Global Warming or Cooling?

[BodybyFisher]

Gotta love this. Someplace I have said this was due to sun spot activity, we just came out of a 13 year sun spot cycle, that was very intense... I have also said that we always had disasters over the years, I remember them as a child, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, fires. etc. Who remembers the slogan, ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES on TV constantly in the 60s. Disasters are more magnified lately because of the instantaneous bias agenda motivated 24 hour cable news networks. Someone farts in Bumfuckalo, and its on the news within the hour, assuming it fits their sad sack hopeless agenda to indoctrinate the masses into believing everything is manure. Look at the coverage Katrina got verses the current flooding in the mid west. No agenda no news. Its catching up with them. Personally, I believe that the earths WOBBLE on its axis also contributes to weather variability ESPECIALLY if its timed with high sun spot activity. etc. My question is where the hell is NASA with their input on the subject comparing these variables?, are they afraid of POLITICS relative to their future funding? Check out this article

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool

June 22, 2008, 3:44 pm | James Spann | Climate

Let me warn you, this is a little longer than my usual posts here, but it was prompted by a big op-ed article in the Birmingham News this morning. Take the time to read it, if you dare. Seems like our local paper has settled on one side of the climate change debate, which is certainly their right. But, I have the right to publish this article as well….

Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and “enlightened environmentalists” were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth’s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us.

Scary stuff.

The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue. They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject.

The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered.

What is the truth? Lets begin with something we all can agree on. The climate IS changing. It has always changed, it is changing now, and it will always change.

Beyond that, here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable:

*The earth is no warmer now than it was in 1998.

*Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas indispensable to plant life. Plants, in turn, release oxygen, which sustains animal and human life.

*The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.

*The lack of solar activity in recent months suggests global cooling might be our biggest potential climate change problem in coming years.

*The planet has had weather disasters, extremes, and anomalies since it has been here. We just didn’t have 24 hour news channels and the Internet in prior decades to spread the news.

I have been doing the weather on local television for 30 years, and EVERY YEAR I have had people come up to me and tell me that they can “never remember the weather being this strange”.

Most of those that you see and hear speaking on the subject have little scientific knowledge. Here is a quote from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from an article he penned recently:

“Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.” For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is “warming quickly”. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?

Here is what Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Joe D’Aleo says about this:

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.

And, from climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona: “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what’s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

I also should note that the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.

Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”

I find it interesting that most of the predictions coming from the IPCC are based on computer model output. Those of us in the trench, who deal with the Earth’s atmosphere every day, know that computer model data is often horrible 24 hours in advance… how bad can it be out to 50 or 100 years?

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this month announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (9,021 with PhDs) signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, calls the GW movement the greatest scam in history.

I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is “not settled”, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open.

Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of “global warming”. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death.

I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. “Global warming” is not one of them. One of the best ways to become a truly environmentally concerned person is to walk the banks of an Alabama river or stream for a half day and pick up trash and garbage. Anyone want to join me?

« Alabama Weather Update - 2 p.m.

[tjtjwdad]

Mike,

I don't know what to believe. I've always had a " I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see" attitude and remain suspicious of the newest fads, GW being one of them. One's thing for sure, the ole' mother earth has been going thru many cycles and events throughout its life and will continue to do so.

More often than not one can tell if someone is spewing BS. For example, take the GURU who use to post here (hated to see him go), but when I 1st read one of his post I had some reservations. The more he posted, the more I read and sooner or later you'll find out who is BSing and who isn't. In the GURU's case, I believe he was on the up-and-up. Al Gore on the otherhand is on-the-take.

The media ... ha, the truth is out there .... somewhere, but IMO its not cut and dry the way its reported in the news (TV, papers, magazines,etc ...), a bunch of half-truths, inuendos and fairy tails.

Jim

[WarrenJ]

Mike,

I'd appreciate a link to that article.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the folk currently warning us hysterically about global warming have, in the past, warned us about global cooling, drought, famine, over-population and any number of other imagined things. Clearly a political agenda has been at work here.

That doesn't mean, however, that the planet isn't warming. Could be. Could be natural/normal. Might not be. Might be anthropogenic. Arguments can be made for many positions.

I'd like to suggest it would be foolish to spend ten trillion dollars in a futile effort to subvert the unsubvertable Mother Nature.

We could better spend two trillion dollars to simply deal with it.

Anyone who thinks the carbon "footprint" of India and China could be/should be/will be dampened is simply dreaming. If the entire western world were to somehow miraculously reduce its carbon footprint to zero, the Asian entities would spew on. The net result would still be positive for carbon.

Regards,

Warren

[BodybyFisher]

Mike,

I don't know what to believe. I've always had a " I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see" attitude and remain suspicious of the newest fads, GW being one of them. One's thing for sure, the ole' mother earth has been going thru many cycles and events throughout its life and will continue to do so.

More often than not one can tell if someone is spewing BS. For example, take the GURU who use to post here (hated to see him go), but when I 1st read one of his post I had some reservations. The more he posted, the more I read and sooner or later you'll find out who is BSing and who isn't. In the GURU's case, I believe he was on the up-and-up. Al Gore on the otherhand is on-the-take.

The media ... ha, the truth is out there .... somewhere, but IMO its not cut and dry the way its reported in the news (TV, papers, magazines,etc ...), a bunch of half-truths, inuendos and fairy tails.

Jim

The guru, I miss him. He could put you off with his style at times and you could feel slapped down, but nicely slapped down. But it came from deep knowledge translated into an unrefutable statement of fact, that left you kind of speechless as he was right on the money. He did not like urban legend, BS or rumors, he was into facts. Facts can be cold... I often kidded with him, that I felt slapped down, and set straight, but thank God for him, I wish he would come around once in a while as a Cadillac lover if nothing else. The problem is, the guru is so knowledgable with a definate style of writing that he would not be here 5 min before the rumors would start to fly, its hard for him to hide annonomously...

Sort of like Michael Jordan trying to get into a pick up game at the local park, , and not be noticed,

[Cadillac Jim]

Here's a link to the article that BodybyFisher quoted:

<a href="http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=7509" target="_blank">http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=7509

</a>

I think that the driver on the global warming debates is the concern about the consequences to the world as we know it if the trend continues, and the feeling that doing something is better than doing nothing, even if the whole thing turns out to be inconsequential -- what if global warming is caused by man-made CO2 and left unchecked will cause 10 F (6 C) increase in average global temperature in the next 50 years, a result predicted by some? This can be persuasive to some to become activists about an issue when the certainty is not there, or even when the base proposition is quite possibly not true. And, the currently seen demonization of those who question the activists makes it seem to me that this is the true nature of the "debate" at this point. This is a sad state of affairs for an issue that may be so important.

I've taught Electrical Engineering since 1980 or so, most recently for college credit and mostly on the graduate level. One thing that I've always mentioned in all my courses is something I learned from experience before I taught my first course: never take a personal position on a technical matter because Murphy's Law says that a counterexample will immediately become obvious, embarrassing you. Another is to not believe everything you read in the journals or the paper; the most horrific example is the Cold Fusion bubble in 1989, which popped in a few weeks.

Your quoted article brought out some basic points while I was reading it:

• A scientist without a Ph.D. is about as rare as a physician without an M.D. degree. Most are from academia, where a Ph.D. is a requirement for getting on board except as a helper or assistant -- a position most often filled by students working on their Ph.D. in good standing with their departments. They do exist, but 9,021 with a Ph.D. out of 31,072 scientists as cited by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine immediately raises the question: Who are these people, and what are their qualifications? And, in any case, why are they ascribed as taking the positions as described by OISM?
• All of the studies that I have seen concerning atmospheric C02 concentration and global warming have been correlation studies -- comparisons of data between C02 concentration and some estimate of average yearly temperature.

Using correlation studies to show a point is valid within limits, but it is not proof, it is circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence can sometimes be quite compelling, as when a fish is found in the milk" as put by Mark Twain but it is nearly always less so than this humorous example. Presenting correlation as sufficient proof in iteself is a common logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Arguments on both sides of the global warming debate use CO2 correlations studies, some to show that they come together, some to show that warming comes earlier than CO2 concentration increases. That doesn't mean that these conclusions are wrong, it just means that correlation studies are do not fully prove that they are right.

I don't have a personal position on global warming causation by man-made CO2, in part because climatology is not my field. The whole reason is that I haven't seen data or a study that unequivocally persuades me to draw a conclusion. Such data may not exist because it is not possible or at least feasible to make a better case than the use of correlation studies. I don't know that either.

[BodybyFisher]

And the point you are making is that for the GW crowd to conclude based on the correlation approach is problematic at best because its comprised of unsubstantiated assumptions and fails to consider dispelling information?

[JimD]

My position is; how arrogant of humans to assume they are significant enough to be the cause of global climate variations!!

The engine behind this little planetary system is our sun. Period. And we know very little about the causes of the sun's energy output variations. We observe and measure the activity of the sun (sunspots as one example) but we can only speculate (guess) on the underlying cause and periods of the various sun cycles.

Study the pendulum of your favorite Grandfather clock: it swings to the left and then stops and swings an equal distance to the right, BUT; the average pendulum position is vertical. We have to adapt to whatever is the average pendulum position of the sun's energy output. And we certainly cannot influence that energy output.

George Carlin was more than a great entertainer to me. He was a perceptive viewer of the human condition and very often far out in front of his fellow "celebrities". See post #3 here

http://caddyinfo.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18131

Funny? Yes. Perceptive? Oh yes.

[Cadillac Jim]

And the point you are making is that for the GW crowd to conclude based on the correlation approach is problematic at best because its comprised of unsubstantiated assumptions and fails to consider dispelling information?

I am saying that it's not a good ideal to close the question, or to demonize those who disagree.

[WarrenJ]

Mike,

1] Bumfucalo is upstate NY. Yes?

2] YES, NASA is afraid of news copy.

3] It's interesting to note that Mars and Jupiter are also undergoing planetary warming. In the case of Mars, we might be found guilty by virtue of the damned rolling robots, but what of Jupiter?

OKAY, let me get serious here. I'm conservative in the sense that I'm a little right of center. I'm inboard on the right wing, not a wingnut out at the end.

In the past certain loons have tried to strike fear in the hearts of the populace. Most recently they've cried "Global Warming." Before that it was "Global... cooling, famine, overpopulation, drought or just plain Global Global-something-or-other." Certainly there was an agenda there.

Initially I'd likely bee-eye-itch that the boy has cried "wolf" once too often. This time, however, they might (and I say *might*) have a point.

Scientists seem to overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is heating up and, more importantly, believe it to be anthropogenic. Or do they?

Interestingly, scientists were surveyed at the end of 2007 regarding their beliefs about GW. When you filter out psychiatrists, doctors, and others not involved in the physical sciences an interesting pattern emerged: basically the vote was split. By the slimmest of margins scientists felt 51/49 percent GW wasn't anthropogenic.

That pretty much says it all: if they don't know, how in the heck are we expected to know?

Regards,

Warren

[Texas Jim]

Let me preface that....

I am not a climatologist.... nor do I play one on TV.

A lot of the reports about GW casually mention sunspots. Sunspots produce HUGE amounts of energy.

I used to be REALLY INTO CB radio. Normal range of a CB radio is a couple of miles from a mobile and maybe 5 to 10 miles with a GOOD base station and a GOOD antenna.

In the mid 70's we were going thru a big sunspot cycle.

The sunspots affected the atmosphere. I could sit at my radio, in my house, and use that little CB and talk to people all over the United States, S. America and Australia.

We called it SKIP. The sunspots affected the atmosphere in such a way, that the radio signals bounced back from the upper levels and came back down to the earth, instead of just going on out in space like they normally would. If the Sun does that to radio waves... it could also do it to some of particles in the air to keep them from going up high and dispersing.

If our so called pollution is so bad.... why didn't the HUGE amount of coal smoke dring the Industrial Revolution cause major changes in the atmosphere. From what I have read... it was so bad that at high noon.... you had to use lights to read. The sunlight couldn't get thru the thick blanket of smoke. We cleaned THAT up... eventually.

It was 30 years ago that I had the radios, (which is not long in Earth Time) but I was just pointing out that the sun has ALWAYS affected the Earth (obviously) and always will, and there is not a blamed thing we can do about it. The SUN that is.

[BodybyFisher]

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, this is being passed through really fast, amazing

California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The score will be displayed next to the already-required smog score, which also rates cars one to 10 for how many smog-forming emissions they emit. For both scores, an average vehicle will have a score of five.

California is the first state of pass such as law, and a similar law will take effect in New York for 2010 model year vehicles. Global warming scores will be included on the state's DriveClean website.

[WarrenJ]

Kal-e-fornians are funny, except when they're dangerous.

[Texas Jim]

Kal-e-fornians are funny, except when they're dangerous.

But, they are so close minded and wrong headed, they are dangerous MOST of the time.