3/21/2009 7:51:46 PM

Wait, isnt global warming bs now that the sun was like, ok fuck you, cold weather?

3/21/2009 9:23:19 PM

global warming is only for the summer, record highs, and hurricanes. Global climate change is what you call winter, record lows, and lack of hurricanes.

Come on, learn the verbage.

3/21/2009 9:52:10 PM

Andy Kroll of Fox News offers some good arguments for why Americans should eat less meat as a way to curb our ghg emissions. He's even acting the argument to try and reduce his own meat consumption by 75%.
http://green.foxnews.com/2009/03/18/a-tearful-reluctant-farewell-to-my-favorite-food-meat/

Interesting fact: According to the UN's report "Livestock's long shadow", 18% of all global GHG emissions are associated with animal production, while only 14% of emissions are associated with transportation.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Ala Grist
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/20/799/77361?source=rss

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ``]

3/23/2009 9:58:37 AM

I hope I live long enough to see the downfall of the cattle juggernaut and their monopoly on the minds and diets of a now obese America. Sorry, Aaron Copland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqah1rucyRg



[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : verbs good.]

3/23/2009 2:30:26 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html

Consider a few of Will's claims from his Feb. 15 column, "Dark Green Doomsayers": In a long paragraph quoting press sources from the 1970s, Will suggested that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic cooling. Today, most climate scientists and climate journalists consider this a timeworn myth. Just last year, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a peer-reviewed study examining media coverage at the time and the contemporary scientific literature. While some media accounts did hype a cooling scare, others suggested more reasons to be concerned about warming. As for the published science? Reviewing studies between 1965 and 1979, the authors found that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

Yet there's a bigger issue: It's misleading to draw a parallel between "global cooling" concerns articulated in the 1970s and global warming concerns today. In the 1970s, the field of climate research was in a comparatively fledgling state, and scientific understanding of 20th-century temperature trends and their causes was far less settled. Today, in contrast, hundreds of scientists worldwide participate in assessments of the state of knowledge and have repeatedly ratified the conclusion that human activities are driving global warming -- through the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific academies of various nations (including our own), and leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Will wrote that "according to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." It turns out to be a relatively meaningless comparison, though the Arctic Climate Research Center has clarified that global sea ice extent was "1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979." Again, though, there's a bigger issue: Will's focus on "global" sea ice at two arbitrarily selected points of time is a distraction. Scientists pay heed to long-term trends in sea ice, not snapshots in a noisy system. And while they expect global warming to reduce summer Arctic sea ice, the global picture is a more complicated matter; it's not as clear what ought to happen in the Southern Hemisphere. But summer Arctic sea ice is indeed trending downward, in line with climatologists' expectations -- according to the Arctic Climate Research Center.

Will also wrote that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. Will probably meant that since 1998 was the warmest year on record according to the WMO -- NASA, in contrast, believes that that honor goes to 2005 -- we haven't had any global warming since. Yet such sleight of hand would lead to the conclusion that "global cooling" sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them. Climate scientists, knowing that any single year may trend warmer or cooler for a variety of reasons -- 1998, for instance, featured an extremely strong El Niño -- study globally averaged temperatures over time. To them, it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO.

3/23/2009 2:49:13 PM

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

3/23/2009 2:56:13 PM

^ Robert Frost chaps my ass.

3/24/2009 8:46:19 AM

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

3/24/2009 10:31:16 AM

Quote :

"Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm The abstract reads: THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. Data drawn from the website http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm . Tom Quirk has a Master of Science from the University of Melbourne and Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford. His early career was spent in the UK and USA as an experimental research physicist, a University Lecturer and Fellow of three Oxford Colleges. "

I bolded the important part.

3/26/2009 9:06:39 PM

^ bullshit. CO2 is a deadly gas, we all know it.

3/26/2009 9:28:11 PM

^^ Let's follow that reasoning, then. Assume all CO2 is locally absorbed by the environment. Suspect, but we'll go with it.

Now, clearly not everything released goes into flora; much of it gets dissolved into the ocean (a very large carbon sink, in fact). One consequence of this has been slight changes in ocean pH through the formation of carbonic acid. Carbonic acid breaks down calcium carbonate, which is scientific speak for the stuff that makes up shells and coral.

So, again; take the premise completely on its face that industrial CO2 is absorbed over a short timeframe. Meanwhile, take the fact that we're producing billions of tons of it. The result is billions of tons of CO2 dissolved into the oceans. This has a pretty well-documented effect on ocean pH.

Again; completely discounting the whole AGW issue, emitting that much carbon, assuming that it's all very quickly absorbed, still has consequences, and not insignificant ones.

3/26/2009 10:11:48 PM

Quote :

"Now, clearly not everything released goes into flora; much of it gets dissolved into the ocean (a very large carbon sink, in fact). One consequence of this has been slight changes in ocean pH through the formation of carbonic acid. Carbonic acid breaks down calcium carbonate, which is scientific speak for the stuff that makes up shells and coral."

CO2 levels were much much much higher in prehistoric times and we did not have any carbonic acidity problemw in the oceans then. How is it different now?

3/26/2009 10:32:33 PM

Quote :

"CO2 levels were much much much higher in prehistoric times and we did not have any carbonic acidity problemw in the oceans then. How is it different now?"

Not actually sure you can make that claim, in fact. I'm certainly no paleobiologist, and I'm fairly certain you aren't either. Frankly, I'd be very interested in hearing some analysis of that very question by an expert.

But my point isn't that the seas are going to suddenly turn everything they touch into bleached bones, but simply that sudden, short-term changes in ocean pH can have radical consequences for ocean fauna.

This doesn't take a conspiracy theory - this is just basic chemistry.

CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

You introduce very quick changes (relative to geologic time) into the pH of an ecosystem, and something will happen.

3/26/2009 10:38:48 PM

its a very tiny change. I emailed the climate scientist Steve Millroy the question about ocean acidity last week and this is the answer he gave me:

Quote :

"In theory adding CO2 to surface waters will reduce alkalinity (by virtue of adding carbolic acid, which is what rain is, to some extent) but so what? Atmospheric CO2 was >4,000ppmv in the Ordovician and in the Ordovician a variety of new types including cephalopods, corals (including rugose and tabulate forms), bryozoans, crinoids, graptolites, gastropods, and bivalves flourished. Doesn't sound like calciferous critters are at much risk at present at <400ppmv, does it?"

3/26/2009 10:54:11 PM

Ocean acidity has changed 30% since the industrial revolution. This isn't "tiny."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

Quote :

"The chemistry is very straight-forward: ocean acidification is linearly related to the amount of CO2 we produce. CO2 dissolves in the ocean, reacts with seawater and decreases the pH. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic (from 8.2 pH to 8.1 pH). "Under a "business as usual scenario, predictions for the end of the century are that we will lower the surface ocean pH by 0.4 pH units, which means that the surface oceans will become 150 percent more acidic -- and this is a 'hell of a lot' ", said Jelle Bijma, chair of the EuroCLIMATE programme Scientific Committee and a biogeochemist at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Bremerhaven."

I don't just think it's the delta here you have to worry about - it's the timescale, too. Right now, what I can tell from the science seems mixed - some organisms will flourish as a result, some will perish. (i.e., there has been some publications showing some showing increased calcification as a function of time, and several others showing decreased calcification over the same time period. Obviously, every organism is different - but I think it's clear to say an effect exists.)

The object of concern is particularly if this occurs over very small timescales, which is what is going on, geologically speaking.

From the same:

Quote :

"The expected biological impact of ocean acidification remains still uncertain. Most calcifying organisms such as corals, mussels, algae and plankton investigated so far, respond negatively to the more acidic ocean waters. Because of the increased acidity, less carbonate ions are available, which means the calcification rates of the organisms are decreasing and thus their shells and skeletons thinning. However, a recent study suggested that a specific form of single-celled algae called coccolithophores actually gets stimulated by elevated pCO2 levels in the oceans, creating even bigger uncertainties when it comes to the biological response."

Like I said, the science is mixed. But I think it's facile to simply say "nothing" will happen as a consequence.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 10:59:16 PM

ohh nooes... dead fish
<x))))}}<
<x))))}}<
<x))))}}<

3/26/2009 11:07:09 PM

^the death of the ocean's fish would be catastrophic. I know you're kidding, but I don't see what's there to kid

3/26/2009 11:18:38 PM

If the fish die, then we eat more cows.

Seriously though, the whole calcification of the ocean thing is just as plausible as GW. It deserves some discussion too.

I just don't get the fixation with CO2, is this the only gas humans produce mass quantities of that has negative impacts to the environment? I'm sure there are worse substances that are not getting the same exposure.

3/26/2009 11:33:26 PM

Quote :

"Milloy has campaigned against the 1972 ban on non-public-health uses of DDT in the United States and in favour of wider use of DDT against malaria, which he claims could be largely eliminated if DDT were used more aggressively. "

Um....

Quote :

"Effects on wildlife and eggshell thinning DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects. It is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals but cats are very susceptible, and in several instances cat populations were significantly depleted in malaria control operations that used DDT, often leading to explosive growth in rodent populations.[33] DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle[6], brown pelican[34] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent that DDT.[1] The biological mechanism for the thinning is not entirely known, but it is believed that p,p'-DDE impairs the shell gland's ability to excrete calcium carbonate onto the developing egg.[1][35][36] There is also evidence that o,p'-DDT disrupts the development of the female reproductive tract, thereby impairing the quality of the eggshells produced by the bird once its matures.[37] Multiple mechanisms may be at work, or different mechanisms may operate in different species.[1] Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.[38] [edit] Effects on human health [edit] Acute Toxicity * DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program[39] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[12] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes and/or used in soap.[40] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[41] [edit] Chronic Toxicity * Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica. DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study.[42] * Farmers exposed to DDT occupationally have an increased incidence of non-allergic asthma. [43] * Organochlorine compounds in general and DDE specifically have been linked to diabetes.[44][45][46][47] [edit] Carcinogenicity * The United States National Toxicology Program classified DDT as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen", and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as a class B2 "probable" human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies a Group 2B, "possible" human carcinogen. These evaluations are based mainly on the results for animal studies.[1] * A study of malaria workers who handled DDT occupationally found an elevated risk of cancers of the liver and biliary tract. Another study has found a correlation between DDE and liver cancer in white men, but not for women or black men. An association between DDT exposure and pancreatic cancer has been demonstrated in a few studies, but other studies have found no association. Several studies have looked for associations between DDT and multiple myeloma, and testicular, prostate, endometrial, and colorectal cancers, but none conclusively demonstrated any association.[20] * A Canadian study from 2007 found a positive association between DDE and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[48] * A recent study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded that DDE exposure may be associated with testicular cancer. The incidence of seminoma in men with the highest blood levels of DDE was almost double that of men with the lowest levels of DDE.[49][50] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Quote :

"Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way — i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study — for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist."

Quote :

"Milloy and former tobacco executive Tom Borelli run a mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF). The fund has criticised companies that voluntarily adopt high environmental standards. Through the platform of the FEAF, Milloy has criticized a number of other corporations for adopting environmental initiatives:"

Quote :

"While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[3] However, with the release of confidential tobacco industry documents as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the objectivity of Milloy's stance on secondhand smoke has been questioned. Based on this documentation, journalists Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry."

Quote :

"Milloy has been critical of the Clean Air Act, acknowledging that it has improved air quality but arguing that it has forced Americans to "surrender many freedoms." Milloy argued that "air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem [in 1970]. That is even more the case today."[26]"

Quote :

"Milloy has criticized research linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer, claiming that "the vast majority of studies reported no statistical association."[13] In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke." Five years later Milloy claimed vindication after a federal court criticized the EPA's conclusions. However, the court's finding against the EPA was overturned on appeal."

I can see why you wanted to talk to this guy, TEG. Jesus.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2009 9:21:43 AM

there's A LOT of scientific evidence out there supporting that DDT (as well as DDD and DDE) are perfectly safe...rachel carson was just a bitch

3/27/2009 9:58:29 AM

That's utter nonsense. There's evidence that it isn't some evil chemical that destroys everything in its path, but of course, that was never the claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18557596
linked to breast cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/115807299/ABSTRACT
Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33310120080429
Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-41
Farmers exposed to DDT occupationally have an increased incidence of non-allergic asthma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-42

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects. It is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals but cats are very susceptible, and in several instances cat populations were significantly depleted in malaria control operations that used DDT, often leading to explosive growth in rodent populations.[33] DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle[6], brown pelican[34] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent that DDT.[1]

The biological mechanism for the thinning is not entirely known, but it is believed that p,p'-DDE impairs the shell gland's ability to excrete calcium carbonate onto the developing egg.[1][35][36] There is also evidence that o,p'-DDT disrupts the development of the female reproductive tract, thereby impairing the quality of the eggshells produced by the bird once its matures.[37] Multiple mechanisms may be at work, or different mechanisms may operate in different species.[1] Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.[38]
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/examples/AlaskaPeregrine.cfm

As for Carson being "a bitch,"

Quote :

"Criticisms of a "ban" on DDT often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[101] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding: It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2009 10:36:55 AM

i don't want to re-post the junkscience stuff, so:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

the truth is that i can "prove" both points of view...the problem is that it's VERY difficult to effectively emulate the conditions surrounding all of these toxicological problems that supposedly stem from DDT/DDD/DDE exposure

the DDT compounds are not necessarily a "if you're around this chemical, you WILL get cancer" sort of thing...the exposure pathways and their limits, especially in the environment concerning wildlife, are difficult to track down

sure, pump any animal (humans included) with enough DDT compounds and yeah, they'll die...but ridiculously far from that simple

while i talk out of my ass a lot, i rarely do it in the soap box...and since i did my undergraduate thesis in environmental toxicology on the specific exposure pathways of DDT/DDD/DDE regarding its toxicological profile as it relates to environmental and bioaccumulation, i think i have a pretty good idea of what i'm talking about (at least as it pertains as to the current research that's going on)

don't get me wrong...i don't care for milloy, and i'm obnoxious about proclaiming that global climate destabilization is happening, and happening quickly (i spent nearly a year total in the arctic circle doing ecosystem studies, mostly regarding the methane production of destabilizing permafrost bogs)...i just know that the DDT issue is not nearly as clear cut as most people who don't fully understand the issue (most environmentalists, in my experience) like to pretend that it is

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : *shrug*]

3/27/2009 10:58:24 AM

The idiocy in this thread is reaching critical levels.

Sure liberals are over reacting to GW and we shouldn't be passing all this rash legislation to control CO2 when more research is needed. The legislation if any should be a gradual process.

Nonetheless ignoring the need to research or acknowledge the potential of human impact on climate as related to CO2 makes some people sound about as dumb as those who refuse to embrace evolution or those who cried heresy in the 1500's about the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe.

3/27/2009 11:22:38 AM

^ if you were referring to me... I never said anything about stopping or ignoring effects of CO2. I just think it is over-publicized.

And comparing CO2 to DDT is like comparing apples to cinder blocks. DDT was a man made pesticide that is very easy to control its release into the atmosphere. CO2 is a naturally occurring compound that is difficult to control its release into the atmosphere. I'm sorry for asking such a poorly worded rhetorical question.

3/27/2009 5:59:07 PM

Quote :

"if you were referring to me... I never said anything about stopping or ignoring effects of CO2. I just think it is over-publicized."

nah i was not referring to u and i agree with the later half

3/27/2009 7:48:22 PM

If DDT had not been banned millions and millions of lives could have been saved.

3/27/2009 7:59:23 PM

Because there aren't enough humans already and your miracle life saver would come with devastating environmental consequences. No thanks.

3/27/2009 8:53:39 PM

ya human life is nothing special and i am against policies republican or democrat that are enacted specifically out of this altruistic nature.

GOP- pro-life non sense
Liberal- Every crack whore deserves food, health care, and welfare raises for every crackbaby they pump out.

3/27/2009 9:43:31 PM

^^the consequences were not researched enough. If there are already too many people then we should just say fuck Africia. Glad to see you care about people.

3/28/2009 2:25:01 AM

When, exactly, have I ever given the impression that I do at the expense to nature?

3/28/2009 9:47:01 AM

Quote :

"You introduce very quick changes (relative to geologic time) into the pH of an ecosystem, and something will happen."

As a keeper of fish, I can agree with that

Quote :

"I can see why you wanted to talk to this guy, TEG. Jesus."

Thank you for that fantastic ad hominem, DG.

Quote :

"Nonetheless ignoring the need to research or acknowledge the potential of human impact on climate as related to CO2 makes some people sound about as dumb as those who refuse to embrace evolution or those who cried heresy in the 1500's about the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe."

Likewise, should we devote all our resources to CO2 without even beginning to consider other, simpler, and more probable explanations?

3/28/2009 3:12:51 PM

Quote :

"ad hominem"

Latin in italics

Serious business.

3/28/2009 3:25:36 PM

you know it!

3/28/2009 3:26:49 PM

Quote :

"devote all our resources to CO2 "

who said devote all our resources to this??

I am sure you agreed with Sarah Palin when she called genetic research on honeybees as "silly nonsense"

3/28/2009 3:34:14 PM

and you would be wrong...

and, frankly, it's pretty clear that we are devoting all of our resources to CO2. When's the last time you've heard of any serious research being done on the subject of the climate that didn't talk about CO2?

3/28/2009 6:07:57 PM

Quote :

"and, frankly, it's pretty clear that we are devoting all of our resources to CO2. When's the last time you've heard of any serious research being done on the subject of the climate that didn't talk about CO2?"

1.) There's plenty of research not just about CO2.
2.) The reason we're devoting most of our research to CO2 is because it's the most likely candidate for human-influenced climate change.

3/29/2009 12:14:14 AM

2) is blatantly false. a decrease in cloud cover of just 5% would account for all of the increase in temperatures over the last three decades. And guess what percentage decrease we've had? you guessed it.

3/29/2009 8:11:23 PM

Quote :

"a decrease in cloud cover of just 5% would account for all of the increase in temperatures over the last three decades. And guess what percentage decrease we've had? you guessed it."

This sounds genuinely interesting, although it seems like a major change in albedo would be so obvious that it'd have been discussed at length by now. Source?

3/29/2009 8:44:34 PM

dear god, it was the clouds the whole time!! i knew those bastards were just floatiing around plotting shit.

3/29/2009 8:45:39 PM

the days following 9/11, when planes were grounded, there was a measurable decrease in albedo for a few days because of the reduced cloud cover.

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 9:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2009 9:38:52 PM

Quote :

"is blatantly false. a decrease in cloud cover of just 5% would account for all of the increase in temperatures over the last three decades. And guess what percentage decrease we've had? you guessed it."

wow you are fucking joking right...

haha got a laugh out of me...

No sweat off my back that you believe global warming is the stuff fairy tales are made of and part of Al Gores secret evil plans; but you seriously illustrated a complete lack of understanding on the complexities of meteorology and also of fundamental Freshman year chemistry.

Clouds play a very complicated part of the ecosystem. Depending on the bias and context an arm-chair climate warrior like yourself could argue their part of the global warming puzzle in anyway they choose

Yes, good job you passed 5th grade science class. Less clouds means more of the suns IR radiation is not reflected back into space and thus allows warmer temperatures in a cloud-free area. Oh shit though!!!! At night lack of cloud cover also allows more heat to escape back into space. Hence why during the winter the bitterly cold nights that get down into the teens are also the really pretty ones where all the stars come out.

Hmmm... well.. i guess we can't directly blame the clouds! why though would there be less clouds ?? If global warming really did exist the heat trapped into the atmosphere would actually allow a given region to hold the same amount of moisture without reaching the saturation point forming clouds. On the other hand warm temperatures would allow more ocean moisture to evaporate into the atmosphere. Depending on the mixing and heat dynamics of the system this could create more or less clouds depending on the trend in the gradient temperatures to which the clouds would or would not precipitate.

The last point though is why I think the harm and scale of artificial global warming is often grossly exaggerated by liberals and activist green hippies trying to promote change. I think earth oceans would act as a big heat sink where the increased trapped IR due to GW would release more precipitating water into the atmosphere to that would have a cooling effect to counteract the warming effect to altered CO2 levels.

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : l]

3/29/2009 10:37:36 PM

Can someone come up with a list of alternative reasons for global warming that aaron and the boys have thrown at us in the last few years but have been embarrassingly shot down, only to be replaced by another? I thought sunspot activity was to blame? Or was it something else? I can't keep up.

3/29/2009 11:48:35 PM

I personally like the Al Gore Liberal and Friends conspiracy as the masterminds of bribing the climatologists of academia into fixing the stats to make it possible to convince mainstream America to buy into the global warming hoax; all with the goal of making mad money off of carbon credits, solar energy, and Vespas when the dumb American people fall for the hogwash. Luckily heroes such as aaronburro, TKE-Teg, and LoneSnark are here to keep us from being suckered and falling from this gross injustice.

3/30/2009 12:37:15 AM

Quote :

"Can someone come up with a list of alternative reasons for global warming that aaron and the boys have thrown at us in the last few years but have been embarrassingly shot down, only to be replaced by another? I thought sunspot activity was to blame? Or was it something else? I can't keep up."

The clean air act and low-particulate diesel is to blame. It used to be that for every ton of greenhouse gases released into the air, a bunch of reflective particulates and aerosols would be released as well, and they would kind of counteract each other. After we declared war on smog and started using efficient engines and cleaner diesel fuel, suddenly shit got a lot hotter. I miss the days when we had smog protecting us with it's semi-carcinogenic particulates and gracing us with that funky acid rain.

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 1:31 AM. Reason : 2]

3/30/2009 1:30:49 AM

Quote :

"No sweat off my back that you believe global warming is the stuff fairy tales are made of and part of Al Gores secret evil plans; but you seriously illustrated a complete lack of understanding on the complexities of meteorology and also of fundamental Freshman year chemistry."

Don't argue with me about it. Argue with the PhD guys that proved this. I'm going to have to fish around for my source. But, I'm glad that you have such a massive grasp on meteorology that you know more than these guys.

Quote :

"Can someone come up with a list of alternative reasons for global warming that aaron and the boys have thrown at us in the last few years but have been embarrassingly shot down, only to be replaced by another? I thought sunspot activity was to blame? Or was it something else? I can't keep up."

Haha. You want to talk about things that have been shot down let's talk about global cooling. Or, for that matter, global warming. Remember, all of the supposed "evidence" for it has been shot down: hockey stick, melting glaciers, greenhouse hotspot signature.

Quote :

"why though would there be less clouds ?? "

Actually, this is blatantly obvious, and I'm surprised that someone with your meteorological prowess wouldn't know this. Cloud cover is directly related to solar activity. Namely that sunspot issue you so politely dismissed as ridiculous. Good work, dumbass.

3/30/2009 6:47:06 AM

*cough*

Quote :

"A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays. "

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Quote :

"the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect - it is a signature of warming from any source... Unsurprisingly, [Evans] deploys the standard non-greenhouse theorist approach of yet again blithely ignoring any refutation and simply repeating the exactly the same arguments again in a third forum. So, yet again, a climate scientist had to patiently refute this."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

3/30/2009 9:36:46 AM

Hey man you can not trust that obviously biased climatologist. He probably holds a minority interest in a factory that makes generators for wind power and has sunday tea with Nancy Pelosi.

3/30/2009 10:41:03 AM

Quote :

"For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the most critical point to remember, if you are concerned about this for its impact on the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago focusing on paleoclimate. This is starting to be ancient historical minutia. If you feel it may be tainted, then simply discard it. The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years. Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png together with an average. References are all presented at the bottom of the page in that Global Warming Art link. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_pngRegional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised by how wavy some of the lines are in there."

So that's all of the main ones aaron says have been disproved, but haven't. Did I miss anything?

My point is this - for every claim a denialist gives, I can find you tons of people explaining why he is incorrect. The numbers, not to mention the facts and the science, just aren't there for denialists.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

http://www.climateaudit.org/

A constantly updated page of "hockey stick" studies
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ,]

3/30/2009 11:59:35 AM

NO NEED TO WORRY, people
It says in Genesis that God will never again destroy the world. Also, the earth will end only when God declares so.
As such, ipso facto, ergo..... we need not worry about man's impacts on the environment

At least according to Illinois State Representatives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

3/30/2009 5:42:03 PM