http://www.steamboat.com/steamboat-life/media/details/index.aspx?id=168
posted without comment regarding this year's (2007-2008) winter weather in Colorado...
Posted by BillS at April 2, 2008 09:23 PMbill,
meaning what? you do understand the concept of climate change, right?
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 09:50 PMYes I am familiar with climate change. I've researched it significantly. I am a doubter of man-made climate change as it relates to CO2. Please don't get me wrong I see major issues in items such as over-fishing, pollutants (CO2 is not pollution it is plant food) and forrest management to name a few.
However, I see climate change as something that is a constant. I was taught about the coming ice age in the 70's, read about global warming in the 20's and 30's. Have seen public statements that the globe has done nothing but cool since 1998... as such wne I read the NOAA I don't see the basis for alarm that others see http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
I don't trust those in authority when the facts don't seem to align. I don't trust them to start wars - against countries or imaginary opponents like CO2. BTW, have you read the recent infomation regarding sun-spots and the current lack thereof?
Posted by BillS at April 2, 2008 09:57 PMah, yes- the near-unanimous consensus of scientists is wrong. i see. and i'll have a post tomorrow about the sun and climate change. scientists have something to say about that. but you don't believe in scientists.
Posted by Turkana at April 2, 2008 10:51 PMOh I believe in scientists, I don't believe the people who claim there is a 'near consensus' in scientists. I know more a small number who aren't in agreement with the politcally promoted consensus.
Im fact it's my familiarity with scientists that makes me such a skeptic of the so called 'consensus'... In my experience there are very few things that can be said to be a 'near consensus' when a scientific proof isn't complete and airtight.
Posted by BillS at April 2, 2008 11:22 PMTurkana, thanks so much for posting on this topic. There will always be people who want to deny there is a problem, but this is the most important issue facing humanity - even more important than the war or the economy or the democratic candidate. More good information from a number of good sources is required if we are to have a chance to deal with it.
Posted by Mary at April 3, 2008 02:09 AMWell, Jay, Bill's "I know lots of scientists who..." is, in fact, an appeal to authority. Why should he get a pass?
aimai
This "is it man made or not" thing is a complete red herring. There is universal agreement that there is a massive climate change under way. The only question is are we going to stand by or try to do something about it. Being human, the only thing we can actually do is try to change human behavior. So the very question "is it man made" is moot really because it has to be "man unmade" if we are to survive.
By the way this issue was aired locally a year or so ago when congress actually forced some hearings on climate change as it is affecting the northeast. The most priceless moment of all was after innumerable local (republican) buinsess people described the dire straits they were in as climate change affected what they could grow, sell, and tourism the rep from Bush's administration observed with jollity that this was all very silly because after all if there was never going to be any more snow then people would just start treating vermont like florida and everything would be great.
aimai
Posted by aimai at April 3, 2008 04:47 AMGame players like BillS cannot even explain the theory of global warming, and their vague "observations" are simply culled from right wing denialist shit-troughs.
Most of the remaining denialists are conservative white males---these are the last deadenders on global warming. Polls indicate they are around 15-17% of the population at this point.
They have pigheadedly set their minds against the problem and will never be convinced otherwise---they will simply have to have the neccessary behavior modifications crammed down their throats. My guess is that most denialists "oppose" the theory of global warming because they personally (or the businesses they are employed by) are some of the largest CO2 pollutors and know that regulation will have a significant effect on them and their polluting lifestyle---so their "opposition" is based on personal interest, not "science" or objective knowledge in any way.
Many denialists argue they have some (always unspecified) scientific or technical training, yet they cannot actually explain the theory they are certain is incorrect. For many conservative white males, this is a mental syndrome, really, characterized by obstinance, willful ignorance and extreme, gross egomania.
Posted by euzoius at April 3, 2008 07:37 AMHow right you are euzoius.
I thought I would add that many conservative white males who are hunters (outdoorsman) don't fall in that belief category. That said, I know a majority of them not doing a thing about the damage to the environment. Especially when they take their all terrain vehicles into the mountains and boats on the lakes. Anything to make them a more efficient hunter or fisherman.
The conscious ones do pack their trash out however.
March is usually the wettest month of the year here in Phoenix. It has not rained a drop since Feb 24th and counting.
"Some" say Al Qaeda has found a way to control our weather.
"Others" say since going into the casino business, our local Indians have been lax in performing traditional rain dances.
I think God is punishing us for not legalizing gay marriage.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 3, 2008 08:48 AMI see lots of name calling but not much data.
Let me clarify - I was challenged on whether I would discount scientists, my reply clarifies that I do listen to and debate 'scientists' but I don't follow them blindly. I look at the data - I'll discount that there is a unanimous consensus - in fact I'm not even sure numerically how you would qualify that. There are 5 Billion people on the planet how many qualify for the debate? Of those how many are on either side? How many would have to be on the same side for the theories to have near unanimous acceptance?
Look I realize many of you are in agreement with Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich on global warming - ok, that's snarky
But really just because I see patterns in the data which don't reflect Manmade global warming as the driving force doesn't reflect on who I am - except a skeptic.
A few facts that have near unanimous acceptance:
1. CO2 levels have risen and continue to rise.
2. The Sun is the major source of all heat on earth and has the largest influence of any atmospheric variable.
Neither of those facts proves or disproves that CO2 drives climate change. Fact is that historical data seems to imply that CO2 has little to no direct impact on climate, some would argue that even a little however matters to them. I tend to agree with those who saw cold driven crop failures and the limited growth of plants when CO2 was limited, that some global warming isn't a bad thing. Without evidence to the contrary I don't agree with the current theories - unlike facts theories are open to debate.
There is alot of mis-information out there (CNN's recent history of global warming is a good example) it takes time to sort through - so for those jumping on and saying I must not have or understand the data - you are wrong - you can go back to trusting what others who are looking for money (not your's just money in general) will tell you so that they can get paid...
All I did was introduce facts that don't agree with the so called near-unanimous consensus - either there is a solid explanation that fits or that theory has been disproven... btw, the March temps should be out any day now...
Posted by BillS at April 3, 2008 09:00 AMI think God is punishing us for not legalizing gay marriage.
TIKI, You know damn well it's because lame McSame is running for pResident! It's Gawd's warning for us heathens here in AZ.
Bill S., When the permafrost thaws and methane is released, what then? CH4 "has little to no direct impact on climate"?
Some "data" from Wiki:
Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere. Based on ice-core samples and records current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible.Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years). Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years (every seven years, the amount of methane halves).
The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase[1]. In addition, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. Global warming could release this methane, which could cause a further sharp rise in global temperatures. Such releases of methane may have been a major factor in previous major extinction events.
They have some pretty graphs over there also... maybe you understand those better.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 3, 2008 10:57 AMnext up, BillS, pants pissing peter and perfesser jay explain how the Sun revolves around the Earth
don't waste your time giving detailed replies to trolls
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 3, 2008 11:44 AMI'll leave the pretty graphs to you Seven of Six, lets face it as you imply they are meant to appeal to those who don't read the data.
In answer to your question the part of your reply which states:
"The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase"
Answers the question there...
However it then introduces the FUD factor (check wiki if you don't know what FUD is...)
"there is a large, but *UNKNOWN, AMOUNT* of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors."
An unknown quantity in the ocean floor - we don't know how much, we don't know if it will appear - if we could tap it it would be an awesome energy source and even help in the fight agains global warming but we aren't going to suggest that instead its existence will be used for... Fear.
This isn't evidence it's conjector... this is a sales pitch not evidence and it's meant to encourage you to play along cause it could get worse... you only need this type of sales for you theory when you don't have actual proof.
Posted by BillS at April 3, 2008 12:35 PMconjector = conjecture
Posted by BillS at April 3, 2008 12:41 PMThe Fudd factor?
"I hope you realize this means war!
What an embezzle! What an ultramaroon!" - Bugs Bunny
along with others...
Bill,
Aside from bringing up the amount of precipitation in the West this year is a completely non-sensical data point to countering claims of AGW, this is a La Nina year. This means that we expect to see a significant increase in precipitation in the NW and Rockies.
Instead of tossing it out there, first make an attmept to understand the underpinnings rather than using it as a silly data point.
There is a *possibility* that GW is a contributing factor to the winter. warmer temps = more moisture in the atmosphere.
Climate change is incredibly complicated and will lead in some parts to more extreme weather conditions in both cold and warm.
Posted by Simp at April 3, 2008 01:11 PMClimate change is incredibly complicated and will lead in some parts to more extreme weather conditions in both cold and warm.
Exactly Simp!
I'm trying to remember what Dr. Hulbe once said about the relationship (or lack of) between weather and GW?
I can't understand it... call me shallow, I guess... wouldn't anybody want to be safer than sorry when it comes to saving our planet. We can be opening up a whole new industry... America can be in the forefront scientifically on GW... instead we have a bunch conservatives holding us back again! The rest of the world will use the opening in technology and take off. We'll be left pounding our pud!
BTW,
Dr. Hulbe is in Paris for a few days for some meetings. I have let her know about this post, but her time/net access is restricted.
Hopefully she'll find a couple minutes to chime in.
Posted by Simp at April 3, 2008 03:24 PMSimp,
Of note I wasn't arguing that increased precipitation in the western region was counter to AGW. I was pointing out the difference between a study which ended last year and used the past to project the future and the reality of what occured following that study. I tried to do so in a nice way by just pointing out that precipitation was well above normal for the region...
the articles claim:
"Climate scientists predict even more and drier droughts in the future as hotter temperatures reduce the snowpack and increase evaporation."
My original comment just points out that past performance does not necessarily predict the future as this post attempted to imply.
I was then asked if I was aware of AGW arguments since I apparently didn't agree with this prediction... fact is I'm an AGW skeptic, as I note there is clear evidence that CO2 is increasing - that this has been driving our warm period is less solidly proven - every year I hear about predictions of this problem or that because of global warming only to later be retracted when all the facts are put on display.
The global warming industry is built on FUD - lots of things that 'might be' but very few that can be consistently shown to apply.
Things we do know - the recent push to renewable fuels has resulted in significantly higher food prices - this has and will hit aid groups hard - the result is some people won't get food... if temperatures drop and growing seasons shorten more people will starve. Warming has conjecture but few facts - even for sustained temperature increases:
1. Fact Ocean temps have cooled for the past 4 years.
2. 10 year models of global temps show a decreasing average temp...
All of this suggests the conjecture isn't based on solid footing - it is complex and most people supporting AGW claim to have 'simplified' the model but in reality they've just omitted important varaibles - variables which might show their big factors to in fact be minor factors.
I noticed elsewhere on this web page that there's a guest contributor who's actually a climate scientist. Is she still contributing?
Posted by joeldanwalls at April 3, 2008 04:08 PMI noticed elsewhere on this web page that there's a guest contributor who's actually a climate scientist. Is she still contributing?
Yes, that is Dr. Christina Hulbe from Portland State. She's the one in Paris... Simp mentioned her.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 3, 2008 04:15 PMYes, she is still contributing, however in a teaching term and bandwidth is pretty much maxed out, atm.
Posted by Simp at April 4, 2008 12:07 AMThe global warming industry is built on FUD - lots of things that 'might be' but very few that can be consistently shown to apply.
This is an unequivocally false statemnet.
This is a perfect illustration of why there is any "debate" concerning AGW. People (and I'm not implying you specifically Bill) don't understand basic scientific research. Skeptics of AGW exploit this to make their case.
Pure science is completely objective and no agenda. Zero, nadda, zip, zilch none. It is the interpretation and description of said science that is biased. Within scientific research everything is explained within certain margins of error..wait, hold on.. Everytime I explain this, it seems so damned obvious and simple. and if it is why do people point and singularities to make their case? Because it makes a complicated issue easy to grasp. Scientists must speak in terms of margins of error and probabilities. Those that spin their work are bound by no such rules. THIS is why we still have a so-called "debate" on the issue.
Bill, you are making a huge leap in your "logical" argument:
1. "lots of things that 'might be'" - This is true within a margin of error
with that marginal statement made you make the leap:
2. "but very few that can be consistently shown to apply" - This is a completely FALSE statement
The numerical models that are being used are suprisingly good and getting better every month.
1. Fact Ocean temps have cooled for the past 4 years.
2. 10 year models of global temps show a decreasing average temp...
Source? Study? Please, stop using the rhetorical use of "Fact...", "The Fact is...", etc without any real source backing you up. These statements as a whole means nothing. Really.
finally you say:
"All of this suggests the conjecture isn't based on solid footing - it is complex and most people supporting AGW claim to have 'simplified' the model but in reality they've just omitted important varaibles"
Sorry to be blunt, but WTF are you talking about? Please support this statement with a link. I'm really trying to figure your basis for this statement.
Dr. Hulbe is working with others to incorporate more data and more varied systems into the overall climate model. The only simplification occurring is the integration of multiple systemic models.
I'll be happy to address your economic concerns some other time.
Really Simp I thought you were following these things...Really
"Source? Study? Please, stop using the rhetorical use of "Fact...", "The Fact is...", etc without any real source backing you up. These statements as a whole means nothing. Really."
1. Fact Ocean temps have cooled for the past 4 years.
my source: NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
2. 10 year models of global temps show a decreasing average temp...
my source: the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
both are hot off the presses in the major media, I also don't think you can say the BBC or NPR are biased against AGW.
Posted by BillS at April 4, 2008 03:04 PM