Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[Pachelbel]

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>I'm looking for that evidence! where is it!?!?!?

Oops.

Here is the link:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...

[letschanceit]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Oops.
Here is the link:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...

I've looked at some of those 450 reports.

when I responded "where is it?" I was being facetious. I'm not really going to consider any data disguised as "evidence" that the world is NOT warming. as far as AGW, I'm still a skeptical supporter and welcome information that might disprove it.

[Pachelbel]

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>I've looked at some of those 450 reports.
when I responded "where is it?" I was being facetious. I'm not really going to consider any data disguised as "evidence" that the world is NOT warming. as far as AGW, I'm still a skeptical supporter and welcome information that might disprove it.

Well, just so you understand I "read" and "consider" information supporting the AGW hypothesis as well as opposing it. There is good science on both sides and bad science on both sides. No one is immune to error. What I find though is that the science that is good on the pro AGW side does not persuade me, and the science that is bad on the anti AGW side does not dissuade me from the view that the AGW hypothesis has not been convincingly established.

I think that puts me a half step ahead of the "believers".

[Pachelbel]

I guess I should expand that last sentence.

"I think that puts me a half step ahead of the "believers" who choose to look ONLY at the "evidence" that does NOT say that the world is NOT warming."

I happen to think that it is, cyclically on a slightly upward trend, and that there is a slight but insignificant human contribution. But I will NOT refuse to read an argument that it is largely human caused, more significant than we think, or even that it is about to decline rapidly. It is ALWAYS worth knowing the arguments from all sides.

[I Am DigitaP]

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>I'm looking for that evidence! where is it!?!?!?

The QUESTION is, where's your magic lens?
In THIRTY YEARS:
No THERMAL SENSOR can detect it
No OPTICAL DISTORTION can detect it
No PRIMARY CIRCULATION in the Hadley Cells
No PRIMARY CIRCULATION mandatory MOISTURE UPTAKE/RELEASE in storms along the boundary of it
No DRAMATICALLY INCREASED HUMIDITY - mandatory
No Radio/Satellite refractive interference
No RADAR refractive interference
No MECHANISM for REMOVAL of the MASSIVE HEAT from 50,000 feet OTHER than the Hadley Cells
No MECHANISM for the heat to get from 50,000 FEET to SEA LEVEL where it melted TWO ice caps and disrupted THREE continents: AND, warmed OCEANS
No GAS CHEMISTRY shows the primary circulation ASIDE from standard weather/decadal weather/climatic impacts.
No volcano or manmade pollution tracking indicates ANY circulation shuttling WORLD ENDING HEAT to and fro
No ATMOSPHERIC GAS IONIZATION: it HAS to be there if charged air is there
No ATMOSPHERIC DUST IONIZATION: it HAS to be there if charged air is there
So YOU START and explain to us how all these MANDATORY ELEMENTS are M.A.G.I.C.A.L.L.Y. not there.
Because WE HAVE the TECHNOLOGY to find it. Ten times over.
No INFRA RED CAMERA can pick up the heat
No LASER RANGING SATELLITE THERMOMETERS can pick it up
That's from BELOW OR ABOVE. No one has EVER shown there to be ANY heat in the atmosphere
in FACT, the earth's infra red satellite detectors show just the opposite of a warming atmosphere: they show the center track where the lens MUST by DEFINITION be heating the globe as having NO extra heat.
Thermal Sensing
electronic thermal sensing
infra-red cameras
laser ranging infrared satellites
mechanical thermometers
Explain how each of these breaks when in contact with the M.a.g.i.c.a.l. L.e.n.s.
Optical Astronomy
Ionization
Telecommunications
Radar
Moisture uptake/release
Primary Hadley circulation
Humidity
Gas Chemistry
Gas Ionization
Dust Ionization
Take ONE detection method at a time and explain how the laws of L.I.G.H.T has been revoked
Or find someone who can.

[Chris]

Tara wrote:

<quoted text>
Won't the warmer weather give us longer growing seasons? More crops, more food for the world, more corn and sugar for ecofuel? Yes?

Yes it will, and it did in the past. The end of the dark ages was largely due to NORMAL change in global tempature. What all the greenies refuse to mention is the NORMAL change in output from the sun, the normal change in sea levals, the normal change in tempatures and climates. North Africa used to be a grain belt. THE EARTH CHANGES.......DUH!!!!!! Lets all pay 3 times what we do now for a loaf of bread.....what if your wrong? Is it possible for a greenie to be wrong?

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Oops.
Here is the link:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer...

Most of those papers come from fossil fuel industry organs like "Energy & Environment". The fossil fuel industry is telling you that AGW is nothing to worry about via its paid scientists. Read industry funded reports and they tell you what the industry want you to hear. Just remember the tobacco industry scientists who questioned the link between tobacco and cancer.

[Fair Game]

Chris wrote:

<quoted text> Yes it will, and it did in the past. The end of the dark ages was largely due to NORMAL change in global tempature. What all the greenies refuse to mention is the NORMAL change in output from the sun, the normal change in sea levals, the normal change in tempatures and climates. North Africa used to be a grain belt. THE EARTH CHANGES.......DUH!!!!!! Lets all pay 3 times what we do now for a loaf of bread.....what if your wrong? Is it possible for a greenie to be wrong?

The sun's output has been flat since the 70's. You really think the world's scientists would've been dumb enough to miss that?

Longer growing seasons are good if you have water. Predictions are that the US won't- and agricultural yields will fall as a result. Canada and Siberia, on the other hand, will benefit from warmth and available water.

[Fair Game]

Pachelbel wrote:

I guess I should expand that last sentence.
"I think that puts me a half step ahead of the "believers" who choose to look ONLY at the "evidence" that does NOT say that the world is NOT warming."
I happen to think that it is, cyclically on a slightly upward trend, and that there is a slight but insignificant human contribution. But I will NOT refuse to read an argument that it is largely human caused, more significant than we think, or even that it is about to decline rapidly. It is ALWAYS worth knowing the arguments from all sides.

An endless stream of self-delusory bullshit.

Deniers believe what they want to believe, reject what they don't.

Stop bullshitting yourself and everybody here.

[Brian_G]

Hand of God wrote:

Heat-Related Nitrogen Loss Endangers Desert Plant Life...

Your point, it's hot in the desert? Now there's a revelation.

[Brian_G]

tina anne wrote:

From what I have seen Hand of God is nothing more than a bot that someone has set up to handle posts. So do not expect any replies to your posts.

I don't think he understands the issue well enough, to engage the argument.

[Earthling]

MSgirl wrote:

Hand of Nod - You have missed your calling.
You should hook up with the scientist in the 70's who said we were going into a hard artic freeze in the 2000's - oh wait - he changed his opinion and now we are going to burn up. How the hell can all these enlightend ones tell us, preach to us, about global warming and not one or even the Hand of God can tell us what the temperature will be tomorrow without a wild guess and no proof, just a theory tied to the almighty dollar.

It's a good thing that Hansen will be too old to reverse his decision again, one crazy idea in a lifetime is bad enough, but two is two too many.

[Earthling]

Pachelbel wrote:

"I think that puts me a half step ahead of the "believers" who choose to look ONLY at the "evidence" that does NOT say that the world is NOT warming."

Any sceptic is one step ahead of an all out believer, no matter how little they understand science.

To paraphrase FG, alarmists believe what they want to believe, reject what they don't.

I'm surprised he's still beating the 'fossil fuel corporations must be bad' drum, especially now that Exxon has made a U turn.

[rrgwrf]

m /lm /m.l

[suzanne]

I believe the entire Global Warming is a Hoax. This is not about the enviroment But, Control and Taxes. This is an easy way for the Governments to collect more revenue. What we need to do is stop creating so much garbage. This actually does worry me. When I was a kid in a family of 5 we had 1 small aluminum garbage can and their was no recycling. We did however return our glass bottles to the store. Today my neighborhood is filled with huge plastic 55gal garbage cans. On average I would say each household has at least 2 cans, plus their recycling bins and most important Their Pile Of huge items like appliances, old cabinets, tile, carpeting ect. I am amazed every week at how much garbage is thrown out each and every week. We have become a throw away society. People dont keep things the way they used to. My parents to this day have the same furniture from when I was a kid. Yes, they have had the couch, chairs ect re-upholstered but the actual wood frame ect. is still all their. My mothers refridgerator just stopped working last year. She had the receipt it was from 1978,(yes I know it wasnt energy efficient). Nowdays I dont have one friend or neighbor that keeps their furniture for longer than 12-15yrs. It seems every week on garbage day I see more and more huge items thrown out. This is what I feel needs to be done. We need to start making things that last and stop being a disposable society. We need to end using disposable diapers (my neighbor next door just told me she goes through aprox 60+ disposable diapers a week. WHOA !! Then I think that doesnt include the wipes and the bag she uses to put the diaper in. Thats just one baby. It seems every ad on tv now states just use it and throw it away. This in my opinion is what needs to stop!! We are a throw away society and this is what the problem is. If I see one more family at the dollar store say to their kids "just pick out 3 things" and the kids get 3 toys use them for the day or weekend and then the parents throw them out !! Think about it. Look at all the packaging that is used just in food. This is what the problem is. We

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of those papers come from fossil fuel industry organs like "Energy & Environment". The fossil fuel industry is telling you that AGW is nothing to worry about via its paid scientists. Read industry funded reports and they tell you what the industry want you to hear. Just remember the tobacco industry scientists who questioned the link between tobacco and cancer.

Get up to date. Many of the corporate entities have positioned themselves very nicely to profit from carbon trading and technology opportunities.

If your only critique is "fossil fuel industry" then you have NO critique at all. We've discussed the tobacco industry before. You have a valid issue to critique the "tobacco science". That has zero relevance to the issue at hand.

[Pachelbel]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
An endless stream of self-delusory bullshit.
Deniers believe what they want to believe, reject what they don't.
Stop bullshitting yourself and everybody here.

You will have to convince me that "warmers" DON'T "believe what they want to believe, reject what they don't", especially when it has to do with funding and reputations. Now do you have a critique of any particular article? If not, you have NO rebuttal for ANY of them.

[Climate Changer]

They need to put the money in developing clean fossil fuels. We cannot survive without coal and oil. They also keep americans working, so why not put a little money into that instead of solar which is all (wheather you want to believe it or not) gonna be made by the chinese.

Global Warming is a LIE! Climate Change is a LIE!

Mother Nature just changes from time to time now your onto something.
Cap and Trade = Disaster!

[Hand of God]

Dirty air, heat, cold may all trigger heart attacks

Extreme temperatures and heavy air pollution boost heart attack risk, according to a major new study.

And on days when the air is extra dirty and the temperature is unusually hot or cold, the effects are likely to be particularly bad, given that temperature and pollution seem to harm the body in different ways, Dr. Krishnan Bhaskaran of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, the lead author of the research, told Reuters Health.

Several studies have linked changes in temperature to increases in deaths due to any cause, as well as heart disease mortality, Bhaskaran and his team note in their reports. But looking at heart attacks-not just deaths from heart disease-could offer a more accurate picture of the overall health risks of temperature changes and air pollution, they say, and might also offer clues to why they may trigger heart attack in high-risk people.

In two separate reports, the researchers reviewed 19 studies on temperature and heart attack and 26 examining air pollution and heart attack.

In the 12 temperature studies that collected winter data, eight showed short-term increases in heart attack risk with colder temperatures. Seven of the 13 studies that looked at the effects of warmer temperatures found increased heart attack risk in hotter weather.

Cold temperatures seemed to have a greater effect on heart attack risk in areas that were warmer, on average, Bhaskaran and colleagues note, suggesting that people living in colder areas may be better adapted to dips in temperature. But hot days boosted heart attack risk whether they happened in Sweden or Brazil.

In a city that normally sees 10 heart attacks a day, Bhaskaran explained, the findings show there might be an extra one to four heart attacks on the hottest or coldest days.

"There was a lot of variation in the methods and quality of the studies we reviewed, so more work is needed in this area, but we thought the results were consistent enough to suggest that these effects are real," he added.

The evidence from the pollution studies was less clear-cut, the researcher said, but overall suggested that the risk of heart attack increases with levels of several different pollutants. Also, he noted, there appeared to be no "safe" level of air pollution at which no effect on heart attack risk was seen.

"Our findings would suggest that further lowering limits would likely further reduce the health burden associated with pollution, which is of course a desirable outcome," he said.

Governments can also make an effort to alert at-risk people when extreme temperatures or high levels of pollution are expected, the researcher said. He noted that the UK now makes automated phone calls to people with emphysema when they are at risk due to changes in temperature; this, he said, has led to a reduction in hospital admissions for lung disease patients.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Professor David E. Newby of the University of Edinburgh and colleagues note that efforts to control air pollution are likely to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well, possibly helping to alleviate the effects of climate change down the road.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[NobodyYouKnow]

Pachelbel wrote:

Climate Change
by Erl Happ and Carl Wolk
The Climate Engine
Exerpt from “Conclusion”
“Climatic models suggest that any greenhouse effect should be strongest in the tropical upper troposphere where water vapor is in higher concentration.

Actually, there are at least 28 well defined models and each of them has flaws in it's determination of specific regions and factors. This is well known and the scietists that work with these models do NOT take those 'outputs'. The 'review' of what model parameters are 'well defined' is rigorous.

I suspect that they found a model with a 'discrepancy' in the high level temperature profile and claimed that this 'disproved' AGW. Nonsense.

A conflict between a model output and the instrument readings has ANY impact on the theory unless the 'forecast' can be shown to break some fundamental fact in the theory, and the model can be shown to be accurate in that parameter.

Which this doesn't. The result of a discrepancy would normally be to examine the code of the model to find out why it failed to reproduce the change.

i.e. totally bogus junk science.

To be expected from two non-scientists with an agenda?