Mt. Shasta glaciers keep growing, despite warming

[woo fung poo]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
“It is with medium confidence that is likely that without other factors we are unable to discern that the sea levels will rise. This may or may not happen if the ice pack does or does not melt.”- IPCC
Too Funny!!!!!!!!!

$5.00 diesel's good for the worlds economies , Lets do nothing .

[JRS]

woo fung poo wrote:

<quoted text>
$5.00 diesel's good for the worlds economies , Lets do nothing .

Fuel cost has nothing to do with the AGW crisis scam. Duh! Just what does diesel cost have to do with phiony sea level claims?

[AstroMike]

Bassman wrote:

<quoted text>
And you should probably look this up.
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSG...

Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent Oregon Petition Project. Again.

Ya know, the one that was dressed up to look like a National Academy of Sciences release, has duplications, single first names, company names, etc.:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Bassman wrote:

To not assume that's it's a natural cycle is leftist hysteria gone wild. So your saying all warming trends in the past, before man was here is a natural cycle, but now that man is here it's not?

Absolutely. For starters, this climate record shows something very peculiar...in the usual Milankovitch cycle, CO2 usually only rises after temperature rises (due to an increased geological weathering rate) which produces a positive feedback, warming the planet yet more.

This current trend is unprecedented - it's the first time that rising CO2 occurs prior to the actual warming trend, implying a different starting point for the positive feedback cycle.

Furthermore - and I keep saying this but no one realizes the importance - the stratosphere (i.e. upper atmosphere) is cooling. In usual natural cycles like the Milankovitch, solar irradiance is the changing variable, which produces top-down heating.

If the current warming were natural, the stratosphere should warm as well...but it's actually cooling, which means there's a bottom-up heating, exactly like you'd expect from excess CO2 in the troposphere.

[JRS]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent Oregon Petition Project. Again.
Ya know, the one that was dressed up to look like a National Academy of Sciences release, has duplications, single first names, company names, etc.:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
<quoted text>
Absolutely. For starters, this climate record shows something very peculiar...in the usual Milankovitch cycle, CO2 usually only rises after temperature rises (due to an increased geological weathering rate) which produces a positive feedback, warming the planet yet more.
This current trend is unprecedented - it's the first time that rising CO2 occurs prior to the actual warming trend, implying a different starting point for the positive feedback cycle.
Furthermore - and I keep saying this but no one realizes the importance - the stratosphere (i.e. upper atmosphere) is cooling. In usual natural cycles like the Milankovitch, solar irradiance is the changing variable, which produces top-down heating.
If the current warming were natural, the stratosphere should warm as well...but it's actually cooling, which means there's a bottom-up heating, exactly like you'd expect from excess CO2 in the troposphere.

The simpleton AGW crisis peddler - everything that disagrees is "Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent" blah blah blah. What a bunch of mental midgets.

[woo fung poo]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Fuel cost has nothing to do with the AGW crisis scam. Duh! Just what does diesel cost have to do with phiony sea level claims?

Really , So what is the truth ? Sea levels around the globe are declining due to contraction of ocean temperatures , or maybe glacier build up is causing the oceans to recede . Now maybe co2 build up in the atmosphere is stabilizing the environment for human satisfaction . Did you know co2 is natural and actually stimulates stem cell fluids increasing the human immune system ? Fossil fuel emissions are good for humans .

[AstroMike]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
The simpleton AGW crisis peddler - everything that disagrees is "Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent" blah blah blah. What a bunch of mental midgets.

Funny, you attack just that one statement in my original post, and then promptly ignore the next few paragraphs which outline the thorough science of AGW.

Remind me, again, who's the simpleton?

[Donkey style]

Preface: How Could So Many Climate Modelers Be Wrong?

1. INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM: All climate modelers must build their models based upon our current understanding of how the climate system works. Therefore, if there is some important - but as yet poorly understood - process that they are missing, they will all tend to make the same error. Past evidence for this is the tendency for climate models to drift away from a realistic climate over time. This suggests that it takes a higher level of understanding to capture the intricate processes that stabilize the climate system.

The most important example of this lack of understanding is, in my view, how precipitation systems control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, over 90% of which is due to water vapor and clouds. The Earth's total greenhouse effect is not some passive quantity that can be easily modified by mankind adding a little carbon dioxide -- it is instead being constantly limited by precipitation systems, which remove water vapor and adjust cloud amounts to keep the total greenhouse effect consistent with the amount of available sunlight. Our understanding of this limiting process is still quite poor, and likely not represented in climate models.

(April 19, 2008 update): I am becoming increasingly convinced that the main reason climate models produce so much global warming is because of a mixing up of cause and effect when climate researchers observe cloud and temperature variability in the real climate system. In "feedback analysis", it is always assumed that cloud variability is 100% the result of temperature variability, when in fact causation also flows in the opposite direction. Not accounting for this effect can lead to climate models built upon cause and effect assumptions which then result in the models producing too much warming.

2. PEER PRESSURE TO CONFORM: The vast majority of climate scientists are not climate modelers, and they will tend to go along with what the modelers say. After all, it is the modelers who are supposed to gather all of the specialized knowledge of how weather processes operate, and then represent them in a computer program (model) of how the whole climate system behaves. Thus, there is an element of "group think" that keeps scientific biases entrenched in the research community as a whole.

Proof that this indeed happens is the recent medical theory that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria. Two Australian medical researchers were scoffed at by the medical community for 20 years before the bacterial basis explanation was finally accepted.

[Fun Facts]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent Oregon Petition Project. Again.
Ya know, the one that was dressed up to look like a National Academy of Sciences release, has duplications, single first names, company names, etc.:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
<quoted text>
Absolutely. For starters, this climate record shows something very peculiar...in the usual Milankovitch cycle, CO2 usually only rises after temperature rises (due to an increased geological weathering rate) which produces a positive feedback, warming the planet yet more.
This current trend is unprecedented - it's the first time that rising CO2 occurs prior to the actual warming trend, implying a different starting point for the positive feedback cycle.
Furthermore - and I keep saying this but no one realizes the importance - the stratosphere (i.e. upper atmosphere) is cooling. In usual natural cycles like the Milankovitch, solar irradiance is the changing variable, which produces top-down heating.
If the current warming were natural, the stratosphere should warm as well...but it's actually cooling, which means there's a bottom-up heating, exactly like you'd expect from excess CO2 in the troposphere.

I looked at the NCDC reports on the warming/cooling of the upper atmosphere. What I saw showed for both the UAH and RSS that the stratosphere and tropsphere showed the warmest year at 1998 and the following years all cooling. It is interesting that this follows the US pattern. It does not follow the constructed anomaly chart. I am still trying to understand this information.

In regard to the constructed anomaly chart, why is it that the northern hemisphere is the 5th warmest, the southern hemisphere the 23rd warmest but the global temperature is the 4th warmest. How is it that the northern hemisphere is weighted in such a way as to cause the original value to be exceeded?

[Bassman]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
You are saying X cannot cause Y if X hasn't happened before. That's not very logical...

What's not logical is, to automatically drink the cool aid & conclude that, even though the Earth has warmed & cooled many times before man was here, to now say conclusively that MAN is causing the current warming trend,[which has leveled off recently] even though we've only been here a spec in time, is an illogical, irrational & short sighted alarmist "the sky is falling" "we're all going to die in 10 years" position to take.

To willingly turn you lives over to the UN on unproven science, now that's illogical sir.
A position of skepticism & caution is wise when you know who is pushing this agenda & why.

Every day more sound evidence comes out against the GW crowd. Respectable professionals with no dog in the fight are the ones Im more inclind to believe. Not Al Gore & his army of hysterical brain dead libs.

[Meg]

check out "climate confusion"-great book and may help many of you!

[Northie]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, wonderful, the fraudulent Oregon Petition Project. Again.

Ah, yes, the good Dr. Robinson, raving from his shed high in the Siskiyous, where he's been awaiting nuclear Armageddon for decades. The only problem is one can never tell what he's raving about; the UN, socialism or the scientific establishment.

[Cthulhu]

Bassman wrote:

<quoted text>
What's not logical is,

I'll stop you there, you made an illogical claim and I called you on it. Nice try on twisting it round though, but I'm not biting that fish.

[Northie]

Bassman wrote:

<quoted text>
What's not logical is...to now say conclusively that MAN is causing the current warming trend...to willingly turn you lives over to the UN...hysterical brain dead libs.

Every major, relevant scientific academy on Earth says man is causing this warming trend. What do you know that they don't?

As for your fears of the UN and liberals, you needn't repeat yourself...we can read your thoughts right through that tin foil hat.

[JRS]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Every major, relevant scientific academy on Earth says man is causing this warming trend. What do you know that they don't?
As for your fears of the UN and liberals, you needn't repeat yourself...we can read your thoughts right through that tin foil hat.

"What do you know that they don't?"

It is called money, funding stupid.

World Climate Report editor Dr. Patrick J. Michaels has just written a book cataloging dozens of similar instances. The reason is obvious. The scientific community has a financial incentive to spout gloom and doom. Doing so generates oodles of money from our single sugar daddy, the federal government. No one ever leverages billions out of or Nation’s Capital (the current annual outlay for “global change” research is $4 billion) unless they threaten the worst. Then the political process takes credit for saving us from certain destruction. And the media, addicted to “if it bleeds, it leads” stories, without questioning, print the worst.

Don’t expect scientific peer review to stop this process. To gain expert-review status, a scientist has to also have oodles of federally funded research. Who would rationally derail this gravy train? So, papers arguing against the end of the world (which are obviously correct) are much harder to publish, while any problems with apocalyptic submissions are either glossed over or ignored.

All of which guarantees that my colleagues are going to continue to scream bloody climate murder with impunity. It is simple economics interacting with politics, as evinced by unquestioningly published absolute nonsense.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2...

[AstroMike]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
"What do you know that they don't?"
It is called money, funding stupid.
World Climate Report editor Dr. Patrick J. Michaels has just written a book...

With all due respect, Patrick Michaels writing a book on questionable funding seems more than just a tad hypocritical. After all, that would be the same Patrick J. Michaels who was personally payed hundreds of thousands of dollars by coal companies...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

...not to mention his very own quarterly review, World Climate Report, which was actually funded by Western Fuels.

...not to mention the fact that he's a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute which is actually funded by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.

...not to mention that he's also a scientist at the George Marshall Institute, which is also heavily funded by ExxonMobil.

[woo fung poo]

Pave the planet , Asphalt does not absorb heat. As a matter of fact cities are cooler than those open wetlands . Nitrogen-Oxygen based ecosystems are not natural without all that extra carbon matter sequestered in the earth .

[Fun Facts]

woo fung poo wrote:

Pave the planet , Asphalt does not absorb heat. As a matter of fact cities are cooler than those open wetlands . Nitrogen-Oxygen based ecosystems are not natural without all that extra carbon matter sequestered in the earth .

Asphalt melts. Maybe in SF it doesn't absorb heat but in my area you wouldn't put a foot without a shoe on the asphalt.

If cities are cooler than open wetlands why do we have an "Urban heat index". Cities absorb heat throughout the day and retain it into the night. Most of the global warming has been calculated by using nighttime temperatures.

[woo fung poo]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Asphalt melts. Maybe in SF it doesn't absorb heat but in my area you wouldn't put a foot without a shoe on the asphalt.
If cities are cooler than open wetlands why do we have an "Urban heat index". Cities absorb heat throughout the day and retain it into the night. Most of the global warming has been calculated by using nighttime temperatures.

Theirs hope for you yet , Yes add a thicker atmosphere to your scenario to retain the gain and walla

[Sam]

WTF, seems to me if all asphalt were to be painted white to reflect the sunlight instead of absording it the suns heat would be reflected from the asphalt instead of be absorbed and then radiated at ground level.

A simple solution to one aspect of global warming.

[Wake Up El Paso]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
With all due respect, Patrick Michaels writing a book on questionable funding seems more than just a tad hypocritical. After all, that would be the same Patrick J. Michaels who was personally payed hundreds of thousands of dollars by coal companies...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
...not to mention his very own quarterly review, World Climate Report, which was actually funded by Western Fuels.
...not to mention the fact that he's a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute which is actually funded by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.
...not to mention that he's also a scientist at the George Marshall Institute, which is also heavily funded by ExxonMobil.

So your contention seems to be that if a scientist is funded by a potentially biased organization then their assertions are not valid. That also seems to be the same thing those that disagree with you are saying. If we eliminate all of the scientists on both sides with a vested monetary interest in promoting their side of the climate issue then we are quickly out of scientists.