Global Cooling
 

So are we cooling or are we warming?

A while ago I read about a German study which did the 'well we are cooling but its really warming, its just cooling now, and thats natural but really we are warming'.

The data I've seen from the last few years do confirm we are in fact cooling.

But really how long can we pretend that CO2 is the evil pollutant against common (and scientific) sense?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0405.xml

Now I realize this is the daily telegraph, perhaps the only conservative bent major publication in the UK, but commentary aside, the data is in fact correct.

Regardless of your politics, the SCIENCE of global warming is obviously flawed and untested. The models do not add up with the reality out there, but we are still inundated with anecdotal global warming factoids constantly ala the shark attacks of 2001.

My fear as always is the backlash this will cause. The population is not truly stupid but uneducated. By tricking them to believing something, they will resent it when it turns out to be false. Much of our environmental progress in terms of how people view the environment has become tied to global warming. I worry about the reaction of people and therefore the people they elect after this fraud has come to light.

Its difficult enough to explain the use of biodiversity to people, its going to be even harder to get their trust after so many 'leaders' have been found out to be at best mistaken and in many cases lying.

Both. What was once colloquially called "global warming" is actually "global climate change". That stuff Al Gore is talking about? Yeah, that's global climate change. The warming is only one of many trends possibly resulting from a combination of things, including pollution.
It's not pretending, it's experts drawing conclusions from data. If data comes forward that contradicts CO2 being linked to global climate change, then the conclusions might shift.

Most likely methane will be the more severe culprit. But there are stores of CO2 in the permafrost that can outgass fairly soon. IS this material? who knows.

The one thing I'll say (as someone who wouldn't dare consider himself anything more then casually knowledgeable on the subject and who also tends to believe that humanity's effect on global climate is minimal), is that part of my understanding on the subject is that climate change could cause more extreme weather, not necessarily simply warmer or cooler climates. So even if there was a colder and wetter winter, it wouldn't matter if the summer was hotter and drier then in the past.

The problem with this, is its a cop out.

All their models showed an increase in temperature (which didn't happen). Many were predicting worse hurricane seasons (which didn't happen).

This is a cop out because its completely non-predictive. Its saying 'well we don't know if it will be warming or cooling but bad things will happen', and then every time we have a major snow storm or hurricane its 'see global warming did it!'.

Oh, come on. Aren't we done with the anti-global-warming thing? No? Ok, whatever.

Here's a link to a summary of what the Nature paper in question actually says:

[LINK=http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/decade_break_in_global_warming.html]Nature blog[/LINK]

So, actually some fascinating science going on, which doesn't really have much bearing on the longer term global warming/climate change issues. We've known all along that global warming doesn't mean a constantly warming planet, with no 'cold snaps' or other variations. It means that, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we're putting into the atmosphere are going to cause climate change on a global scale, causing significant warming in a relatively short time.

Personally, I don't think it's the most critical environmental problem we have right now, but climate change like what is predicted will almost certainly cause a lot of disruption and suffering - places that are habitable (and inhabited) by people are going to become a lot less friendly very quickly. People will starve to death.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you, Ustwo, and I don't really have time to counter every single right-winger anti-global warming talking point you can come up with, so maybe I shouldn't have responded at all.

However, I have to say, I find the right-wing's anti-science bias truly shocking. On environmental issues (anti-global-warming, anti-acid-rain), economics (worship of free markets and unregulated capitalism), even basic cosmology, physics, and biology (creationism, anti-evolutionism, anti-vaccination), it's a truly sick culture of denial, evasion, and obfuscation. Any good ideas on the right (smaller government, eschewing onerous regulation, balanced budget...) are drowned out by the crazies.

End rant.

Only it DOESN'T the models don't work PERIOD. Its garbage in garbage out, its not science, its a videogame.

Calling it climate change is a way to de-politicize the issue, but its a meaningless statement. The climate will change, and when it changes some places will be better off and some places worse off, perhaps they will grow fine wine in England again like the good old days. Its GOING to change, hell climate change is in part blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire, but the question is if WE are causing it.

Angry man is angry, angry man went off on tangents which have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I'm an atheist with 2 biology degrees on top of my professional ones, if you want to rant about the Church Lady, do it elsewhere.

Lots of idiots are on the right, well lets get into powercrystals, 9/11 was done by GWB, PeTA, people talking about the spirit of the earth, and the like on the left.

They are unimportant in this thread, as is your rant.

As Ustwo stated, it's BS. Changes in weather is caused by pollution does not work. You can't be right on both sides of the isle and claim no one can doubt you.

Show some sort of evidence of a stance. You take a stance based on temerature increasing, it decreases... you can't still be right. If we are to completely change an economy we need evidence. It was supposed to increase, it didn't. The hockeystick model is proven BS. It was supposed to have more hurricanes when we had not 1 in 2006. Ocean temperatures were supposed to go up, they didn't.

Mountains which were having decreasing glaciers were touted as proof of global warming, now are having advancing glaciers and are ignored (Snowdonia).

As a vast majority of the foremost experts in the world on climate have said: it's not BS.

I hear that to determine truth in science, what you do is take all the papers that are of one opinion, take all the papers that are of another, weigh them, and then determine which theory is correct that way.

Scientists have resigned from the IPCC due to it being heavily biased and only interested in what they considered to be the proper, forgone conclusions.

Its political at this point, the science has been long left behind. I was going to highlight the important parts of the letter below, but there would still be a wall of text. If you want to understand why global warming is no longer about science, please read.


http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ea_leaves.html

"Truth" in science is determined through the scientific method. Your research is clearly biased, therefore your use of the scientific method is corrupted. Or do you think you have access to data that none of the other scientists have access to?
Your use of outdated terminology speaks in volumes of your understanding of current theories. It's not been called "global warming" in any meaningful way by experts for years. It's global climate change, just as several posters, myself included, mentioned above. The problem is, ironically, that this is an inconvenient truth. It's easier for you to still argue if you argue against "global warming" because global climate change isn't just warming trends, it's a multitude of ecological and climatological phenomena.

I'm sorry I didn't PC it away.

It speaks volumes of your understanding of what the issues are.

Calling it global climate change is a way to divert from the truth that global warming isn't going to kill us all after all.

I still call homeless people bums too, nothing changed about them to warrant a new term.

Its colder, ITS OUR FAULT, its warmer ITS OUT FAULT, its raining less, ITS OUR FAULT, its raining more ITS OUR FAULT.

Give me a fucking break.

Its bad fucking science trying to manipulate people for political agendas. Reread the letter.

but if we call them homeless it won't hurt their fragile egos, you know bum is such a bad sounding word...

Maybe you can give us a break. Maybe you can throw factual evidence at us instead of an outdated, if not questionable education. Your case isn't even bad science, it's just fallacies.

It's global climate change instead of global warming because it's not just warming.

really? that's your position?

seems like the pot/kettle thing, you know black....

Will, your position is sort of like phlogiston. It's not falsifiable, which means it isn't really scientific. If your theory is "confirmed" by whatever data show up no matter which way they go, then it's not much of a theory because it can't be falsified.

I think an even more interesting question is: why does the pro- and anti-global "warming" argument split precisely down the political right/left dividing line? Surely that's not a coincidence?

Santa Clara University, BA in psych.
From above:

that's a great question...

Sorry but the only link to global climate change they had was warming with the greenhouse effect. Oddly, that aint working out according to their plan.

You are asking me to prove CO2 isn't having an effect on 'global climate change', might as well ask me to prove god isn't a small fish in my anus (which he is).

We already know you are an expert engineer, so I can only assume you are an expert on global 'climate change' as well and my outdated education is trumped by your expert knowledge.

As an expert that you are, can you point me to studies that accurately predicted current climate as a direct result of CO2? Can you show me how they predicted the current cooling trend? Can you show me how, even though none of them work for past climates, or current ones, how they will somehow accurately predict the future?

Why does a psych major understand this better than you? Pockets of cooling are normal in larger warming trends. Those fluctuations are a part of the larger and developing understanding of global climate change, which includes overall warming trends. Sorry.
As it just so happens, I'm just relaying information available from numerous scientific publications available online. In other words, the world's foremost minds on the subject do, in fact, trump evidence taken out of context in your Telegraph article.
Study proving that CO2 can drastically effect climate:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate...t_webpage.html
http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...ms/2904txt.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2719627.ece
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...17/2219659.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ng-395796.html

The evidence is all there.

As for the "cooling trend", what cooling trend? One cold winter among many increasingly hot summers?

Or...conclusions will shift based upon the sources of the largest grants and fellowships. If there's one thing that 45 years of cynicism has taught me, it's always always always follow the money.

Look, even though our spewing shit into the air ain't helpin' matters any, the climate has been changing on this rock for millions and billions of years before we puny humans ever stepped foot out of the primordial ooze. So...yeah, the climate's changing. You ain't gonna stop it, and neither am I. Sometimes shit just happens.

Yes, it can just happen. The question: is it just happening or are we helping it along?

that is indeed the question, Will. I don't even question that altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the insulating effect of the atmosphere, in principle. My issue is the levels needed to do that, whether it's naturally occurring, how much the manmade effect is, whether there are other or counteracting causes, and on and on and on. For all I know the human-caused effect is dwarfed by variations in things like solar activity. I believe I read that there is a decrease in the polar ice cap of Mars - obviously not human caused.

So far as I can tell we just don't have a firm enough basis to say there is a crisis requiring drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies (while tolerating massive pollution from China and India). I'm totally with the concept that we should be responsible stewards of the earth, but we also need to be responsible stewards of our families and economies. So far as I'm able to tell this whole global warming thing is being used as a cudgel for political purposes rather than as a scientific question.

I've been thinking about this myself.

I'm not sure if I really qualify to be discussed in it, as originally I was in the global warming needs to be investigated camp and I have always been a 'acid rain is bad' type. I only started to wonder about the validity of global warming in college in the early 90's.

My guess is for many it would have been a more classic personality type reaction.

Conservative would be, its been fine forever, it was cold last winter, what are you talking about?

Liberal would be, tell me about it, we could all die! Well we need to do SOMETHING to fix it!

There is something in the liberal mind set which reacts to every sky is falling prediction, and something in the conservative mind set which won't admit the sky is falling even if they are getting hit by clouds.

Neither is necessarily good. One is gullible the other intractable. With global warming, since the evidence was not clear cut, this just let both sides dig in.

Currently though I think its gone beyond that. Since I can't say 'global warming' without showing my ignorance (heh) I'll say 'climate change' has become a vehicle for the politics of some agendas. Also while its been a good number of years since I was at the 'cutting edge' of environmental science as an active participant, there is an elitism there in the scientific community toward the public there where they assume the public is made up of idiots who would be better off dead (I heard more than once it would be good if a virus killed much of the population as casual conversation, people were the enemy). This elitism means they feel you, the public just need to know what they tell you as it will shape what they want to see happen, scientific reality doesn't matter, you are too stupid to grasp the issues. Speaking against it is heresy against the new orthodoxy, so when the founder of Greenpeace says things like we need new nuclear power plants and that the environmental movement is no longer about science but fear mongering he gets called a Judas.

I recall the same argument 35 years ago from car makers, oil companies, utilities, other heavy industries, etc about the need for a clean air act, clean water, safe drinking water act, solid waste disposal act, toxic waste disposal act....

The results were hardly an economic catastrophe and in fact, stimulated new industries to meet the new standards or develop alternatives.

I prefer to err on the side of "what if the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions and DOES have a serious environmental impact."

And I still tend to side with the IPCC and 11 national academies of science over the deniers, many of whom are funded by Exxon, Heartland Foundation and other industry interest groups.

Energy conservation/efficiency and airborne pollution mitigation is good policy policy from both an environmental and economic sustainability perspective.

If you were to read the IPCC mitigation strategy, you would find, for the most part, sensible recommendations that dont "require drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies."

But I raised this in another thread with Ustwo and he chose not to respond.

Except for the fact that 'it' (global warming/climate change) whathaveyou is accepted by most climatologists as the most likely description of what is and will happen over the next century or so. Right now, I'm aware of no reputable agencies or groups that are both knowledgeable on matters related to climatology *and* deny that man-made climate change is a reality.

They could be wrong. But we should base our policies on the best available scientific evidence we have now, not on hoping it's wrong, or believing it's wrong based upon ideology.

"Human-influenced climate change" is probably the most accurate descriptive phrase. "Global warming" is also in a sense accurate, but gives laypeople the wrong impression, ie that "we're all going to burn up!" or that everywhere on earth is going to get hotter. The reality, as always, is much more nuanced.

Second, as you point out, climate has always changed, and, for as long as we've been around, we've been effected by it (usually in a negative way over the short term). For nearly as long, we've *affected* climate to one degree or another. Now, we're starting to be able to measure, study, and understand those changes. At the same time, the degree to which we're affecting our environment is increasing dramatically.

Fair enough. Angry man is damned angry. And, while you may think it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, it's the same damn thing. People don't want to believe that we are causing climate change (or acid rain, or that they evolved from primates, or that the earth is round, etc), so they stick by their guns, no matter what evidence they're presented with. And I see it almost entirely associated with 'the right wing', whatever that is. It's unhealthy, and I'm tired of putting up with it politely.

Fair enough. I don't particularly want to debate global warming (again), it's not going to go anywhere. But I see it as part and parcel of a much larger problem of denying science and evidence in favor of one's chosen ideology.

Most of those bizarre beliefs aren't confined to 'the left', AFAIK - aside from perhaps the extreme behaviours of PeTA and 'GWB did it' as a branch of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They also don't have a dramatic effect on public policy like the anti-climate-change thing, various other anti-environmentalism things, or the anti-evolution thing. The truly harmful stuff seems (to me) to be mostly confined to the right.

Another good point. I don't want to try to hijack your thread, but I did want to point out how I felt. Maybe sometime when I have more time and energy, I'll start a thread about which crazies are more widespread and harmful. For now, please accept my apologies if I've gone too far offtopic.

Ok, let me pick one at random........

ennie, meenie, ok abc.net you win!

Ocean salinity evidence of climate change: researchers

Ok water less salty, hypothesis is that ice melt is causing it......

will do you see where the disconnect is here between the effect and the cause?

The controversy began "when Steve McIntyre of the blog Climateaudit.org e-mailed NASA scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000," reports The Los Angeles Times.

"When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.
------
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175

DC Dux, the problem with your position is that it is fundamentally Malthusian, once you strip away all the nice slogans. Again: I think responsibility is a good thing, but part of being responsible is not running off half-cocked until we have a good handle on what needs to be done if anything, and why.

The pollution issue is not analogous. Pollution is an externality. Living (which creates greenhouse gases - mere breathing does!) is not.

We have evidence of drastic ice melting and we have evidence that water is less salty. I can draw a picture if you'd like. What do you think happens to ice when it melts?
I just took a little tour of ibdeditorial.com. Here are some quotes from the front page:
And my favorite:
As it turns out, IBD is a right wing rag!

EPA estimates from 2004 - 40% of CO2 emissions result from power plants - burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation...and 33% of CO2 emissions come from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines/

Breath easy....its not from "living"...its from inefficient cars and power plants.

I don't think I have been clear in what I'm talking about. The models can not predict PAST climates. As in you put in the numbers at some point in the past and it can't get us to the present. You can't work backwards to recreate the warm period in the 30's or the cooling in the 70's. The data just doesn't work, why should I trust it to tell me what it will be 100 years from now when it can't show what it was 100 years ago?

The argument is still around CO2, a greenhouse gas, causing warming. If the argument was cutting down a forest causes a drought or the heat island affects of cities then I'd acquiesce there are arguments to be made there about local and perhaps global climate effects we are unaware of. The solutions presented are about reducing greenhouse emission, mainly CO2 (for some reason CH4 doesn't get much real press). The new concept may be climate change, but the real issue is still global warming.

While locally we can affect the climate and environment and have done so since the beginning of time, I think its a bit extreme to claim any climate changes in the past 10,000 years or so had anything to do with human activity. For instance I doubt the Roman warm period or dark ages cold period, which were global trends not just European ones, had anything to do with human activities.

Well thats not me, I started my research career as a youngster working on acid rains effect on annelids. Its are a lot of people out there who are skeptics on global warming who do not fit your rant either. My skepticism is based purely on the science, or more importantly lack there of showing any definitive link. A best or worst, we have a correlation and an incomplete understanding.

Are you a conservative? Yes I'm making a joke, I know your politics based on your stance ;) So my stance is based on ideology and yours on science? Do you think at 22, working in a lab dealing with PCB contamination, and taking classes on Great Lakes water ecology and seminars in Evolution, I came to the conclusion that global warming based on human activities was apparently untrue based on my ideology?

Show me someone into power crystals I'll show you a left winger. But seriously angry man doesn't belong in this debate. I don't support ID, I think Ben Stein lost his marbles at some point, and I don't worry about climate change stone wallers because I think they are right even if its for the wrong reasons, I'm sure you don't mind those who think we have upset mother earth being on your side either.

More than accepted. I just want you to get from this that I and many others like me do NOT approach this from an ideological stance, but from a scientific one. We do not see data that is convincing.

ustwo--i know we don't agree on much of anything, and i am sure that it will come as no surprise that the mister science voice you sometimes adopt just strikes me as odd. but if you have time, could you please find a source that you find makes a case parallel to yours that you take to be legitimate and maybe link to it and explain why you find it compelling? i just want to understand what exactly you are pointing to that you find compelling in this regard...i'm not going to go after the source, i'll be nice promise--but i'd really like to see how an argument that you find persuasive about climate change/global warming would operate. like a real one please.

i'm curious about how the arguments work.
and i'm really curious about the degree of separation between argument, data and politics.

Pasta all mighty....
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...506160205.aspx

Regardless of what's going on with the climate, there are a few fairly well-established truths:

• Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
• Carbon dioxide is a trace constituent of the atmosphere.
• Human civilization has reached a point where we can artificially influence the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's pretty simple to me: all other things being equal, as carbon dioxide goes up, the overall climate will warm due to the increased strength of the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is variance from year-to-year, but we're usually too short-sighted and can't realize that true climate change is a very long-term process.

In the battle pitting man versus nature, nature usually wins. Why should man be so arrogant as to artificially modify the planet that we live on? Shouldn't we all be good stewards and try to leave as little of a footprint as possible?

Do you know what % of the global greenhouse gases we are producing?

By your logic alone we should just kill ourselves as guess what you are making CO2 right now.

Your post is full of massive assumptions.

Do you know what % makes a difference? Because it's a lot lower than conservatives would like people to think. Your post is full of massive assumptions.

The US is the largest producer of CO2 (currently about 25%)...CO2 emissions by country

And we know its primarily from power plants and fuel emissions.....DOE CO2 Information Analysis Center

How many times do you need to see the same data

so then you know the percentage and are holding out?

More data.....Greenhouse Gas Emission Profiles by Country

Maybe a graphic of US sources of CO2 emissions will help.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/usat.gif

source: DOE Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

What is the down side of cutting US emissions of CO2 from inefficent power plants and cars/light trucks (SUVs(......particularly if it can be done in a economically sustainable manner?

Someone please tell me.

Noted scientists like James Hansen (head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) has been quoted saying a concentration of 450 ppm as a maximum goal for CO2 that may avoid the most significant damage to the Earth's ecosystems and economies.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa.../challenge.htm

As of 2007, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 380 ppm and climbing. At the rate we're adding CO2, we'd reach 450 ppm by about 2045.

CO2 has never been this high in recorded history:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa...on_dioxide.jpg

I feel like a tag team with DC.
*SLAP* You're in!

DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4...recool4dc9.gif

DC this graph as much relevance here as yours.

I mean you just showed a graph of carbon emissions in a void.

Ustwo, if you can't make an argument, then go study. Pastafarian evidence has no place here.

I'd be fine switching to nuclear + electric transportation (so long as we continue to develop more efficient and safe ways to make and recycle the batteries). The only issue is cost. Nuclear reactors cost $3-4b. How many do you suppose we'd need to replace all the fossil fuels burned today? The answer to that question illustrates my interest in reducing consumption overall.

Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.

The global temperature.

And recorded history, let me show it to you.
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9...cfig421fv5.jpg
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/7/4167


In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4...age270fkm9.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Keep chasing that rainbow guys.

I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change, but those are I know are boring and non-political. What to do if it gets warmer, colder, if areas get a drought etc.

Loquitor...nuclear power should be an option...IF it is properly regulated. And then there is the disposal question...ask the folks near Yucca Mountain.

But that will take years...and the NIMBY effect should be interesting. Do you want a Nuke plant in your backyard?

We should also have strict security regulations for nuclear (and chemical) facilities (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission) and not voluntary industry compliance as proposed by Bush.

In the meantime, the Bush EPA should comply with the USSC ruling last year (ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE et al. v. DUKE ENERGY CORP. et al.)...dump their so-called "Clear Skies Initiative", and enforce the previous regulations on power plant emissions in the Clean Air Act.

The Bush EPA should also comply with the USSC ruling (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al) to issue emission standards (including CO2) for motor vehicles

After respondent Duke Energy Corporation replaced or redesigned the workings of some of its coal-fired electric generating units, the United States filed this enforcement action, claiming, among other things, that Duke violated the PSD provisions by doing the work without permits. Petitioner environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs and filed a complaint charging similar violations. Duke moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that none of its projects was a "major modification" requiring a PSD permit because none increased hourly emissions rates.

I read the summary, which was enough leaglese to cause me brain damage as it is, but this was about permits?

I'm not going to read all of it, and all of the rulings, but I don't see anywhere where Duke Energy increased their hourly emissions and this seems to be about if they needed a permit or not to modify their generators in a manner which didn't change their emissions.

I for one am shocked this isn't being properly enforced.

Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth analysis. :thumbsup:

Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" exempts power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.

I have no interest in weighing in on the larger debate. However, I found this interesting:

Because it seemed so tangential and unrelated. I decided to find out what the motive was for this statement and discovered to my surprise that Ben Stein has Godwined the Evolution vs ID debate.

Ah, so you're going to ignore what we were talking about; CO2. Maybe we can talk about the election, too?
I guess you missed my US government study about CO2 numbers causing catastrophic climate change in very little time. Here, I'll make it harder to ignore:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig2.gif
I don't blame you. It'd be tough to argue that the earth is flat, too.

We can talk about The Onion's article:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Yes yes, what did that have to do with your link about permits?

SO you dont accept Intelligent Falling?

ps....read the Clean Air Act.

But will, why isn't the temperature rising now then? When will we reach these heights of CO2? What can the US do to stop the developing world?


Snark, nice, you just copy graphs you don't understand, get shot down and them and give a new one.

So in other words you too posted a link that really had no bearing.

Are you channeling another poster who likes to do that?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png
It is rising.
About 2050.
We should remove the log from our own eye before removing the splinter from theirs.
The graphs I posted are frighteningly simple, but if you have any questions I'd be glad to field them.

Read the Clean Air Act (is there an echo.....Read the Clean Air Act) and the process of how permits are supposed to be issued/denied for power plants (stationary sources of pollution) and you might understand the USSC decision.

I understand it, I don't understand why you care.

I don't think you want to understand.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2171/tempqj1.jpg

Obviously human produced CO2 must be the cause....:rolleyes:

Ustwo, let's recap what has transpired here....you set out to author a thread to "pooh pooh" "global warming", as you often attempt to debunk what mainstream science views as a human activity influenced, climate crisis. The centerpiece of your OP is an "article" authored by a British satirist, Christopher Booker: (in post #1)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

The, in your post (#10), you provide info about the "change of heart" (announced on Jan. 17, 2005) of meteorologist/hurrican expert Dr. Chris Landsea, which does not even seem to support your contention, because Landsea also said:
In your post (#28), you provide a link to an IBD editorial. IBD editorials are written by and exclusively for the consumption of "wingers"....remember, you chose to start this mocking exercise of a thread....is this all you got????

No....in your post (#32), you've displayed a cartoon graphic....

...and in post (#34) you post a link to an article which seems to be a gesture by you to mock academy award winning global warming documentarian, Al Gore !

Finally....all the way out in your post (#45) you've posted a linked excerpt to a scientific report concerning the effect of CO2 on climate change, but it's almost seven years old:
Rothman's aka Rothmandaggar's findings are put in context in this 18 months old article:

<h3>Meanwhile, since Rothman's late 2001 determinations on the historical effects of CO2 levels, leading authorities on the subject have conducted further research:</h3>
Ustwo, aside from demonstrating your political ideology so prominently in this thread, what do you think are your most convincing posts and citations to support your opinion? I think I've done a better job supporting my contention that NIST has not conducted an investigation into the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, given the stature of the collapse as unique in the annals of high rise steel structures, commensurate with what is potentially at stake by not providing a thorough and timely determinationL
....than you have in debunking the threat of human activity influenced global warming.

Please post your opinion of what piece of information you have already provided to support your opinion in this thread, is closest to being on a par with the any of the three items in the preceding quote box, supporting my contention that NIST has never been serious about investigating the collapse of WTC 7, because I don't see anything compelling posted to support your contrary claims about global warming, Your thread is akin to a poorly documented conspiracy theory, the kind of thread you abhor when the subject is challenges to the official story of what happened on 9/11....

You don't even seem to take your own attempt here as seriously as I have approached posting my observations about your "work" here.

Bottomline: I've presented in past threads, a hell of a lot better documented challenge to NIST's 9/11 WTC collapse investigation performance, and hence, a reasonable challenge to the official story of what happened on 9/11, than you have here in support of your challenge to scientific determinations about global warming and it's causes. Yet, you continue to label my well supported opinions as "extreme"...only worthy of discussion in the "paranoia" forum. Your presentation here does not even rise to the level I have maintained in challenging the official 9/11 record. Does your weaker challenge of conventional scientific consensus even belong in this forum? How is the OP here not a conspiracy theory?

I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out. Pro-human-caused global warming arguments are bogus political spin unless the impact from emissions/pollutants from livestock and supporting industries are included.

EDIT - - the reference to the UN IPCC should have been United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). The IPCC failed to include this data in their report.

I'm still waiting for Global Ape-ing.

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/...pes/ending.jpg

otto, I thought the IPCC cited energy consumption (power plants, auto emissions, coal mining) as the single major source, followed by industrial processes, and then agricultural facilities (livestock), and last, land use and forestry.

Can you point me to an IPCC doc I havent seen?

Oh..and what huge defection of scientists?

Might you be referring to the Heartland Institute (with funding from Exxon) which claims that 500 scientists have defected from the human-contributor (not human cause) camp?

Funny how many of those scientists dont even know that the Heartland has included them on their list and have demanded that their names be removed.

Update: Heartland Insitute Backs off Fraudulent List - Refuses to Apologize

Perhaps even more alarming is how even the IPCC downplays the effects of dihydrogen monoxide which is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

While we hem and haw about a .28% contribution due to agriculture and fossil fuels, we ignore DHMO and its negative effects.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Clearly we need to ban DHMO as it is the greatest contributor to global warming. Thanks for bringing awareness to this little known problem.

I love the dueling graphs, guys. It's about time we got some color around here. It brightens things up.

I haven't even gotten to the chicken and the egg argument yet. Do correlations in CO2 and temperature have to do with CO2 causing higher temperatures, or higher temperatures causing the release of more C02.

Interesting, had not seen this one until now. It is absolutely a greater factor in the overall discussion on climate change and falls in line with the disregard of "inconvenient truths" by the IPCC and the man-made global warming proponents.

In my earlier post, I cited the IPCC had reported on the livestock industry. We had discussed this in threads many months ago and I'd forgotten that the IPCC actually failed to include the findings of the 2007 Rome report by the FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm An extensive 391 page UN FAO report which utilized the IPCC's quantification and analysis methodologies.

Here is a report from the UN FAO Newsroom (Livestock a major threat to Environment) highlighting many of the findings to be published in "Livestock's Long Shadow".

If we think the cows are farting too much, give 'em Beano. Quick and easy way to solve the problem of excess emissions!!

BEANO! :)

But then all that fart would end up in my hamburgers. I know that's how it works.

Have you been to McDonald's or Burger King lately? I hardly think that you'd notice the flatulence infused beef. And, if you did, it'd be an improvement.

The dollar menu is the dollar menu for a reason.

Seriously, though, the more I learn about human contributions to global climate change, the less certain I am of it, but only because I haven't taken the time to study the subject thoroughly; if I spent more time I would be more certain, though I'm not sure which way I'd go. I have seen a couple papers which showed that working only with the radiative heat transfer properties of CO2 it is difficult to support a claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise the temperature more than a fraction of a degree (Celsius). Methinks there would have to be more to it than CO2.

To be honest, the reality of it doesn't matter to me. Impending doom makes me apathetic, and if we are all fucked because of our carbon emissions I'd rather not do anything. The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought.

On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do the things that we're supposed to do to avoid global catastrophe that don't rely on avoiding global catastrophe as a motivation. It's kind of a non issue for me.

Otto...I'm pretty certain the latest IPCC report included the data from the 2006 FAO study.

In the 2007 IPCC report, 57% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions are CO2 (fossil fuel use) .... CH4 and N2O (primarily agriculture) combined are 22%.

In terms of industry sector contributions: 26% energy supply (power plants, coal), 19% heavy industry, 17% forestry, 14% agriculture (your farting cows), 13% transport, 8% residential/commercial buildings.

If you really want to read the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (pdf)
(see Figure SPM.3 - page 5)

The difference between fossil fuel combustion (CO2) and cow farts (CH4) is far more pronounced in the US:

U.S. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggc...%20Fig%203.gif

Round and round we go. :thumbsup:

And there it is.

How many people in this thread made up their minds about this issue long before they did any research?

The issue is not as simple as it's made out to be.

Regarding the IPCC, the last report I read (current as of late 2007) indicated that virtually all of their findings were derived using meta-analysis. Take from that what you will.

EDIT for UsTwo:

http://www.dhmo.org/images/dhmobanner.gif

My favorite part that has gone uncommented upon is this:

Bush's approval rating is still in the high 20s, so I wouldn't worry too much about people's resentment. If your concern were valid, his approval rating would be zero.

As far as this topic:
The last couple of posters have it right - people believe what they believe for the most part. And nothing changes that. Again, Host posts great, calm questions and is flatly ignored. When the OPs comments are strung together, as Host did, it becomes pretty clear which "side" has more credibility...

Looking at the temperature over the last few years and saying look the earth is warming or the earth is cooling is like looking at the change in stock market with 1 minute worth of data and saying "see the stock market is increasing (or decreasing) this year" A single year is way to little data to determine what the overall trend is over 100, 1000, 10000, and especially 100,000 years. There is so much noise in these types of measurements that you can't with certainty say anything.

That is why for me the argument of global warming comes down to 1) is man kind changing the environment in a way that could have consequences. If the answer to that question is yes then the second question is 2) scientifically speaking how will those changes likely effect the earth.

The question should be "what are the likely effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere?" not "is the earth warming, cooling, or neither?"

Boatin, you've given me a reason to bother to repost the last sentence in my last post. It clearly needs to be asked again, because the Ustwo quote that you displayed confirms Ustwo fears a conspiracy to "dupe" the public is what is at work in this young century!

Looks like your education included a few courses on how to attack the messenger.

If the source of information is clearly biased, then the un-cited information they present is suspect. It's not an ad hom fallacy if they don't cite information because they become the source.

So will what effects do you think the pacific decadal oscillation has on global climate?

Considering it's decadal, it's probably a pretty regular effect. While it has minor fluctuations, it's been fairly regular over the past 100 years or so:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.png

It's important to separate regularly occurring phenomena like the PDO from irregular events like those which are assisted by human effects on the environment (like sulfur and nitrogen from creating electricity and that come from cars can and have been demonstrated to cause unusually acidic rain).

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2171/tempqj1.jpg

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.png

Do you see the pattern in these two graphs?

I'd add the PDO isn't really a 'regular' cycle, its not completely predictable.

I rescaled the graphs so that they match up chronologically, and there is no pattern.
Not completely predictable, but predictable within reason.

When people can give a reason for the Medieval Warm Period, or the Mini-Ice age and why it can't be occuring now I'd be amazed.

Seriously, Greenland was green. The French were complaining about the British growing better wine then them. The world was MUCH warmer than it is now, with barely any human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks.

Then not too long after, the Year Without a Summer. New York Harbor froze solid, people walked across. The coldest winter on record, again almost no human CO2 imprint. Nothing to see here folks.

A hurricane hits a city below sea level, and Gore makes a movie. THE WORLD IS AT STAKE!

Yep...we get where you're coming from, seaver.

The hundreds (if not thousands) of climate scientists (and other scientists) who contribute to the IPCC reports are wrong.....the 11 largest national academies of sciences around the world are wrong.

The dentist and the handful (or two) of scientists, most of whom are not climate scientists and many of whom are funded by industry interests, are right.

Nothing new to see here folks.

Specifically, which handful or two are you referring to, and which of these are not climate scientists, and which industry interests are funding them?

otto....start with the many "scientists" that Ustwo has linked to in the past at junkscience.com or Steven Milloy, the "scientist" who administers that site.....or from scientists cited by Mark Morano, the chief denier on the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Or most (not all) of the speakers at the recent deniers conference.....sponsored by the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute - two of the many organizations receiving major funding from Exxon/Mobil.

I dont doubt that there are serious climatologists that dont share the views of the majority.....in fact, there is a small minority of dissenting views within the IPCC community. I think thats a good thing.

But, the ones that are often linked or posted in discussions here generally are from the Morano/Milloy/Exxon crowd and IMO, and with a little digging, casts serious doubts on their credibility and objectivity.

as opposed to these scientific bodies:

National Academies of Sciences of G8 (+5) Nations
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Academy for Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Association
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Geological Society of America
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences

With the July 2007 release of a revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate

Marc Morano? Did someone mention <a href="http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/morano.html">Marc Morano?</a>

<h3>Marc Morano attempted this SMEAR:</h3>


<h3>...Two months after George Deutsch's credibility disappeared and the white house agenda was revealed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</h3> <h2>:</h2>
dc_dux, it's all been laid out in front of them before, they don't "get it", because they don't want to get it. It's not about the legitimacy of sources, or anything that you and I can hope to ujnderstand....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=39
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=40
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=41
<h3>dc_dux, I couldn't even get an admission that Marc Morano was the soiurce of the vicious propaganda aimed at John Edwards, when Morano actually was the source...as the following post clearly shows:</h3>

10-26-2004, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=15
09-26-2006 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108927
11-17-2006 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=10
<h2>ottopilot....</h2> can you understand how we cannot take Sen. Inhofe or anyone who quotes him or his "man", the former Limbaugh show producer and extreme partisan hack, Marc Morano, seriously when they are quoted to support an argument against a global warming crisis ? It isn't one post that creates an impression, it is a track record, compiled over time, here at this TFP forum that does it:
There are two side here, ottopilot, either you recognize Marc Morano for what he is, or you drink the following kool-ade:

(I never ever visit drudgereport.com and I know that cnsnews.com and newsbusters.org are creations of propagandist Brent Bozell III....)

<center><img src="http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0706/tmw-big.jpg"></center>

Ustwo... you asked about predictions. I've got an old Scientific American article on CO2 and greenhouse, which I believe dates from the late 80s. It's work - so I can't check the date right now.

It's in an old "Energy and Environment" special. I'll fetch up the reference details. I'd not call it a prediction. But it does show that this was discussed some time ago.

Amazon gives the copyright date as 1980, but doesn't show the cover. I'm fairly sure that it'd be the same book.

The first time global warming hit the popular press was in relation to the planet Venus being so hot. The theory isn't something new from the 1990's. But by prediction I mean predictive value, as in 'if this happens X this other thing will react with Y'.

Most sources I've seen and read seem to disagree. In fact most say Greenland was never green, least not during recorded history.

http://lighterfootstep.com/urban-myt...nce-green.html

Greenland also used to be a lot closer to the equator.

will, hes talking Viking time, not cretaceous.

I think you mean the eocene (40m years ago), not the cretaceous (100m years ago).

Very nicely googled, but it does make your post seem a bit silly.

And actually Greenland hasn't moved that much in the last 100million years.

Wow, that looks like a reliable non-biased report.

Sorry, 5-6,000 people can not live on an ice shelf. Vikings relied on cattle, sheep, and fish for their primary survival in winter. We KNOW there were cattle and sheep, so obviously it was green. Nice little pretend "historian" you have vouching for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_19560107

Hmm... so cows require grass. Grass is Green. Nope, no way Greenland could have ever been green.

Remember when history doesn't agree with your theory its best to change history!

I knew it was bad but I didn't know the global warmers were trying to change what was already known and proven archaeologically.

No one is claiming that all of greenland was open to farming, but it was in parts. 'Climate change' undoubtedly due to the English mead factories, resulted in cooling which made agrarian life impossible.

It's something I've heard and read for several years now. I could be wrong, or I could make snide comments regarding your sources. That seems pointless and rather immature.

As for people not being able to live on an ice self... tell that to the Inuit's.

The perils of mead...