling me I don't understand. That doesn't really advance understanding, you would agree?


If you don't mind , I'm finding your tone a bit disturbing .... I think I know what the scientists who've been here mean now re what I said above ..

I don't mind. But to be fair, I would appreciate your discussing some substance of what I have said, however, rather than getting bogged down in inferences of tone to the point where you skip discusson of the science itself.

Yesterday, I had my time and energies wasted with a whole day of complete stonewalling and issue dodging, punctuated by personal insults (not from you, let me be clear). I ilooked past it and tried to talk about the science. Till last night, when I concluded that a post befitting that whole day's worth of childishness would make it clear how anti-intellectual that approach was.

Seriously, if you want to discuss the science, please do. No thin skin for that here. What do you know about your recent years of different climate, and how those compare to the geological long term climate patterns there? You would agree that understanding of that big picture would help to assess whether a given effect seems consistent with changes nature has long been imposing, versus something we think is the result of our burning incredible amounts of fossil fuels, altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere? Would you not?

Regards,

Mike

[Jack Frost]

baby it's cold outside ;) yeah BABY!!!!!


he he ;)

[Ghost]

CJMike,

BTW, I got caught up in all the other stuff, but, the Minnesotans are hilarious.

Mike

[Morgan's Cloud]

* You would agree that understanding of that big picture would help to assess whether a given effect seems consistent with changes nature has long been imposing, versus something we think is the result of our burning incredible amounts of fossil fuels, altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere? *

Mike , this is what it all boils down to in the end .

NO need for endlessly long posts or a tone that seemingly attacks someone else for making an observation .

Mans time on Earth is nothing more than a blink of an eye in terms of timescale and our weather keeping records are but a small percentage of that time. Indeed the changes we are experiencing may be nothing more than normal abberations with weather patterns themselves .

Is there a possobility that we may have done something to affect weather patterns themselves..?
Absolutely ...
Is there anything we can do to slow down/reverse the trend if there is one ...
Very likely ...

This is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to turn it into rocket science or taint it with politics. That's happened endless times before in other places when the subject is raised , and it gets nasty when there was never any need for it to .
BTW , do you believe that the most doubt on the subject / resistance to it comes from those whose lifestyles would be most impacted by change ?

[Ghost]

BTW , do you believe that the most doubt on the subject / resistance to it comes from those whose lifestyles would be most impacted by change ?

Interesting question. (Frankly, the phrase "resistance to it" is a curious one, but I'll try to stick to your question.)

If you said "negatively impacted by change in the short term" yes. But because the impacts on people's lifestyles are "good" and "bad", it is not so simple as that. Also, it can be lucrative in the short term but bad in the long. Given this, I have to say no. Some examples of what I mean may help.

For instance, if the change were a 25% blanket tax on oil and coal energy, fed into the general coffers of government and used at the whim of politicians like pilfered Social Security taxes, the impact is basically the same on believers and skeptics alike, and those are pretty split in the US anyhow--it just adds a big tax. Long term, this is just more ruin of economies that must function for people to have decent living standards.

If that tax were put into a fund to support proven financially viable power sources, like nuclear plants, there are transaction costs, but the inefficiency of the tax is mitigated by encouraging new industry that can actually replace the old at reasonablty competitive costs. Also, the nuke power people and their cronies are BIG beneficiaries. Maybe the people do okay in the long term, less reliance on foreign oil, etc.

If that tax were put into a fund to begin building out suspect and known inefficient and non-competitively-priced sources of energy, like wind farms, as best I understand the math, it's a big hit to all those taxpayers, skeptics and believers alike. But a big boom for the wind farm guys and their cronies.

If it means further crumbling the sovereignty of nations (take a bunch of money from energy-consuming nations, and hand it out to the third world, as has been proposed) those most impacted are the crooks in power in the third world and those trying to create world government. They get big gains. All the little guys, believers and skeptics alike, get clobbered. In the long term, it is ruinous for all.

So, in summary, the "impacted" fall into big winner and big loser categories. A chunk of the big losers are big skeptics, without looking at the facts too closely. A chunk of the big winners are big believers, the same way. No real surprises there.

It is up to good, intellectually honest people to learn something about the details to drive the process along good science, rather than from victorious, ruthless politics. Further, the default hypothesis is null, and the default response should be null as well, until demonstrably shown otherwise.

Not a short answer, but I think a fair one.

Regards,

Mike

[Ghost]

Until A is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, we will not be able to figure out how to go about accomplishing B..

Well said.

If there is a reverse of "damning with faint praise" I will attempt it now:

I have to question your logic slightly. We could cease doing everything we do and ever have done. (There will be a brief spell of further impact, as our corpses all rot, but after that, if what we did can reverse itself by a simple lack of our continued actions, it should do it then.)

[RedDog]

Pure stupidity over climate change and percieved need for action...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1116088/Woman-91-dies-stressed-16-000-council-make-home-eco-friendly.html


The family of bed-ridden grandmother Dorothy Hacking blame Thanet Council for 'disgusting treatment' after the pensioner became overstretched trying to pay for work to meet government regulations to reduce CO2 emissions.

They say she was beset by stress and health problems after being left with no option but to take out a second mortgage for the stone-cladding repairs to make her home compliant with the Home Energy Conservation Act in Ramsgate, Kent.

She was financially stretched to the limit, worried about putting the heating on in case she couldn't pay the bills and had no idea what to do if another big bill arrived from the council.

The council maintained the work was essential to comply with the Home Energy Conservation Act which requires it to reduce its CO2 emission by 30 per cent within 10 years.


Meanwhile in the US, Waxman is preparing the same for us...


WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of a key House committee said Thursday he will move "quickly and decisively" to push legislation curbing greenhouse gases with a goal of passing climate legislation out of his committee before Memorial Day.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., opening the new Congress' first hearing on the threats from global warming, said inaction on the climate issue is causing uncertainties that make it more difficult to emerge from the recession.

"Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence," said Waxman. "U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future, but uncertainties about whether, when and how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments.

[Ghost]

Wow, the Waxman thing is disturbing...ugh.

Here's an example of the kind of thing which I think helps anyone think sensibly about the man-made-climate-change debate.

[BUIZILLA]

Meanwhile in the US, Waxman is preparing the same for us... Waxman is full of crap,,, we'll invest in clean energy when it's cheap enough to do so without losing money... it has NOTHING to do with greenhouse gasses....

[gcarter]

*
BTW , do you believe that the most doubt on the subject / resistance to it comes from those whose lifestyles would be most impacted by change ?

Steve, I believe you're right on this point......unfortunately, the most impacted by forthcoming regulations will impact the poorest of people who can least afford to make the changes necessary.
1) They drive the oldest, least efficient cars.
2) They live in the least insulated homes,
3) With the most inefficient heating and cooling systems.
Yeah, that's whos going to be really hurt.

After all, I just had a new AC installed last February with a SEER rating of 19!
This year we're putting in a tankless water heater.
Our house is extremely well insulated.

[Carl C]

Do you guys in Florida still have pink flamingo yard ornaments?:popcorn:

[gcarter]

Do you guys in Florida still have pink flamingo yard ornaments?:popcorn:
Some do, but in my neighborhood, you'd be asked to leave.

However, during the annual "Red-Blue" golf tounament, the competitors decorate their yards with them.

[Tank]

Hi all its -13 thats right -----13 this mornign in Nothern NJ
Dont take things so hard!
That being sed did any one menchen the little ICE age?
that plane that crashed out of NYny could have laned on the icey Hudson!
Beeerrrrrrrr!
Tank

[gcarter]

Here's a bit of data backing up the point I made earlier;

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

If I counted correctly, 36 of the 50 highest temps on record were set BEFORE 1940.
Most of those occured in the '30's.
That has to mean something.
What was going on then?
100 years before that, the Northern Hemisphere was experiencing the "Little Ice Age".
Doesn't this seem a bit cyclical to you?
Can any of you "believers" explain it away?

Yeah, I mentioned it.

[Lenny]

46-48F here... that's a lot better than it was at Christmas. Clear and sunny too. I think Fogducker is out on his Scorp 18 but I am not that brave (or don't have enough clothes) :D 54F was my last time out and that was BRUTAL.

[Jack Frost]

suck it up, never fails always seems to be some pudgy NFL fan who thinks it is August who thinks yellow and black look good on him , global warming my ^$$

[gcarter]

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/at-logo.gif
Return to the Article (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/president_obama_has_4_years_to.html)

January 18, 2009
'President Obama has 4 years to save the earth'

Rick Moran
That's the opinion of climate hysteric Jim Hansen of NASA who cooked the books (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.chem/2007-08/msg00086.html)on a study showing the rise of temperatures over the years.

Obama, Hansen says, must dramatically alter the economy of the US "as an example" for the rest of the world" and do away with "cap and trade" replacing it with draconian "carbon taxes." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama)


Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.
Hansen - head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and winner of the WWF's top conservation award - first warned Earth was in danger from climate change in 1988 and has been the victim of several unsuccessful attempts by the White House administration of George Bush to silence his views.
Hansen's institute monitors temperature fluctuations at thousands of sites round the world, data that has led him to conclude that most estimates of sea level rises triggered by rising atmospheric temperatures are too low and too conservative. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a rise of between 20cm and 60cm can be expected by the end of the century.

Let us follow this scientific quack's logic. Carbon levels are "already too high" to prevent "runaway" greenhouse effect but we should destroy western industrialized civilization anyway?
The US should commit economic suicide by "leading the way" on reducing our emissions without getting similar reductions from the #1 emitter of CO2 on the planet - China? And we should impose a moratorium on building coal plants here while China builds 2 a month?
Hansen has proved that he is willing to falsify data to influence people to subscribe to his personal views. He has an agenda to promote, not scientific studies.
It is this kind of hysteria that gives science a bad name. Hansen should go back to making up data. He actually does less harm as a cheat than he does as a spokesman for the Obama Administration on global warming.

[gcarter]

http://www.mlive.com/images/printthispage/print_mlive.gif
It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson

Posted by John Foren | Flint Journal Editor January 19, 2009 04:20AM

http://blog.mlive.com/flintopinion_impact/2008/05/TOMLINSONweb.jpg
Flint Journal's
John Tomlinson (jtomlinson@flintjournal.com)
Read more by him (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/john_tomlinson/)

If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.

The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.

It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.

To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.
John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal. He lives in the Genesee County area. You can e-mail him (jtomlinson@flintjournal.com). Read more columns by John Tomlinson (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/john_tomlinson/).

© 2009 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Can't help but feel better after reading that.

Refer to my opening line on post 5 .... :biggrin.:

[Cuda]

See post #13 above, likely compiled as you wrote yours.
It takes a while to discern your replies, especially when you so vigorously dispute universally accepted facts.
I was getting there...

:beer:


For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

[Cuda]

they are the experts.

Expert:
Ex is a has been, and spurt is a drip under pressure.

[Cuda]

Tony,

Eugenics was as universally accepted in the first half of the 20th century as you believe global warming is today. The last half of the 20th century it was almost impossible to find anyone that lived in those times that would admit that they even knew what it was, much less supported it in those days. Do a Google search on "eugenics movement" and you will find 174,000 entries quoting science just as compelling in those times as the science for global warming is today.

The moral of this story is that universal acceptance is proof of nothing but the ignorance of the masses. It is not science.

Dave
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

[Ghost]

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

Cuda,

Is that something you coined yourself or is there a known famous source? I ask because I was raised with repeated warnings of the fallacy that ignorance times some large number equals wisdom, but I never knew where it came from. They seem so similar I wondered if there was a common source.

Regards,

Mike

[Cuda]

Cuda,

Is that something you coined yourself or is there a known famous source? I ask because I was raised with repeated warnings of the fallacy that ignorance times some large number equals wisdom, but I never knew where it came from. They seem so similar I wondered if there was a common source.

Regards,

Mike
From one of the wittiest guys I've ever read. Gcarter reads him too, and my dad quotes him. HL Menken.

You must have taken logic in college also. I remember from that course there are seven fallacies in logic. We began that semester with 32 students in the class, and only eight of us took the final exam. The rest dropped it. I ain't braggin', but I made 200 out of 200 on the final. :)

[Ghost]

Ahhh, that does make sense. I'm slightly embarassed as it was right under my nose. Shameful what has become of the Baltimore Sun, where Mencken's words adorn a main wall, but I fear his respect for truth is not so revered nowadays.

I never took an entire class focused strictly on logic, as you have, mastery of which is an impressive feat. I always loved puzzles and logic problems, and a few of my favorite highschool classes ventured into propositional logic and Boolean algebra for a couple of months, but that is about as far I got in any formal study.

As a further aside, I got a book for Christmas entitiled _Wittgenstein's Poker_, which uses a brief and impassioned argument at King's College as a means to discuss some of the history of philosophy. It has been interesting, but I must admit I find myself with far more questions than answers. I think I need to crack some more books on the subject to get a better idea of the history and significance. Especially as to the split between those who look strictly at rules of formal logic versus those who consider problems of morality.

Some years ago a journalist pulled a Plimpton-esque year as a professional card player and wrote of his experiences. He, of course, described the psychology as the real challenge, for the math of the game is not terribly hard to grasp, and understanding of it is a must, essentially a given required of all who play.

What I find curious about logic and philosophy is that I suspect a similar thing is true. Understanding of a certain amount propositional logic is a must for almost any sort of thinking, and the weightier matters of philosophy and ethics assume such knowledge. Yet fewer and fewer of the people who make forays into the field understand any of the fundamentals. (By the way, I do not mean to say that people who do not formally study logic cannot think clearly--many think very clearly without it. But I do wonder how much better the many to whom clear thinking fails to come naturally might have benefited from some formal study.) If I were in control of curricula, there would be some logic required in the public schools.

[Cuda]

Ahhh, that does make sense. I'm slightly embarassed as it was right under my nose. Shameful what has become of the Baltimore Sun, where Mencken's words adorn a main wall, but I fear his respect for truth is not so revered nowadays.

I never took an entire class focused strictly on logic, as you have, mastery of which is an impressive feat. I always loved puzzles and logic problems, and a few of my favorite highschool classes ventured into propositional logic and Boolean algebra for a couple of months, but that is about as far I got in any formal study.

As a further aside, I got a book for Christmas entitiled _Wittgenstein's Poker_, which uses a brief and impassioned argument at King's College as a means to discuss some of the history of philosophy. It has been interesting, but I must admit I find myself with far more questions than answers. I think I need to crack some more books on the subject to get a better idea of the history and significance. Especially as to the split between those who look strictly at rules of formal logic versus those who consider problems of morality.

Some years ago a journalist pulled a Plimpton-esque year as a professional card player and wrote of his experiences. He, of course, described the psychology as the real challenge, for the math of the game is not terribly hard to grasp, and understanding of it is a must, essentially a given required of all who play.

What I find curious about logic and philosophy is that I suspect a similar thing is true. Understanding of a certain amount propositional logic is a must for almost any sort of thinking, and the weightier matters of philosophy and ethics assume such knowledge. Yet fewer and fewer of the people who make forays into the field understand any of the fundamentals. (By the way, I do not mean to say that people who do not formally study logic cannot think clearly--many think very clearly without it. But I do wonder how much better the many to whom clear thinking fails to come naturally might have benefited from some formal study.) If I were in control of curricula, there would be some logic required in the public schools.
We had logic in math at high school If----------> then is basic logic.

[Ghost]

I'd like to see it pushed to at least an understanding of the truth of a proposition and its contrapositive, along with the fallacies of converse and inverse, and some supporting Venn diagrams.

Sadly, I think most high school students would guess a contrapositive was birth control...

[Cuda]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/h_l_mencken.html

[Lenny]

I'd like to see it pushed to at least an understanding of the truth of a proposition and its contrapositive, along with the fallacies of converse and inverse, and some supporting Venn diagrams.

Sadly, I think most high school students would guess a contrapositive was birth control...

Ghost, I just poured gas in my ears and blew my head off. THAT is starting to send me to Wikepedia :yes: What ever happened to the Tele-Tubbies and Mr. Rogers ?

:D

[Ghost]

Ghost, I just poured gas in my ears and blew my head off. THAT is starting to send me to Wikepedia :yes: What ever happened to the Tele-Tubbies and Mr. Rogers ?

:D

:rlol: Funny part is that this is one of those things that sounds way more technical than it is. An example will show what I mean more than anything.

Proposition: if it is a human then it is a mammal.
Contrapositive: if it aint a mammal then it aint a human.

Pretty simple, just a big word for the relationship of the statements.:)

[Cuda]

Fallacy of ambiguity
Petto Principi
Constructive delima
and I can't remember the rest off hand. :)

[Ghost]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/h_l_mencken.html

These are great, for example:

"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

[Cuda]

Do you guys in Florida still have pink flamingo yard ornaments?:popcorn:
Good job Carl. Finally a subject worthy of debate.

[Cuda]

These are great, for example:

"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."


My dad's personal favorite:
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
H. L. Mencken

[Cuda]

I'd like to see it pushed to at least an understanding of the truth of a proposition and its contrapositive, along with the fallacies of converse and inverse, and some supporting Venn diagrams.

Sadly, I think most high school students would guess a contrapositive was birth control...
That statement reminds me of Bornoulli's Law of convergent and divergent ducts. I couldn't remember the name Bornoulli, so I had to wait until this morning to call dad to find out the name.

Bornoulli's law is what causes the venturi effect, that causes a carburetor to operate. It's the kind of thing tha dad and I would discuss over dinner. :)

[Ghost]

Of all the classes I ever heard people griping about just because the math got so hairy, maybe the hairiest was fluid dynamics. I remember in regular ol' physics when we looked at an exhause manifold, and thinking how counter-intuitive some aspects of it seemed at the time. For guys who've played with engines their whole lives it's probably all second-nature.

[zelatore]

I recall having an laser optics class that got pretty ugly.

Of course, that's all I remember about it ... none of the actual material is still with me.

[Ghost]

I prefer the little 8 pound baby Jesus, can't even speak but still omnipotent.

[zelatore]

I really, really wanted to dis-like that movie.

I mean come on, Will Farrell and Nascar? Give me a break!

but...well...uh...I might have laughed a little...

[Cuda]

I'm not sure if Baby Jesus was omipotent, or ubiquitous.
Ricky Bobby prefered to pray to Baby Jesus.

I thought it was going to be a stupid movie, and it was, but it was so stupid it was funny! :)

[Ghost]

I wanted to hate it too. But some of it I just couldn't. The dinner table scene in particular. Selling the windshield for advertising as well.

[Cuda]

I wanted to hate it too. But some of it I just couldn't. The dinner table scene in particular. Selling the windshield for advertising as well.
Chip, I'll be on you like a spider monkey jacked up on Mountain Dew. :)

[Carl C]

Good job Carl. Finally a subject worthy of debate. I bet you've got a whole yard full of 'em.:wink::pimp: