Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Blair tries one last time to persuade Bush on CO2

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 June 2007
Blair in last ditch attempt to talk Bush into emissions agreement PM backing German proposal to half carbon emissions by 2050 6,000 protesters breach security fence as demonstrations continue
Key quote
"You could have a situation where this is agreed at the G8 - which is my preference - or you could see how it is agreed in principle, but you have to work out the details later. The important thing is that we get an agreement." - TONY BLAIR

Story in full TONY Blair will today make his last attempt to persuade George Bush to accept binding targets to cut American carbon emissions, even after the United States president appeared to reject the plan again yesterday.

The meeting at the Group of Eight summit in Germany at 6:30am today may be Mr Blair's last private talk with Mr Bush before he leaves Downing Street this month.

The Prime Minister is backing a German proposal for the eight industrialised nations to commit to halving carbon emissions by 2050, and to try to hold increases in average global temperatures to two degrees.

In an interview before leaving London for the summit in Heiligendamm on the Baltic coast, Mr Blair said he was confident of persuading Mr Bush to accept emissions cuts.

"We need a global agreement that includes all the main players, including China and America, and at the heart of that there has to be a global target for a substantial cut in emissions. I believe it is possible," he said.

"You could have a situation where this is agreed at the G8 - which is my preference - or you could see how it is agreed in principle, but you have to work out the details later. The important thing is that we get an agreement."

But within hours of Mr Blair's confident predictions, one of Mr Bush's team made clear that the US has no intention of signing up to a carbon-cutting deal.

Unless that position changes dramatically, the summit will end tomorrow without a significant climate change deal.

• Mr Blair will today warn Vladimir Putin that his increasingly hostile rhetoric towards the West is jeopardising investment in Russia.

The Prime Minister will hold a private meeting with the Russian president, who this week threatened to train nuclear missiles on European targets in protest against a US plan to put anti-missile batteries in eastern Europe.

"We want good relations with Russia, but that can only be done on ... shared principles and shared values," Mr Blair told MPs. "The consequence if there aren't ... is that people in Europe will want to minimise the business they do with Russia."

THOUSANDS OF PROTESTERS CUT OFF SUMMIT ZONE


THE G8 summit is taking place amid what has become routine heavy security, aimed at keeping thousands of anti-globalisation demonstrators away from the meeting.

But the Heiligendamm site was effectively cut off by protesters who stormed police lines through the "forbidden zone" to reach the 8ft-high steel fence built to protect world leaders.

The authorities had to resort to ferrying in hotel workers, conference officials, diplomats and journalists by sea as pitched battles were fought in several places along the eight-mile barrier.

Stones were rained on police, who responded with tear gas, water cannon and baton charges.

Police suffered at least eight casualties, who were taken out of the zone by ambulance to local hospitals.

The organisation of the demonstrators caught the authorities by surprise. Convoys of hundreds of police vehicles and at least ten personnel helicopters were used to ferry thousands of reinforcements into the flashpoint areas as all land routes were impassable by shortly after midday.

Police were forced to shut down two checkpoints on the way to the fence as 6,000 protesters stormed through, cutting off Heiligendamm by land.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 June 2007 12:01 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change , The G8
 
1

www.scottwebb.co.uk..,

07/06/2007 00:34:17

Quote: Blair tries one last time to persuade Bush on CO2.........................SUUUUUUUREEEEEE he does :)

2

syntax,

Edinburgh 07/06/2007 00:37:23

Why ? They are both wasting their time. Co2 is not the issue and never has been. The change in weather is part of the earths normal cycle ? Ice Age, thaw, Ice age, Thaw.......Anybody see the pattern ??????

3

Conan,

Here 07/06/2007 00:55:05

#2 - You, Sir, are entirely correct ..... but be prepared to be deluged by members of the Church of Global Warming, who's Pope is Al Gore, all of whom will want to see you dead for blaspheming against their Biblical Cult-like Belief on their cause.

4

Tricia,

07/06/2007 01:11:48

How can you doubt global warming? There well could be a build up of CO2. Bushy himself is an example of not enough oxygen getting to his smoggy brain.

5

Jim A,

07/06/2007 01:27:54

#2 syntax, Yep #3 Conans right, your gonna get jumped on. I agree with you about the weather cycles and the last time this was the topic I wrote what you have just written, I still have the scars

6

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 01:56:48

#4 Tricia

Tricia. No one believes you really care about CO2 emissions. If you really care, prove it by stop exhaling.

7

Arthur C,

manila 07/06/2007 02:16:36

#2 and #3. yes idiots, there is a ice age, thaw, ice age, thaw pattern but with changes happening over many many hundreds of years.
This change will be happening over a period of 50-100 years as a result of CO2 emissions unless the emissions are cut.

8

Big SUV Driver,

07/06/2007 02:37:59

6. 57Nomad

LOL, I've been wishing for the breathing thing with Trisha for months, the CO2 thing would just be an added bonus.

9

Jim A,

07/06/2007 02:39:00

#7 Arthur C, "yes idiots" what's that all about mate, do you have to start your comments with insults. chill out and keep it friendly

10

Big SUV Driver,

07/06/2007 02:54:32

9. Jim A

Liberals like Arthur can't win the the argument so they resort to name calling.

11

inter alia,

Edinburgh 07/06/2007 05:56:34

yaawn

12

Boyce,

Edinburgh 07/06/2007 06:02:45

Come on Blair use the very special relationship isnt that what its for?

13

Jethro's flute,

07/06/2007 06:30:50

#2 you are correct.

#7 More politically correct, big-government-loving drivel.

And Bush is right to resist this rubbish. He might not be the sharpest tool in the box but he's right to reject the idea that regulations and tax can 'solve' the 'problem' of 'climate change'.

14

Covert Action,

07/06/2007 07:02:40

Bush is right. Why should China and India get a free pass - typical west-hating twisted lefty logic.

15

,

07/06/2007 07:09:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 07/06/2007 07:31:59

Mars is experiencing global warming as well. (e.g. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977 )

Obviously those martians are burning their fossil fuels as well!

As to #7 'yes idiots' opening gambit - this isn't surprising. The global warming movement seems to be a surrogate religion to many. For instance several climatologists have received death threats for voicing disagreement with man made global warming. There is also the desire to criminalise those who question the man made global warming hypothesis. (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ )

This is indicative not of science, but akin to Islamic fundamentalism.

17

Skatedad,

Edinburgh 07/06/2007 07:44:55

I can see it now :Another tax from Brown.

18

thinking,

Scotland 07/06/2007 07:49:51

President Bush is reported to be against forcing cuts in emissions but wants to focus on improving technology which will do away with a lot of the things that are presently causing a problem.
That, to me, seems to be the common sense option.
If the vast amount of money that is being spent trying to stop use of things we use today was spent on working together to improve what is done, then the world would be a better place to live in

19

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 07:58:29

WEll, we only jump on you when you try and make misleading or lying statements that misrepresent the science. Merely stating your opinion that its all a conspiracy by greenies, or that Al Gore is a big fat lier, therefore global warming doesn't exist, or that the climate is always changing, is just you shooting your mouth off, and not worth commenting on.

CAuchy- your article was from 2005. SInce then, they have worked out that albedo changes on Mars have a much greater effect on the climate. Moreover, there is no evidence that the sun is changing in out put leading to greater warming. People also claim that Neptune is warming, but what that seems to be is that it is entering its summer period, closer to the sun, and there are also likely to be some albedo changes there as well. Plus, the amount of solar energy it gets from the sun is so miniscule as to hardly count.

20

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 08:00:07

Cauchy, I too think climate change deniers are morons, but then I define such deniers as people who wilfully deny the science, cherry pick data etc. Most of the folk on the Scotsman are merely normal sceptical people with their own prejudices, but they are not usually denialists.

21

bill1,

07/06/2007 08:11:50

This is just a side show.

The big act is about Bush and Blair paving the way for WW3; their sponsors, big business, are well pleased with what they've achieved so far.

22

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 07/06/2007 08:12:40

The row over nuclear arms threatens to dominate the G8 summit
Mt. Tony Blaire. You are no longer in power. It is Bush, Marcel, Putin and few others.
Please may we have the audience from the others?
Thank you.
The future of house prices: 10 times pay
With the problem on the Great 8 summit I find this a piece of cake. The reason is simple. There they are fighting for the countries. Here you are looking at the houses.
No country safe or if Bush and Putin carry on struggling over the Nuke shield, the while in the price is very little issue to the British.
What we have to look at “Do good to the world, World will in turn will do good to others”
Mr. Tony Blaire has indeed left the country for Mr. Brown in a terrible state.
Whilst the political discussions continue at the G8, the demonstrations escalate. Stones were rained on police, who responded with tear gas, water cannon and baton charges.

The row over nuclear arms threatens to dominate the G8 summit
Mt. Tony Blaire. You are no longer in power. It is Bush, Marcel, Putin and few others.
Please may we have the audience from the others?
Thank you.
The future of house prices: 10 times pay
With the problem on the Great 8 summit I find this a piece of cake. The reason is simple. There they are fighting for the countries. Here you are looking at the houses.
No country safe or if Bush and Putin carry on struggling over the Nuke shield, the while in the price is very little issue to the British.
What we have to look at “Do good to the world, World will in turn will do good to others”
Mr. Tony Blaire has indeed left the country for Mr. Brown in a terrible state.

No 14

What your point is.. Bush is right is pushing the baton of democracy in every country and he is the manger of the earth.
Think again.
Putin is putting up more missile shield and does not give a damn about what Bush says. Let us assume that P

23

Conan,

Here 07/06/2007 08:13:54

#20 - Ok Guthrie, I'll play along. make you very best case why I should accept that man and only man is causing any change in the planet's climate, beyond localised and transient changes, and above or below the normal trends and we can talk about it. The stage is yours ....... proceed.

24

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 08:14:05

Someone should stick bush in a room filled with nothing but CO2 - see if he thrives...like a vegetable might.

25

,

07/06/2007 08:15:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 688685, Article id was mapped to record!
26

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 08:17:43

#7 Arthur C, and you an expert how exactly? If you study climate systems, you'll see that rapid change, once past a 'tipping point' in the system, is common - this pattern is also repeated in all kinds of natural systems. It is a sort of 'straw that broke the camels back' effect.

The fact a rapid change may or may not be happening now may or may not be coincidence!

28

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 08:37:27

#13 Not the sharpest tool in the box!!!!!!!!

he's a jelly bean in the cutlery draw. All he is interested in is making sure he cronies get all the best deals, that's his driver. with so much in common no wonder blair gets on with him so well.

29

woodentop,

07/06/2007 08:42:37

Can someone point me to ANY evidence that the planet is warming over and above any natural cycle (we're still recovering from the little ice age)? Most of the hysteria comes from computer modelling the next 50-100 years... how you model a chaotic non-linear system with a multitude of forcings and feedbacks (some unknown) beats me.

30

The Strategist,

07/06/2007 08:46:25

I'm not particularly concerned as to whether the climate change/Co2 argument is right or wrong..

What concerns me much more is that we're having to import more and more of our energy from some pretty unsavoury countries and that its price is going to get higher and higher.

I'm also bemused somewhat by those who complain about the increase in emissions by China and India but are very happy to buy their cheap goods.

The answer to that one is easy. Stop manufacturing all our stuff in these places and do it here instead.

Carbon Trading? Utter waste of space.. More money is being made by carbon dealers in the City than is being invested in the UK on the development of new clean technologies. It also hasn't saved a single gramme of Co2 being produced but it has put the price of energy up..

31

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 08:52:12

Well Conan, Fred Bloggs post #27 has a long list of arguments people put up against global warming.

It would of course take many thousands of words to educate you about global warming, but lets start with the basics, and we'll see if you disagree.

Certain molecules, such as water, CO2, methane, hydrocarbons etc, absorb infra-red radiation, thus preventing it escaping into space. THese gases manage to maintain the Earth at an average of around 33 degrees warmer than it would be without any atmosphere.
The CO2 accounts for roughly 3 degrees of that heat trapping, and we have increased the amount of CO2 from around 270 to 370ppm, i.e. by almost a third, and what do you know, the temperature has increased by getting on towards a degree.

Not exaclty a degree though, since it takes time to heat the oceans, and not all the CO2 we produce has stayed in the atmosphere, around half has been absorbed by the oceans and plants etc. The CO2 in the oceans is however causing them to becopme more acidic, which seems to be having bad effects on some ocean life.

Thats enough for now, I shall put up some more later. Probably copied and pasted, since that is quicker.

32

woodentop,

07/06/2007 09:04:28

#31 - mostly correct. Remember that the radiative bands of CO2 become saturated, so that the relationship between concentration and heating effect is logarithmic, not linear. The warming effect of CO2 tails off the more there is.

33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 09:10:03

#29 Woodentop asks "Can someone point me to ANY evidence that the planet is warming over and above any natural cycle."

The following link shows temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years (and also graphs for the last 1000 and 12,000 years). Each graph shows a sharp upturn in temperature over the last few decades (note that the graphs end at 2004, which is indicated with an arrow against the y-axis. In each case, the 2004 temperature is higher than the preceding times):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_...

34

George.,

07/06/2007 09:11:49

32. Further all the major absorption bands have been saturated to extinction. Any extra CO2 can't have any major impact on temperature.

35

George.,

07/06/2007 09:13:35

Climate models are all nonsense. Not one can predict the actual changes over the last 150 years.

36

freehaggisallyear,

dunbar 07/06/2007 09:15:58

global warming is here!!!!???..............june the 7th not a bbq held.......bloody freezing..........no picnic on beach..........shorts going back in cupboard...........who says weathers not gone nuts!!!???

37

Vlad Tepes,

Wallachia 07/06/2007 09:17:25

Woodentop,
the warming we are seeing is not part of "a natural cycle", exclusively "natural" factors would have resulted in a net reduction in temps over the same period. The IPCC models (although inherently conservative) are the only credible source we have (if big business thought they could make a contrary scientific case they would!).
See the IPCC reports, Stern, and http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?month=3&id=5464 and enter the 21st century.

38

woodentop,

07/06/2007 09:23:34

#33 - Wikipedia is not a reliable source - it's edited by those with a vested interest. If you look at the references, several relate to the infamous Mann and his hockey stick graph. Google for 'Wegman Report'. These guys (Briffa included) use some interesting techniques when compiling their graphs - including the use of cherry-picked proxy data (treerings etc) up to around 1960/70 then replacing it with direct measurements. Have a look at climateaudit.org, there's plenty of evidence of statistical shenanigans and withholding of data around this subject.

39

doris d,

07/06/2007 09:27:53

#30 Dick

Well spoken. I heartily agree with your sentiments. We've lost our manufacturing industries and remaining businesses struggle to compete with the margins offered up by China & India.
I had hoped that carbon footprinting would start to even the playing field a bit-however it appears that the Chinese are buying swathes of land and factories in Eastern Europe to further reduce fulfillment costs of providing goods to the European continent. It really seems that boycotting products is the only way of containing this.

40

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 09:28:23

Vlad,

I think you'll not find many scientists that disagree that the climate is warming...we are going through a natural 'up' cycle. The question is whether humans are forcing the rate of change and at what rate. The jury remains out on the extent. Climate models are rather basic - not basic in the sense that bayesian mathematics is a synch, but rather that our ability to feed the right information in and make the right assumptions on the outputs is still limited. The science remains in its infancy.

41

Dragomir,

07/06/2007 09:39:23

How NOBLE of Blair! Pahhahahaha. He had a lot of years to do that, why is trying now when he's almost left the room? Coward.

42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 10:12:46

#38 The Wikipedia article was based on a dozen published studies. It has been present on the Wiki site for - as far as I can remember - several months and has not been changed (to my knowledge) as a result of any challenge.

As a result of criticism of the Mann (hockey stick) paper in the 2001 IPCC report, two reports were commissioned:

The Wegman Report, that you mention, produced for the US Republican Committee on Energy and Commerce by a panel of three statisticians.

The American National Academy of Science, National Research Council investigation. It was published in June 2006 and runs to 155pages. It says:

“the key conclusions reached by those studies [the hockey stick] (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research”(pg. 109 of the report).

It is on those studies that the Wikipedia site to which I referred you was based.

You mention "vested interests" and then refer to a report to the US Republican Energy and Commerce Committee and to the Climateaudit site. Aye well.

43

Queen D,

Glasgow 07/06/2007 10:37:02

I seem to remember, not that long ago, being warned by scientists that the new ice age was upon us.
Judging by a couple of days last week they might be right!

44

woodentop,

07/06/2007 10:43:56

#42 - what I meant by vested interest in this case was that the authors of those reports and graphs (plus supporters) could easily influence the Wiki page, irrespective of when this was done. I take it you've heard of the 'we have to get rid of the medieval warm period' quote attributed to one senior (unnamed) climatologist? That's exactly what these studies purport to do - you can see how inconvenient multi-degree swings in temperatures over periods of less than a century (well recorded in both proxy studies and history) could have to the modern AGW orthodoxy.

Do you believe the statisticians were biased?

climateaudit attempts to bring some rigour to the debate - Mr McIntyre states repeatedly he's agnostic about global warming (now of course known as climate change - that way we can attribute anything that happens to rising CO2) but is only interested in getting to the underlying data and processes used in coming to these IPCC conclusions. I have to say having followed the debate for some time, that much of what we're told from on high is simply not backed up by much credible evidence.

45

fred bloggs,

in my tree 07/06/2007 11:00:20
46

Carolyn 1,

Massachusetts 07/06/2007 11:00:53

CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and trees but the excess co2 is not causing all the climate change: (we need to plant lots of trees). Oceanographers are researching that plants floating in the ocean will absorb more co2

The earth is realigning itself within the gravtitational balance of the solar system, which is causing a shifting- merging tectonic and ocean plates- this causes ocean volcanic activity and gases to be released- these fissures and volcanoes release hot gases into the ocean and cause the temperature of the water to rise; the higher water temperature is a cause of hurricanes and also affects/changes the ocean currents:

Here is an interesting fact-
the magnetic north pole is moving:
www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north... - 34k -

47

woodentop,

07/06/2007 11:01:22

#45 - trees aren't the only carbon sinks in the biosphere. And higher CO2 stimulates plant growth.

#46 - typing let your final sentence down, but nice try!

48

woodentop,

07/06/2007 11:08:01

#49 - I think the big ball of fire in the sky is probably THE most important source of global warming. And we don't really know much about its impact on climate (directly or indirectly). Herschell in the early 19th century noticed a link between sun spot activity and grain prices, and studies since then have shown some interesting correlations. But watch this space.

CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas despite what we're told repeatedly (water vapour's the biggy by far), and has been noted already, it's heating effect is either at or very near saturation.

However, the greenies have this debate stitched up at the moment, with the dumb media being led by the nose. I expect we'll all have to toil through this nonsense for another few years until they find something else to wring their hands over.

49

Carolyn 1,

Massachusetts 07/06/2007 11:08:11

the global warming issue is a recognition for the usually underfunded and not noticed scientists of the world.
Global warming is a makework for scientists - suddenly they are overfunded with money, research grants, projects and equipment.

50

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 11:08:29

Woodentop- higher CO2 stimulates plant growth best in laboratory conditions. (They tested this in enclosed greenhouses) IN real life there is some small effect, but the plant growth is usually restricted by other problems like lack of water. Also, they have found that fodder crops grown in higher CO2 levels end up with less nitrogenous and other compounds, the net result being that they are less nutritious. So actually, increased Co2 levels are not going to end up in a net gain, and may lead to lower food production.

Especially when you factor in changes in rainfall pattern.

51

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 11:10:37

#34, George- that is incorrect. They discovered several decades ago that CO2 in the atmosphere, especially at the lower pressures higher up, is unsaturated, or rather it is not possible to saturate it fully without a great deal more energy. I've forgotten the exact bits of physics dealing with this, it was never an area I was taught.

52

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 11:11:31

As for Wegman etc, George, can you tell me what difference applying the statistical corrections to the data made?

53

Carolyn 1,

Massachusetts 07/06/2007 11:15:27

#51
I agree about the sun. There has been increased sun-spot flare activity. I think scientists attribute 50% water vapor?

54

Neil,

9% Growth 07/06/2007 11:16:17

Well it looks like a massive programme isn't going to happen & the Netherlands will, if the Guardian's promise is any way to be trusted, be underwater by 2007.

Alternately the whole thing is a swindle & merely yet anothe of the very long line of Luddite scare stories used to make us let the governments regulate our lives.

55

Carolyn 1,

Massachusetts 07/06/2007 11:20:19

A 1 degree change in temperature is the estimate.
REALISTS - as opposed to the ALARMISTS believe this is actually good- because it increases the growing period for certain regions of the world.

56

woodentop,

07/06/2007 11:28:29

#55 - have a look at this, it should answer most of your questions (since it's Wegman responding to them)...

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

57

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 11:39:17

#44 Woodentop

You ask about bias. Here are some comments from the US Union of Concerned Scientists report (January 2007) called "How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science", subtitled "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air"
It refers to Congressman Barton, who pushed for the Wegman report, and to McIntyre, of Climateaudit. I'll leave you to read the Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air report yourself. It details how the global warming denial campaign was founded on the back of the big tobacco
campaign to deny the harmful effects of smoking. Seems like they've sucked you in.
Quote:
“Barton seems to willfully misunderstand that the
findings of the study in question are only one
among a large body of evidence that support the
scientific consensus that global warming is under
way and that human activity is contributing significantly
over the past several decades. Rather
than basing his inquiry on a careful review of
peer-reviewed scientific literature or documents
from leading scientific bodies like the National
Academy of Sciences, Barton cited a Wall Street
Journal editorial as his primary source of global
warming information.
The scientific community has weighed in
strongly. The National Academy of Sciences and
the American Association for the Advancement
of Science—which rarely take stands on Congressional
investigations—sent letters of concern to
Barton, as did twenty leading climate scientists.
Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-Ny), chair
of the house Science Committee, and Representative
Waxman (D-CA), then ranking member on
the house Government Reform Committee, both
submitted letters protesting the tone and content
of this investigation.
Despite this response, Representative Barton
held two hearings in July 2006, both aimed at
attacking the Mann study. N

58

woodentop,

07/06/2007 11:53:08

#60 - this doesn't really get us any further forward.

Anyone who attempts to question the 'consensus' is drenched in a bucket of smears and innuendo; it's one of the less attractive facets of this supposed scientific debate (which is ongoing, not 'over' as some politicians would have you believe). I note your posting contains no substantive points regarding the Wegman report.

If Mann's hockey stick can be produced and given such prominence by the IPCC using shoddy statistics and free-ride peer-review processes, what other studies are similarly affected? You, like many others on the warming side of the debate, seem to believe that the organisations you side with and quote are whiter than white, fearless seekers of the truth. In actual fact, they are as biased as any other pressure group with a particular agenda.

The decisions being made at the moment are likely to be extremely expensive, hit economic growth (and thus living standards) and are an unnecessary diversion away from the problems that people have NOW.

59

fred bloggs,

in my tree 07/06/2007 11:58:48
60

Jethro's flute,

07/06/2007 12:03:29

#20"Cauchy, I too think climate change deniers are morons, but then I define such deniers as people who wilfully deny the science, cherry pick data etc."

I think those who talk about 'climate change' are morons because their 'solution' to this 'problem' is always to implement Robert Mugabe's economic policy. They are just servile lovers of big government.

61

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 12:04:58

#61 You, like many others on the natural cycle side of the debate, seem to believe that the organisations you side with and quote are whiter than white, fearless seekers of the truth. In actual fact, they are as biased as any other pressure group with a particular agenda.

62

,

07/06/2007 12:17:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 12:19:25

#65 Peter said, "The evidence from ice cores and other known historical weather and geographical models indicates this is just a period of global warming due to sun activity and the earth's wobble as it goes round the sun."
No it does not. Changes in the Earth's orbit, which are well known, indicate that, in the absence of human induced climate change, we should now by experiencing a very slow cooling of the Earth, leading to a new ice age in possibly 16,000 years.

He also said "Research indicates that global temperatures are nowhere near as high as they were at the end of the 14th Century when the Chinese circled the globe and discovered open sea round the North West of Canada enabling them to sail from Greenland to the Bering straights."

That is just nonsense. It is not true.

64

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 12:31:27

#67

They are creationists and lamarkists of our time. Their belief is blind and they will find the proof they need however and where ever. Consensus and rationale are not going to win them over.

65

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 12:37:00

#61 Woodentop
The question is, whether to trust information given by organisations and individuals receiving funding from Exxonmobil, or from reputable scientists.
Otherwise, it is necessary to get yourself a decent scientific education so as to be able to make your own judgements based on reputable evidence.
The reason why deniers often attract a lot of stick are threefold. First, they frequently rely on junkscience churned out by the oil/coal industry funded organisations, secondly, they frequently exhibit scientific illiteracy and thirdly, this is a very important subject, our reaction to which will effect life on Earth for all time coming.

66

fred bloggs,

in my tree 07/06/2007 12:43:33

The psychology of denial:

http://www.climatedenial.org/

67

Mike J,

Paisley 07/06/2007 12:49:37

What's really odd about all this is that the U.S., with no Kyoto treaty, is actually seeing falling CO2 emissions, while the EU countries, for all our rhetoric, have never met the goals of Kyoto. So I guess all we really care about is feeling good that we're "trying," right?

68

woodentop,

07/06/2007 12:52:20

#69 - reputable scientists are humans like the rest of us, and as susceptible to career pressure, the need to publish research and to attract grants. I have a decent (University) scientific education thanks very much.

Instead of concentrating on who's funding whom though, why not look at the science? It's for proponents of AGW to prove their case - and so far, all we have is supposition, theory and computer models (which are incomplete, even if it were possible to model the atmosphere with any sort of reliability).

And conveniently, it fits with an environmental agenda which has been growing in influence since the 1960's.

Oh, and finally, have a look around and see how many geologists or physicists 'believe' in AGW. The science of 'climatology' is very young - and very arrogant.

69

,

07/06/2007 12:52:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 13:07:43

#73 you actually know where you are posting and the topic?

thanks, don't call us, we'll call you.

71

fred bloggs,

in my tree 07/06/2007 13:11:40

72. Are ExxonMobil paying you well?

72

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 13:12:57

Peter, your reference for the CHinese navy encircling the world will be a book about it. Oddly enough the author fails to explain the complete lack of Chinese artefacts, nor the problematic lack of evidence for such a long voyage in the actual Chinese records of the voyage! The trips were actually mostly carried out in the Indian Ocean and out Indonesia way. They certainly did not get to New Zealand, Canada or anywhere else like that.

73

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 13:18:00

#59- its a ten megabyte PDF and the download cannot handle it just now, maybe later.

Anyway, to answer my own question:
-----------------------
"But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all.

This is what MBH would have looked like using centered PC analysis:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg

Red is the original MBH emulation and green is the calculation using centered PC analysis (and additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series). (Calculations are from Wahl and Amman (2006), after their fig. 5d). Pretty much the same variability and the same 'hockey stick'. We'd be very surprised if anyone thought that this would have made any difference to either the conclusions or the subsequent use of the MBH results.
-------------------

Or in other words, whilst the critique of the stats used was correct, correcting it made no material difference to the hockey stick graph.

74

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 13:19:02
75

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek Australia 07/06/2007 13:28:26

TWO LAME DUCKS WENT OUT ONE DAY,
OVER TO IRAQ AND FAR AWAY,
THE PEOPLE ALL CRIED QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK,
AND HOPED THAT THE LAME DUCKS NEVER CAME BACK.

76

Neil,

9% Growth 07/06/2007 13:42:37

Slioch objects to anybody listening to any any person or organisation which amy at any time have met anybody from business.

Being honest she will also have, equally often objected to anybody listening to any government funded or supported organisation.

Which leaves the Union of Conrerned Scientists. What she doesn't mention is that to become a "Concerned Scientist" you only need the $25 membership - it is not an organisation of "scientists" in any real way.

Perhaps we should also have brain surgery carried out by people whose only qualification is the have £13 in their back pocket. Alternately we should not trust any of the liars & charlatans who consistently turn out be behind the numerous Luddite scare stories. I have repeatedly asked supporters of the warming scare to come up with a single one of the "environmentalist" catastrophe stories which have, over time, been proved truthful & even senior members of the Green party have been unable to name a single one.

77

,

07/06/2007 13:42:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
78

,

07/06/2007 13:45:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 13:55:21

#82, ye ken whit, yir behuchie is oot ra windae

80

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 14:06:36

any way where were we before we got unterrupted by friends in america?

Pro-climate change throwing heaps of evidence to prove their point.

Anti-climate change throwing heaps of evidence to prove thier point.

Neither side interested in what the other says.

Back to post 25, factor 4. Twice as much output wiht half the resources, climate change or no resource efficiency makes common sense.

81

woodentop,

07/06/2007 14:08:24

#75 - yawn.

82

,

07/06/2007 14:15:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 14:55:47

Here is a link from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who has done or been associated with much of the research used by the UN and the US government. The report was last updated two months ago.


Common Misconceptions about Abrupt Climate Change : Woods Hole ...This summary covers some of the major points about abrupt climate change that are ...
www.whoi.edu/media/ - 33k


Q. Why have atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuated over Earth’s history?
A. KAREN BICE: In the absence of human influences, the amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is controlled by the balance between sources and sinks for CO2, much like the amount of money in your bank account is controlled by how much you put in and how much you take out.

The primary source for CO2 on geologic time scales is volcanism and outgassing from the mantle, deep within the Earth. Erosion of oil-rich, or petroleum-rich, rocks has also contributed to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past.

84

,

07/06/2007 15:03:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
85

Sanny,

Portugal & Glasgow 07/06/2007 15:14:23

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

86

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 15:29:14

No, not at all SAnny. None that you can see, no, nothing to see at all....

As for the evidence about increased plant growth, they were lab studies. Field studies show little or no increased growth. I shall post more when I get home.

87

Mandelson,

UK 07/06/2007 15:30:09

Americans truly do not care at all about how much they are destorying our beautiful Earth. They dont want to even talk about global warming. They totally ignore the scientific facts that US is harming world's climate beyong repair. Americans are sinking humanity's boat.

88

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 15:31:23

#19 Guthrie


Guthrie said:

"CAuchy- your article was from 2005. SInce then, they have worked out that albedo changes on Mars have a much greater effect on the climate."

What Guthrie isn't telling you is this. The albedo effect on Mars is caused by dark surface rocks being exposed by dust devils. The dust devils are caused by the surface temperature of Mars rising.

Guthrie, you seem to be scientifically minded so here's some basic science. The effect, the dust devils, followed the warming. Therefore they cannot be the cause of the warming. The effect can never, never, never, precede the cause.

89

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 15:37:04

#21 Bill

Bill said:

"The big act is about Bush and Blair paving the way for WW3; their sponsors, big business, are well pleased with what they've achieved so far."

Yeah, war is what big business is after for sure. Having all their executives killed by collapsing buildings, having the airlines go into bankruptcy because everyone's afraid to fly, having the infrastructure that has taken a century to build destroyed so that big business can no longer conduct big business, and no demand for oil whatsoever because all the big businesses that use oil are out of business, yep, you got it nailed big guy.

90

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 15:42:03

#26 Polms

The problem with your thesis is this. The laws of physics do not change at the whim of political correctness. Every single atom of carbon that is released by burning hydrocarbons was already in the air at one time. That's how it got to be a hydrocarbon. There was no runaway global warming then, so if the laws of nature haven't been altered, then runaway global warming is just another statist ploy to run our lives. Ain't gonna happen.

91

Sanny,

Portugal & Glasgow 07/06/2007 15:50:04

90. Guthrie:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Check this w/site: www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Fig 2 suggests a slow downward trend over the last 3,000 years. To me the overall picture looks similar to that just after the end of the Carboniferous period when we started to enter a new Ice Age. I wouldn’t worry too much about that as it about 2,000 years away.

92

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 15:51:23

#27 Fred

Well Fred, I would say that you represent your side well by providing them with layman oriented talking points. But your science is unsound. Let's take the arctic and antarctic.

It is getting colder in the antarctic. No doubt about it. But lets say that's an explainable anomaly. That does mean however that the southern ice cap is sound and not going to melt. Don't forget Antarctica is a continent and this is important.

If every single ounce of ice on the arctic ice cap melted tomorrow morning sea level wouldn't rise on single millimeter. Here's one way of looking at it. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it doesn't much care for a straight line. The climate and temperature NEVER stay the same. It's going to warmer or it's going to get colder. Which do you prefer?

93

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 16:05:22

#31 Guthrie

"The CO2 accounts for roughly 3 degrees of that heat trapping"

Why don't you explain that the human component of CO2 is 3%, 97% is natural. What's 3% of 3 degrees?

Here's another point. The US is often singled out for being the villain here but something is ofter left out. There are millions more trees in the US now than there were one hundred and fifty years ago. Millions and millions. All of those trees breathe in the CO2 you are so worried about. How many trees have you planted, or are you more concerned with being part of the problem rather than the solution?

94

Neil,

9% Growth 07/06/2007 16:10:08

Hardly worth confusing people with facts Sanny. Anybody who denies the thoroughly proven fact that increased CO2 stimulates plant growth is hardly going to be swayed by facts. On such nonsense is the entire warming scare based.

95

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 16:13:40

#37 Vlad

Vlad said:

"The IPCC models (although inherently conservative) are the only credible source we have"

The IPCC is nothing of the kind. It is a beneficiary of the global warming cash cow and nothing more. It destroys its own credibility in its mission statement:

"Mandate and Membership of the IPCC

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO."

The fact of global warming is accepted prior to proof. That's not science, that's politics.

96

Ian Menzies,

Epsom 07/06/2007 16:23:07

Poor deluded Tony. For years now we had been told that he has has Bush's ear about this and that. What tosh. The only thing Bush cares about is American interests. If Blair could'nt see that from the outset more fool him!

97

Conan,

Here 07/06/2007 16:25:12

Well, I played along and none of what has been posted appears to an adequate scientific explanation of so-called 'global warming'.

I am left to conclude that 'global warming' is a political, not scientific, phenomina.

On the other hand, I am left to conclude that 'climate change' is a completely natural and inevitable phenomina that is independent of politics.

Evidently, what is happening is that the left and others in their desperation to find a new home foillowing the setbacks they have suffered in recent decades have glommed on to climate change and renamed it global warming in the faint hope that they can ride that train to their next power grab.

On the other hand, for entirely unrelated reasons,every effort should be madse to clean up our planet in all respects and make it as habitable a home as it can be for we humans and as many other species as may be achievable.

All the best to all posters.

98

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 16:40:20

#68 SB

SB said:

"Consensus and rationale are not going to win them over."

Consensus is the most meaningless of all intellectual concepts. It is merely the accumulation of opinions. Opinions do not, cannot, and will never influence facts.

Let me illustrate. Prior to 1952 the nature of genetic transmission had not been elucidated. The chemistry of the genome was understood. It consisted of a protein backbone and a the chemical 2-deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. One of them had to carry the genetic code. Which one was it? The scientific consensus was that it was the protein. Who was the leader of this group of scientists? It was Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.

Then in 1952 Hershey and Chase performed the Waring Blender experiment. Guess what? Pauling, the Nobel Prize winner and almost every other scientist is the field were wrong. No one had ever heard of either Hershey or Chase before. Keep in mind that these were REAL scientists, not Al Gore. They were all wrong. Consensus means absolutely nothing.

99

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 16:43:45

#69 Siloch

Siloch said:

"they frequently exhibit scientific illiteracy"

Siloch is the poster boy for "scientific illiteracy."

100

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 16:43:45

Syntax #2: "Why ? They are both wasting their time. Co2 is not the issue and never has been. The change in weather is part of the earths normal cycle ? Ice Age, thaw, Ice age, Thaw.......Anybody see the pattern ??????"

Sure, Ice Age, thaw, Ice Age, Thaw, Ice Age, thaw...Thaw some more, Start to get really hot.

I don't suppose you are either 1) Old Enough or, B) Educated enough to remember back as far as the 1970's, when geologists warned us that the Earth was ready to start moving into the Next Ice Age?

Geologically speaking, the Ice ages have happened in the past on regular and predictable intervals...in fact, the Earth SHOULD be cooling right now, heading into the next one. Instead, the earth is getting warmer. As they used to say on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same." Can YOU spot what's wrong with this picture?

I bet you can! If you do, you'll get a cookie and a star on your report card....

101

fred bloggs,

07/06/2007 16:54:44

Gosh, it's a good job the G8 politicians have sensibly ignored this thread today, they might have thought AGW is not happening.
They have today agreed that we need targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. It seems they have scientifically credible advisors. In fact I'm so pleased I am generously adding a link to the IPC so that open-minded people out there can refer to the best authority on the subject:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

102

,

07/06/2007 17:15:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
103

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 17:21:48

#105 Fred

Fred said:

"I'm so pleased I am generously adding a link to the IPC so that open-minded people out there can refer to the best authority on the subject:

http://www.ipcc.ch/";

I urge everyone to go to this site and read their mission statement. When you do you will see it is a direct refutation of what Fred said. They plainly state that:

1. They already presume man-made global warming is a fact. Science out the window.

2. They do no research of their own. They are funded because they serve as clearing house for others who have likewise already made up their minds.

It's not science. It's the money, honey!

104

,

07/06/2007 17:23:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

fred bloggs,

07/06/2007 17:31:47

107. 57 NotMad?

From the IPCC Mission Statement:

'The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of RISK of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.'

They DO NOT already presume man-made global warming is a fact.

106

,

07/06/2007 17:33:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
107

Oliver F,

UK 07/06/2007 17:34:18

The fact that the earth is getting warmer is beyond doubt. The fact that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing is also beyond doubt. What ISNT beyond doubt is that the two are linked. As many others have said, this could just be part of the earths normal cycles.

108

fred bloggs,

planet rational 07/06/2007 17:37:14

107. 57Notmad?

Your statement that the IPCC contributing scientists have 'already made up their minds' indicates your ignorance and prejudice and is an insult to them.

109

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 17:41:24

#109 Fred

Fred said:

"They DO NOT already presume man-made global warming is a fact."

Then how do you explain the opening sentence of their mission statement?:

"Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO."

110

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 17:42:57

#101 Conan

Well said!
But, you left out one important element of the rolling snowball:
for scientists around the world, the global warming issue has created a lot of money and jobs and press coverage and travel and recognition...

111

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 17:44:49

#112 Fred

Fred said:

"Your statement that the IPCC contributing scientists have 'already made up their minds' indicates your ignorance and prejudice and is an insult to them."

It does no such thing. It is your statement (above) that indicates your ignorance and prejudice and is an insult to me. Kindly cease your boorish and ungentlemanly attacks on people who disagree with you, very, very unscientific.

112

,

07/06/2007 17:46:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
113

fred bloggs,

planet rational 07/06/2007 17:46:41

For discussion of this topic on an altogether higher intellectual plain than here, go to:

http://realclimate.org/

114

,

07/06/2007 17:48:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
115

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 17:49:49

#97 Nomad asked of #31 Guthrie

"The CO2 accounts for roughly 3 degrees of that heat trapping"

Why don't you explain that the human component of CO2 is 3%, 97% is natural. What's 3% of 3 degrees?

Because it isn't. In 1750, before the industrial revolution got going, atmospheric CO2 stood at about 280ppm. It had not been above 300ppm in the previous 800,000 years. The evidence for this is from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, collected by scientists of many nations over many years.
The atmospheric CO2 level now stands at 383ppm, an increase of 36%, or about one third, as Guthrie said. One third of three is one, which roughly agrees with the one degree temperature rise that Guthrie mentioned.

116

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 17:51:44

#110 Hugo

No, dummy, I don't need to be more like Rainbird. One Rainbird is quite enough. Where I go after I die is up to the Mighty Creator and not you, you pencil-necked geek.

I can't think of any higher compliment than to be compared to the President so if you meant to offend me by saying that you wasted your time.

For those of you who do not speak freshman high school Spanish like Hugo, his last sentence:

"Espero que usted muera hoy."

means, "I hope you die today."

Right back atcha, creep.

117

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 17:55:15

A simple two part question for Nomad57, Carolyn1, Conan and the other wannabee Rush Limbaughs:

1) There is an open tank of water with a hose on one side, and a hole on the other. Water flows in through the hose at a rate of 3 gallons per minute. Water flows out through the hole at a rate of 3 gallons per minute. The water level in the tank is all the way to the brim, just short of overflow. If the rate of water flowing into the tank is increased to 3.02 gallons per minute, will the tank overflow?

2) The Earth naturally produces X tons of carbon dioxide per year (for this example, use 7 million tons). Natural carbon sinks, such as the ocean and plantlife absorb X tons of carbon dioxide per year (again, use 7 million tons). If the system is at equilibrium, and human activity adds an additional 2 tons per yer, will the system surpass its carryiing capacity (in other words, will carbon dioxide begin to build up)?

Bonus question: If human activity increases carbon dioxide output AND reduces the number and volume of natural carbon sinks (deforestation), will the system reach carrying capacity faster, or slower? If human activity is accelerated by population growth, will the system reach carrying capacity faster or slower?

118

,

07/06/2007 17:56:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
119

,

07/06/2007 17:57:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 690989, Article id was mapped to record!
120

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 17:59:10

#113 Nomad asks of Fred, "Then how do you explain the opening sentence of their mission statement?:

"Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change ... ."

Quite simply. I recognise the problem of a potential catastrophic fire in my house. Therefore I take measures to reduce the risk and insure against it. In so doing I obviously do not believe a priori that my house is going to catch fire, simply that it is a potential problem that needs to be addressed. That is the starting point for the IPCC as revealed in that statement: it does not mean what you are attempting to state.

121

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 17:59:14

#119

You are mistaken. Man made CO2 accounts for 3% of total atmospheric CO2.

Here are the figure for non-water vapor gg's.

Nitrous Oxide: Natural 95% Man made 5%

Methane: Natural 82% Man made 18%

CFC's: Natural 34% Man made 66%

CO2: Natural 97% Man made 3%

122

,

07/06/2007 18:00:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
123

Mick W.,

Nuneaton 07/06/2007 18:06:54

Latest @ Physics.org.
One third of warming in artic is caused by "dirty"snow(soot etc being darker absorbs heat).While some of this is man made it does show the "man made CO2"brigade ,can only be partialy right therefore can be even more wrong.Their computer model DOES NOT take into consideration ALL variables.Or even many of them.

124

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 18:09:29

#124 Slioch

Slioch said:

"I recognise the problem of a potential catastrophic fire"

That because there are catastrophic fires that happen all the time. Here is a better way of stating your premise.

"I recognize the problem of attacks by alien space spiders, therefore I take measures to reduce the risk. Furthermore, I also demand that you take appropriate measures to insure that the alien space spiders don't get us all."

Sorry, sport. Try again.

125

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 18:09:42

Elderberry #126: Since it is NOT stated, it is assumed to be zero or negligible. Therefore, the surface area does not matter. So...

Answer the question. And to cut off your NEXT attempt to stall, I specifically stated that it is an OPEN tank.

126

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 18:12:23

Any one of you wannabee Limbaughs want to address the fact the the Earth SHOULD be entering an Ice Age (geologically), yet instead we are warming? Based on the "pattern" mentioned in post #2, the Earth SHOULD be getting cooler, not warmer.

127

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 18:13:14

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, San Francisco / 4:03pm 7 Jun 2007 74. Saoghal Beag

You little Neo-Con Troll, how dare you delete my post at #73

Wasn't me, somebody else thought that your posting was a waste of space and instead of asking you to post on suject they just had your work removed. It was hardly a work of genius, really not entertaining, not worth being so precious about.

as for neo-con.....what? is that american speak, what on earth do you mean?

as for troll, takes one to know one doll, crawl back into your wee cafe and stop dribbling

128

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 18:15:31

#127 Mick W

You are so right. Not only that, but if it were possible to take into consideration all the variables, there is the underlying arrogant assumption that one already knows all the variables. This assumes that someone, somewhere, knows everything. Not likely.

129

,

07/06/2007 18:19:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
130

57Nomad,

california 07/06/2007 18:23:25

#131 Saoghal

"as for neo-con.....what? is that american speak, what on earth do you mean?"

No, it's not american speak. It is the slur de jour for those that can't think up their own material. Not a socialist? You're a neo-con.

No worries. People who brand others with that term are just neo-coms and McCathskiites.

131

,

07/06/2007 18:25:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
132

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 18:26:55

Elderberry #133: The question (as stated) can be answered. All you are doing is throwing needless variables into the question. This is exactly what the "anti-global warming" crowd has done for the last 30 years. You do not attempt to refute the evidence, you just produce streams and streams of "doubt."

BUT...Just to get an answer from you: The air above the tank is saturated with water vapor.

So answer the question and claim your cookie.

BTW, what is the BOD of distilled water?

133

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 18:28:13

#135 Elderberry: "where else has he posted? How many threads?"

Oh, I think you already know the answer to that. An AFFLUENT guy like you....

134

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/06/2007 18:28:36

#125 nomad
The figures you give are for annual emissions (I think - I haven't checked the actual numbers).
Those figures are largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the CO2 emitted by human actions are 3%, 10% or 50% of natural annual emissions, since the natural emissions are absorbed again annually. In other words, the net natural effect on atmospheric concentration is close to zero: that is why CO2 levels have been more or less constant for the last 800,000 years. What matters is that the CO2 emitted by human action is additional to that present in the natural systems, and leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is a very elementary point and has been dealt with countless times before in these posts.

135

fred bloggs,

planet rational 07/06/2007 18:36:54

131. A neo-con is a neo-conservative i.e. way to the right of Gunga Din. Guess who of the above is one!

136

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 18:42:40

Slioch #138: The concepts of "equilibrium", "carrying capacity" and "tipping point" can not be explained to those who choose to ignore the evidence and "believe" that global warming is not happening. Only 10 years ago, they were claiming that the earth absolutely was NOT getting warmer. Now, they have modified their stance to, "the earth MIGHT be getting warmer, but that doesn't mean we did it."

And, in fact, the earth is no longer AT equilibrium. As water temperature goes up, the amount of CO2 it can absorb DECREASES. In addition, humans have deforested vast tracts of land where new growth absorbed CO2. We have increased the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, while decreasing the size and number of carbon sinks which used to maintain equilibrium.

Please note the post above, where the guy claims that CO2 is a nutrient that all plants and animals benefit from. It was good for a laugh (#95 Sanny).

SANNY #95: If you truly believe that having more CO2 is good for you, I invite you to tie a plastic bag over your head. Get back with us in a couple of hours and let us know how much the increased CO2 has benefitted you.

137

,

07/06/2007 18:43:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
138

Peter of Florida,

07/06/2007 18:48:09

#2- just got on- you are spot on. Also #3- just a lot of junk science- the latest cause by the liberals and Al Gore, who will never get over having lost his bid for the White House. And, of course, the mere mention of global warming has brought out all the usual US liberal nutters on this board who really have nothing better to spout about.Just read "Rainbird"'s posts.

Since the US LIberal nutters are very active on this board today, can one of you tell me why Gore lost when you were and are so orgasmic in your love of Clinton- and don't tell me that he was robbed in Florida- every recount had Bush with an even greater majority and that, not counting the military vote that you liberals had disqualified.

139

,

07/06/2007 18:51:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
140

Tobermory,

Mull 07/06/2007 18:51:51

140. Rainbird, Illinois/USA

Troll

141

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 18:53:20

#121 shows a stunning ability to turn the deeply complex into the facile....or, rather, to fully misunderstand the complexity of the issue.

142

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 18:53:55

#144 getting pished in the mish?

143

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 18:54:09

neo-con, what like the tories, they are a bit thin on the ground, no ownder going round hugging hoodies.

i thought she might have been really rude and was calling me some sort of communist.

awful lot of americans on this board, much more than usual???? should we worry about big business trying to hijack the argument? anyone work for monsanto, exxon put your hand up? this discussion has sadly been smothered with circular non-sense and a lack of vision by all to many.

144

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 18:58:09

#121 Rainbird:

Consider first, how heat and water are moved around the planet.

1. Warming causes more water to evaporate from the tropics, more rainfall in subpolar and polar regions, and more ice to melt at high latitudes.

2. As a result, fresh water is being lost from the tropics and added to the ocean at higher latitudes.

3. In the North Atlantic Ocean, the additional fresh water can change ocean circulation patterns, disrupting or redirecting currents that now carry warm water to the north. Redirecting or slowing this "Atlantic heat pump", which is an ocean current, means colder winters in the northeast U.S. and Western Europe.

4. The heat gained from higher greenhouse gas concentrations is still in the climate system, just elsewhere.

Conclusion:
The result: a warmer earth, a colder North Atlantic.

Does this answer your question ?

145

,

07/06/2007 19:00:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691107, Article id was mapped to record!
146

,

07/06/2007 19:14:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691134, Article id was mapped to record!
147

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 19:16:22

My post at #148,
was in response to post/question at Rainbird #130 when you asked:
Any one of you wannabee Limbaughs want to address the fact the the Earth SHOULD be entering an Ice Age (geologically), yet instead we are warming? Based on the "pattern" mentioned in post #2, the Earth SHOULD be getting cooler, not warmer.

148

Jewel of the Forth,

Fife 07/06/2007 19:19:03

133. Elderberry

I guess Rainbird thinks you would have the same amount of evaporation out of a wine bottle in the highlands as you would from a loch in Iraq.

149

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:21:24

#148 Carolyn 1: "Does this answer your question ?"

No, it just shows that you watched that Horrible movie "The Day after Tomorrow" with Dennis Quaid. Your post is almost an EXACT copy of that script.

So...if the North Atlantic is getting colder (as you attempt to make us believe), then why are the Ice Shelves melting at unheard of rates? In fact, it is true that the North Atlantic is NOT getting colder, and that winters in the Northeast and in Europe are still MUCH less severe than they were just 20 years ago.

Do you understand the concept of a "greenhouse" as in "Greenhouse Gases?"

150

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:23:05

#152 : "I guess Rainbird thinks you would have the same amount of evaporation out of a wine bottle in the highlands as you would from a loch in Iraq."

And you would guess wrong.

BTW, what is the BOD of distilled water?

151

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:25:07

#151 Carolyn 1: "My post at #148, was in response to post/question at Rainbird #130 when you asked:
Any one of you wannabee Limbaughs want to address the fact the the Earth SHOULD be entering an Ice Age..."

Well, obviously, you are no Rush Limbaugh. Your movie script explanation might have held water with global temperature observations actually supported it. No cookie for you.

152

Portree,

Isle of Skye 07/06/2007 19:26:20

152. Jewel of the Forth, Fife

Rainbird also thinks the US President is an evil person who wants the planet to melt. I've been reading his posts for months now and he is full of conspiracy theories.

153

Bluntie,

07/06/2007 19:28:35

jewel of the forth and so on and so forth

I guess your auntie Carolyn likes the wine bottle too.

154

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:31:34

Carolyn 1: BTW, I don't see how the answer you presented addresses the question that I asked. If the Earth were moving towards an Ice Age, Globally, temperatures would be falling (and much more so at the poles). Instead, the earth is getting WARMER, and Ice shelves at both poles are melting at unheard of rates.

The geological history of the planet shows that we SHOULD be entering the next Ice Age, and the planet SHOULD be getting colder, not warmer. With that in mind, the 1 degree "average" rise in temperature that we have seen really means that we are 1 degree above "normal" when we SHOULD be 1 degree BELOW normal...

155

,

07/06/2007 19:32:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
156

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:33:09

#156 (White House Shill): "Rainbird also thinks the US President is an evil person who wants the planet to melt. I've been reading his posts for months now and he is full of conspiracy theories."

And your PROOF of this is....

157

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 19:41:38

#155 Rainbird
You moron.

Try reading a science magazine instead of gluing yourself to the boob tube, which apparently has already caused you to be a boob. Oceanus, which is published by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, has continual updates on climate and ocean currents. We have buoys in the Northern Atlantic that provide data on current, temp, etc.
Try last week's issue- that is- if you have the attention span.

158

Hogmanay Planner,

Wigtownshire 07/06/2007 19:45:48

161. Carolyn 1

:)

159

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 19:52:23

Carolyn 1: "You moron."

Gee, that's nice. Did I call you names anywhere above?

In my experience, you right wight types usually resort to name calling when you don't actually have a rational argument...it's your way of conceding defeat. Thank you for admitting that you are wrong, and tried to sell me an empty bag.

May I suggest that you actually pull your nose out of your "science magazine" and try looking at the news? The Ice Shelves are melting. HUGE portions of them, and at rates never before recorded. Obviously, the poles are NOT getting colder.

Speaking of attention spans, maybe you should go take your medicine now, before you get any more rude and force me to reply in kind...

160

Stonefield,

Loch Fyne 07/06/2007 19:52:38

103. Rainbird

Your comments are the results of arrogance and 1/2 truths.

161

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 19:53:43

#158 Rainbird:
Since you have the attention spat of a gnat, here is a grade school primer explanation- This is quoted off the educational section of WHOIwebsite.

This is how the glaciers melt, which put a supply of fresh water into the ocean and into the 'heat pump'

"The overturning ocean
In the North Atlantic today, cold surface waters sink to the abyss, and salty, warm surface and near-surface currents, including the Gulf Stream, flow northward from the tropics to replace them. When the warm waters reach high latitudes, they release heat to the atmosphere and warm the region. The waters become colder and less buoyant. They sink to continue this grand ocean overturning, which is approximately equal to 20 times the combined flow of all the world’s rivers.


If this is still too complicated for you Rainbird, the Navy has an educational website with Goddard that explains climate change for young kids.

162

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 20:00:27

#158 Rainbird
The answer is yes- areas are warming, while others areas are cooler: the answer is factual, because both are happening at the same time in reaction and as a result of each other- and if you cannot understand that you need to stay on the politics thread where everything is based on lies and no facts

btw/eat your cookie with milk.

163

,

07/06/2007 20:18:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691294, Article id was mapped to record!
164

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:19:13

Carolyn 1: "If this is still too complicated for you Rainbird, the Navy has an educational website with Goddard that explains climate change for young kids."

No, not too complicated at all. If it were, I'd have never graduated from College, nor would I have gotten my P.E. (Professional Engineering License).

My Major in College was Environmental Engineering.

Care to try an experiment? See if THIS is too complicated for YOU:

A venturi meter with a throat diamer of 6.0 in. shows a pressure differential of 128 in. of water. Calculate the water flow, using a discharge coefficient of 0.93

BTW, what is the BOD of distilled water? I have been asking ALL DAY, and so far...no takers, for what is essentially a "gimme" kind of question. I'm sure you can find someone at "Woods Hole" to answer both of the above FOR you, if they are too difficult...

165

Peter of Florida,

07/06/2007 20:22:57

# 170 Once a nutter always a nutter. There really is no hope for you.

166

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:23:20

#169: Check this out.

ANYONE can type a post in ANY language. It's called "Babelfish." You type in a post in your native language, tell it the language you want to write in, and then cut and paste the result. I have seen this trick before. Personally, I never use this because what you get back is just like the above: a poorly and inaccurate translation which is just short of gibberish. Apparently the "griefer" who keeps swapping back and forth between screen-names finds this amusing. You know what they say, small things amuse small minds...

167

Conan,

Here 07/06/2007 20:24:16

Rainbird - take it from one who is an expert on the subject ;-() ...... you ARE making an ass of yourself and, what's worse, I think you realise that.

If you really are a PE you should now better - don't you think?

Or, don't you think?

168

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:24:42

#171: Thank you for confirming your identity.

169

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:26:04

Conan #173: "Rainbird - take it from one who is an expert on the subject..."

SWEET! An expert should know the answer to the question.

What is it?

170

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:32:49

Conan: I've got literally DOZENS of people posting above who know everything there is to know about Global Warming, yet so far, not a one of them has been able to answer a simple question about "steady state" and equilibrium. So far none of the "experts" on global warming has been able to tell me what the BOD of distilled water is.

Science should be left to scientists and engineers for a reason: IT'S SCIENCE!

It's not religion, where everyones belief counts equally. In religion, Christ Worshippiing is equally valid with swinging a dead cat over your head and howling at the moon. It's just soomething you choose to BELIEVE ON FAITH, independent of what the facts may state.

Science is not religion. Science is immutable laws, repeatable experiments and conclusions based upon the laws and the experiments. People who don't even understand the basics need to either GET AN EDUCATION, or shut up and get out of the way.

171

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:34:41

#176 Symbian: Nope, but you get credit for at least attempting to answer.

Jonnhy has some nice consolation prices for you, on your way out. Jonnhy, tell him what he's won...

172

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 20:38:40

#170 Rainbird

What is the Biological Oxygen Demand of distilled water? you honestly think you are the only one that knows the answer to that?

gee's aw peece, fur pity's sake cin ye no cum with onything mare sare thin yon tae try and mak us aw feert at yir muckle foo huagh?

173

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 20:40:52

what exactly has BOD or COD (and i don't mean the wee fishes) with global climate change, c'mon and enlighten us, we're all waiting in anticipation

174

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 20:41:12

#170 Rainbird
Considering the test has a poor rate of accuracy...
why ask? Oh, that's right....small things amuse small minds...
BTW My degree is NOT environmental engineering, but even I understand how little your knowledge is of climate change and global warming, ocean currrents, etc.

175

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 20:44:40

#180
Perhaps he's wondering what will happen if the chemical balance of the ocean changes... sealife with shells, coral reefs etc, will slowly dissolve...
oops- Rainbird isn't smart enough to know that...

176

Peter of Florida,

07/06/2007 20:50:39

# 178 It's getting late and you are a proponent of junk science and you have nothing better to do than tap out your nonsense on these boards.

Goodnight "Rainbird" , sweet paranoic dreams as you wake up screaming from the searing, scorching heat of the sun bearing down on your balded , frizzed head burnt to a crisp, like a piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

177

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 20:52:44

when rainman means college i can only assume that it was a high school/6th year college equivalent, he must have at least got a couple of highers.

he seems to think that none of the rest of us have any qualifications, personally i've worked for more than just three letters after my name but i don't need to hang my life on them nor consider myself any better than any one else, heck we are all jock tamson's bairns.

using amateur science is just so tiresome.

178

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:56:45

BOD is "Biological Oxygen Demand." Is is how much oxygen is being used up by biological organisms in the water: NEW FLASH, EXPERTS- Distilled water doesn't HAVE any organisms in it. The "accuracy" of the test isn't even in doubt: but ANY degree of accuracy, the BOD is still ZERO!

And THAT is as basic an interaction between living organisms and the environment as you can get: X number or organisms use up Y units of oxygen, in Z mL of water, over (t) period of time. If you people don't even understand the most basic part of the science, how can you have ANY credibility when you start talking about a GLOBAL SYSTEM with thousands of variables?

On the intermediate level, no one seems to understand that the tank is at "steady state": X(in)=X(out). If the tank is open to the air, there is no pressure on the tank. The tank is full to just short of overflowing. Increasing the water by even .002 gallons per minute WILL cause the tank to overflow.

The Earth has had BILLIONS of years to achieve "steady state." The CO2 naturally produced is absorbed by carbon sinks at or near the same rate that it is produced. When human activity begins produces MORE than X(in), the Earth will attempt to use up more CO2, until it reaches carrying capacity: There is a limited surface area to the oceans, and a limited amount of new plant growth which can suck up the CO2. However, the solubility of CO2 in water DECREASES as the water temperature rises. The hotter the water, the less CO2 it can absorb.

#180: Yes, I do believe that in THIS forum, I just may be the only person who actually understands the SCIENCE. Although you were able to google the term "BOD" and come up with "Biological Oxygen Demand," It was noted that you didn't bother to state that distilled water HAS NO BOD.

179

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 20:58:34

RAinbird, what on earth has teh BOD of distilled water got to do with climate change?

Anyway, from what i know, the BOD is likely to be quite low, because even after youve innoculated it with the bacteria, there will be little in the way of nutrients for them to feed on. As far as I understand it, that is what BOD is all about.
The COD of distilled water should be similarly low, since it is a measure of the total oxidisable carbon present.

180

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 20:58:51

Symbian: A great big Trout, just for you! Enjoy!

<(((((((((><

181

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:03:58

BTW, Carolyn, BOD and COD are not related. BOD is Biological Oxygen Demand and COD is CHEMICAL Oxygen Demand. As a genius that you are, you surely understand the concept of solubility, right?

Can you get someone there to explain to you what happens to the solubility of CO2 in water for every degree of temperature increase in the water? If the Oceans (which are the major carbon sink for the planet earth) stop absorbing as much of the CO2, WHERE do you think that CO2 goes? Do CO2 elves come and take it away?

182

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 21:04:17

Rainbird, are you that man who runs around with those test tubes and tests the city water for sewage! That requires knowledge and use of BOD tests...

BOD can't be equated to the planet because the planet is not in the dark, and is therefore receiving oxygen- photosynthesis- and it is continually changing, moving..

When I attended college in DC, if you fell into the Potomac you had to report to the nearest hospital. Now, it is used for water resevoirs. :)

183

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:04:42

Ahh, ignore my previous post comments on BOD.

But the COD comment is correct.

Hey rainbird, can you tell me about the Clausius Clapeyron equation?
How about the Schroedinger equation?
Or what is the melting point of EN45?

Obviously, if you cannot answer any of these questions, you don't know any science and shouldn't comment on climate change, right?

184

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:06:25

Rainbird- if the oceans stop absorbing the CO2, it stays in the air, unless the plants suck even more of it up.

Are you trying to make a case for more action quicker with regards to global warming?

185

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:07:34

Symbian: No, it's a trout, and I already gave it to you.

Stuff that bad boy with a few onions, lemon slices and half a cucumber. Later thin sliced green peppers over the onions, and add two tblspoons of butter (not margerine). Wrap in foil and cook over a charcoal (not gas, YECK!) fire. Cook until meat is flaky and white (like most conservatives). Serve with salad, asparagus and buttered baggettes. A nice blush zinfindel rounds this out.

<(((((((((((><

186

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 07/06/2007 21:10:03

Rainbird Sweetie, I gave that lecture on CO2 sinks yesterday. Pay attention. Please refer to #148. Cocktail hour started 10 minutes ago, bye.
:)

187

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:10:12

Anyway, further to my previous posts far away up the page:

On 1421, the year China discovered the world, and the bogus claims about Chinese fleets sailing round Canada etc:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&f...

On the effects of CO2 not being anywhere near as great as people think:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-10/osu-icl100...
-------
For example, the total number of seeds in wheat and barley plants increased by 15 percent, but the amount of nitrogen in the seeds declined by 20 percent.

"That's bad news," Curtis said. "Nitrogen is important for building protein in humans and animals. If anything, plant biologists want to boost the levels of nitrogen in crops.

"A growing global population demands more food, but humans would have to eat more of the food to get the same nutritional benefits."
--------------

188

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:14:00

Fred Bloggs- I've been hitting them with Realclimate for months now. They ignore it, as you can see by the way Nomad is still parroting the idea that human CO2 is only 3% of something. That particular lie was thought up by some Australian chap, I think.

189

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:14:15

198 Guthrie: "Are you trying to make a case for more action quicker with regards to global warming?"

Nope, just asking a SERIOUS question based on science and chemistry, not a question based on something that I just BELIEVE ON FAITH.

That's my whole point here: This is SCIENCE, and there are rules and laws. In religion, anyone can believe anything they want, and all beliefs in FAITH are equal.

FAITH is "beliefs in the absence of, or contradictory to, evidence." Science DEMANDS evidence, laws, and repeatability. One of the LAWS is the law of solubility. As water temperature goes UP, solubility goes DOWN. The warmer water gets, the less CO2 it absorbs. Since the oceans are the major carbon sink of the planet, where does the extra CO2 that can't be absorbed go? In a steady state earth, more growing plants would sprout to use the excess oxygen. But if humans are also killing the plants and cutting down the forests...

190

Steve Evans,

Malta 07/06/2007 21:16:19

All You Need is Love? No where to be found these days!! Mars awaits this rubbish

191

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:19:55

Nomad- you claim dust devils are caused by warming. Do you have any evidence for this?
And, if the warming on Mars is caused by the Sun, should we not have a record of increased solar activity?

I bet you can't produce such a record.

Instead, the chart of total solar insolation has been steady for the past two solar cycles. Obviously it goes up and down with the sunspot cycle, but there has been no great increase in the past 30 years:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarC...

192

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:25:25

Guthrie #198: "Are you trying to make a case for more action quicker with regards to global warming?"

Nope, and here's why: I am 48 years old. Even if I live to be 100, the teperature of the earth will not have changed enough to dramatically affect my life and or life style.

On the other hand, the population of the planet is doubling every 30 years. We are currently at 7 Billion (or so). At our current level of technology, we can make the earth produce enough food to support around 9 billion (or so). There are natural resources enough to provide for about 9 billion for a SHORT amount of time (imagine the price of a gallon of gas, when there are twice as many cars on the road, and half as much oil left in the ground).

The largest crisis facing mankind is not Global temperature, food, or oil. At the rate which we are using and irreparably contaminating it, the most valuable resource on the planet in 2050 will be....

Drinkable water.

You can live on a severely reduced calorie diet for a long long time. You can walk to work. 7 Days without water, and you will die.

Now, THAT is assuming that we don't have a good old fahioned nuclear war in the meantime, or that no one is stupid enough to give Iran an excuse to use their version of the "Islamic Bomb" (which they have most surely had for at least 2 years). Then, all bets are off.

About the time we hit 10 Billion people on this planet, NO ONE is going to give a crap about global warming. We will have much bigger problems to worry about. Fortunately, I plan on being about 65 years old, and I have done just about everything I every wanted to. It will be someone ELSES problem to worry about.

And that's all there is to that.

193

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:27:24

Carolyn 1: "Rainbird Sweetie, I gave that lecture on CO2 sinks yesterday. Pay attention."

Sorry, I was not here yesterday, and even if I was, your "lecture" was probably just so-much right wing propaganda not worth reading anyway. Much like your posts today.

194

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:28:05

Thats ok Rainbird. Just working out where you are coming from.

On the topic of Martian warming:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

The data on solar insolation I linked to in a previouos post is also part of the evidence for us causing most of the warming for the last 30 or 40 years.

To continue- we know it is our CO2 because the atmosphere has become poorer in Carbon 14, because we have burnt lots of fossil fuels lacking in carbon 14.
Carbon14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays reacting with nitrogen. It decays back to Nitrogen with a half life of 5730 years, so when coal and oil have been buried for millions of years, all the carbon 14 has decayed away, leaving only carbon 12 and 13.

Heres a random link on the topic:
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbo...

195

Guthrie,

07/06/2007 21:32:01

Well, we're already having trouble with water. Tightening our belts and new technology will help, but there are many millions of people already short of water. Problems will be coming sooner than you think.

Also, if you live to be 100, it seems we will already be having other problems.
Take this for example, although admittedly it was produced by people with some probable bias:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6200114.stm
--------
A study from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Cimmyt) in Mexico, yet to be published, projects a major decline in South Asia's wheat yield. The vast Indo-Gangetic plain produces about 15% of the world's wheat - but the area suitable for growing is forecast to shrink by about half over the next 50 years, even as the number of mouths to feed increases.
....

Conversely, rising temperatures will open up areas of the world which are currently too cold for crop cultivation, in regions such as Siberia and northern North America. And the same Cimmyt study forecasts that wheat will become viable in parts of Alaska.
--------------

All this by 2050. Meaning that things will have been changing in a noticeable fashion long before then.

196

Oliver F,

UK 07/06/2007 21:33:35

Elderberry #116

" Oliver F

You sound like a politician. You say that the Co2 is linked to the warming, but the earth could just be going thru it's normal cycle."

Apologies for my careless phraseology. I meant to say that although both global warming and increasing Co2 emissions are both a matter of fact, the evidence isnt conclusive that both are linked. Its quite possible that this is all part of the earths natural climate cycles.

Now thats said, time to go bed.

197

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 21:56:39

#212 Oliver F: "I meant to say that although both global warming and increasing Co2 emissions are both a matter of fact, the evidence isnt conclusive that both are linked. Its quite possible that this is all part of the earths natural climate cycles."

It's also possible that the daily fluctuation in temperature is directly proportional to how many cups of coffee I have, and what time I have them.

There is a world of space between "possible" and PROBABLE....

198

Polmonto,

07/06/2007 22:01:29

Blair clearly tickled Bush's sac in the right way...got him really excited. I think Angela Merkin is in for a real good time tonight.

199

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 22:03:27

~Rainbird there you go trying to be clever again and failed.

BOD is "Biological Oxygen Demand." Is is how much oxygen is being used up by biological organisms in the water: NEW FLASH, EXPERTS- Distilled water doesn't HAVE any organisms in it. The "accuracy" of the test isn't even in doubt: but ANY degree of accuracy, the BOD is still ZERO!


BOD is not how much oxygen is BEING used by biological organisms. It is how much oxygen would be required by living organisms to oxidise the available nutrients. Those nutrients may be present without or without living organisms. You can sterilise water without removing the nutrients as you do when you distill water. You can have a high BOD and low coliform count or vice versa.

NEWS FLASH RAINBIRD IS AN AMATEUR WITH SERIOUS DELUSIONS

200

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 22:13:16

oh and BTW Rainbird, having lectured in toxicology, ecology and ecotoxicology to masters levels students, some high school graduate drop out really isn't any competition, nor do many others on here.

Away an bile yir heid, ye gee us aw the dry boak.

201

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 22:18:45

Guthrie #197: Would it be good enough just to write the Schrodinger equation, or would you want an explanation of the principle of "Consevation of Energy to go with that? One could easily just google "Shrodinger Equation" and turn up an equation, it would be much more difficult for a non-scientist to explain conservation of energy.

As for the melting point of EN45, is that all you want, or do you actually want to know what this steel is used for, and properties such as it's unusually high silicon content (1.75%).

Lastly, what do you want to know about the Clausius Clapeyron equation? That is is used to estimate vapor pressure? That is should NOT be used under conditions of High Pressure, or at conditions near the critical point?

ln(P/P(0))= ((h(1)-h(o))/R x ((1/t(0))-(1/t)), where R is the universal Gas constant. The reason the equation should not be used under high pressures, or near the CritPoint is because the equation relies on some approximations which may not be valid at these higher values, something a non-scientist may not know, thereby leading him to incorrect conclusions, and false beliefs (kinda like the way non-scientist/engineers get all these wierd beliefs about Global Warming). You might have asked for the difference between the CritPoint and the 3Point (triple point, where a substance exists in all three phases (solid, liquid, gas) at the same time. THAT one almost got me on my Thermodynamics final : )

202

,

07/06/2007 22:25:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
203

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 22:27:59

#215 Saoghal Beag: Aw, the education in third world countries!

Where I come from, BOD is tested at intervals, and is commonly referred to as BOD(5), BOD(7) or BOD(10), and is NOT a measure of Biological "potential" but rather Biolgoical UPTAKE. All BOD testing is done with Microorganisms. Pure distilled water could not BE tested for BOD, since it would be devoid of any organisms, and therefore would have a BOD of ZERO at ANY interval. Since pure distilled water would also contain ZERO nutrients, the answer is still the same: BOD=ZERO. Kind of explains your sad knowledge of global warming, when you can't even get the basics right. Remind me not to attend any of YOUR lectures. You can peddle your "credentials" to the Yokels...

204

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 22:31:50

Poor, right wingers and anti-global warming faithful. Besieged once again with the FACTS, and having your "religion" exposed as a fraud, a sham, and a fake.

This ain't RELIGION folks, and no one gives a damn what you "believe." Science has laws, and relies and facts, evidence, data and conclusions which can be repeated through testing. If you don't understand the science, then you are just shooting your mouth off to make yourself feel important. If you want to share your "beliefs," then you need to join a church, or start your own cult...

205

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 22:35:13

Yawn

hey everyone, rainburd can use google.

think we should all sustain 2 hours of silence in awe of his perfect genius.

Trouble with engineers is that they are great at dealing with specific problems but not so great at dealing with the very complex dynamics of biological systems and their interactions with the geosphere. Ecology is one of the younger branches of biosciences and we are still learning so much about the way that individual, sommunities, habitats all interact.

To consider the Earth to be in a state of stable homeostasis is just plain ignorant. If that is your deluded stance then there is very little chance of you begining to understand the interactions between the geosphere, biosphere and the climate.

right, am scunnnert wi this noo an am gan tae ma kip afore yon daft galoot, (dreichcushie) comes oot wee ony mair o his glaikit kiech.

babel fish that!

206

,

07/06/2007 22:36:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
207

Saoghal Beag,

07/06/2007 22:38:43

potential is the word we use this side of the pond love, uptake means much the same.

scunner that you are, wur ye drappit be yir maw as a wean, could explain an awful lot.

208

,

07/06/2007 22:43:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
209

Landman,

07/06/2007 22:54:07

#224

"Putz makes Sense"

210

connaughtboy,

07/06/2007 23:03:11

Blair!

Pathetic. Sold his soul to Bush and yet has zero influence!

211

,

07/06/2007 23:05:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691553, Article id was mapped to record!
212

Conan,

Here 07/06/2007 23:05:39

If I could make a wish
I think Id pass
Cant think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound
Nothing to eat, no books to read

Making love with you
Has left me peaceful, warm, and tired
What more could I ask
Theres nothing left to be desired
Peace came upon me and it leaves me weak
So sleep, silent angel, go to sleep

Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe
And to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe
Yes to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe

Peace came upon me and it leaves me weak
So sleep, silent angel, go to sleep

Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe
And to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe
Yes to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe

Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe
And to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe
Yes to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe
And to love you
All I need is the air that I breathe
Yes to love you

213

connaughtboy,

07/06/2007 23:05:43

#220 Rainbird

The Executive Summary of the IPCC was written by politicians. Science has very little to do with Global Warming!

214

,

07/06/2007 23:08:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691559, Article id was mapped to record!
215

,

07/06/2007 23:14:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
216

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 23:16:53

Saoghal Beag: On this side of the pond, "potential" and "uptake" have two entirely DIFFERENT meanings. "Potential" refers to how much is available to be used. "Uptake" refers to how much actually WAS used.

Now, since (to you) "potential" and "actual" mean the same thing, I have a VERY, VERY good deal for you. I want to ship you a dozen extra large grade AAA Chickens. Those would be Chickens in the carton, with the shell still on. Since an Egg is a "potential" chicken (to you), I would expect you to pay full price for Chickens, not for eggs. I can ship you as many as you want, how many will your first order be?

No, my mom never dropped my on my head, but judging from some of YOUR posts, I don't wonder if YOUR mom wasn't able to use the top of your head to set her beer (and a plate of chips) on...

217

,

07/06/2007 23:20:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691569, Article id was mapped to record!
218

Pens,

07/06/2007 23:21:06

#231 Regina

Are you saying your a soft little fruit too??

219

Kitti Kat,

07/06/2007 23:23:21

#4 Agree with you. Love your description "bushy's smoggy brain". Wish I had though ot it. Am going to pass it along to all my friends. We refer to him as "the jerk with the smirk". Unfortunately, Blair and others will never convince him about global warming or anything else. {Perhaps the heat in Texas is drying up his smoggy brain.

220

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 07/06/2007 23:24:14

#229 connaughtboy: "The Executive Summary of the IPCC was written by politicians. Science has very little to do with Global Warming!"

Well, Gee!

I mean, I just DO NOT know how to respond to that!

I guess I'll just charter a flight to the Ross Ice shelf and tell it to stop calving, because it's not REALLY warmer, it's just politics! It's going to be difficult finding all those trillions of gallons of melted ice, and get them back where they belong tho...

221

Pens,

07/06/2007 23:26:18

#235 Kitti Kat,

"the jerk with the smirk" I like it.

On the news tonight it was stated that colleges in Texas were fighting NOT to host his library when he goes....

222

Djookers,

07/06/2007 23:33:27

#235 Kitti Kat,

"the jerk with the smirk" I like it.

On the news tonight it was stated that colleges in Texas were fighting NOT to host his library when he goes....

223

,

07/06/2007 23:38:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 691590, Article id was mapped to record!
224

,

08/06/2007 00:11:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
225

OK Stewart,

OK USA 08/06/2007 00:26:04
226

JohnSmythe,

Seattle, USA 08/06/2007 00:49:11

Ironic that lefties of the world criticize Americans for being puppets who believe anything the media says, yet nothing is more indicative of following the herd than buying into the new religion of "global warming." We all know "global warming" is just another excuse for Europeans to hold back American progress until they can catch up. Pathetic! Lefties are more irrational and believe in more superstition than their great grandmothers did!

227

Kim Jong-il ???,

North Korea 08/06/2007 00:57:07

Please stop picking on my friend Rainbird.

228

Kim Jong-il ???,

North Korea 08/06/2007 00:58:00

???

229

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 00:59:53

Carolinas in legal fight over river

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_re_us/river_fight

"The lawsuit comes as drought conditions worsen in the Carolinas and vivid images of a severe dry spell five years ago linger in the minds of locals."

And still those with no scientific background, who follow the right wing conservatives on "faith" will continue to act like nothing is wrong. Unless they live in the Carolinas I would think...

230

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 01:01:54

#243 (Whie House Shill): Is that your BEST Ad Hominem attack? If you guys can't do better than that, you are being overpaid...

231

,

08/06/2007 01:02:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
232

Jane K,

Eastwood 08/06/2007 01:27:36

247. Mod Htng Tartan 16oz

When will Djookers learn, my hubby just said that (I can't say the word) probably feels like he just arrived at work and realized he forgot to put his pants on.

This is nothing new for Djookers

233

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 02:39:10

#119 Slioch

Slioch said:

"Because it isn't. In 1750, before the industrial revolution got going, atmospheric CO2 stood at about 280ppm. It had not been above 300ppm in the previous 800,000 years. The evidence for this is from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, collected by scientists of many nations over many years.
The atmospheric CO2 level now stands at 383ppm, an increase of 36%, or about one third, as Guthrie said. One third of three is one, which roughly agrees with the one degree temperature rise that Guthrie mentioned."

Sorry, pal. You are wrong. Human contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is 3%. Let me fill you in on a secret. It's called logic. If you want to make a case that one thing caused another you have to point to the actual cause.

If you say, for instance, that the 8 ball moved because it was struck by the cue ball you may cite Newton and you won't have any problem. But if you say that after Bob walked into the room the 8 ball moved so Bob must have caused it to move, then you have a problem. Maybe Ted hit it.

You have committed a logical fallacy so old it has a Latin name, Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (after it, therefore because of it.) Here's how that can get you in trouble. Did you know that in America there are millions more trees now than there were 150 years ago? It's true. Millions and millions more. So by your logic the cause of CO2 emissions is too many trees in America. I can prove it 150 years ago, less American trees, less CO2. 150 years later millions more American trees, more CO2. Damn Americans and their trees!! And you thought it was our Hummers, whadda dope!

234

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 03:04:39

#207 Guthrie

Guthrie, I didn't say that dust devils caused the warming. Dust devils uncover dark surface rock previously covered by light colored sand. When the dark surface is exposed it absorbs more heat, the albedo effect.

I presented it because there are those who say the simultaneous warming of Mars and the Earth are unrelated and cite the albedo effect as its cause. What they don't say is that the increase in dust devils is caused by increased temperatures, thereby putting themselves in the uncomfortable position of placing the effect before the cause.

It is most likely that the warming on Mars and the Earth share the same cause, increased solar radiation. Here's something from National Geographic on the subject, National Geographic News, February 28, 2007:

"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said."

Neither the National Geographic nor the Russian dude can be considered pawns of big oil or "neo-cons." Man made CO2 is a tiny contribution to total CO2 atmospheric CO2, and atmospheric CO2 is a very small component of total atmospheric greenhouse gases. It's a hoax.

235

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 03:19:37

#236 Rainbird

Rainbird said:

"I guess I'll just charter a flight to the Ross Ice shelf and tell it to stop calving, because it's not REALLY warmer,"

You might wanna do that. The Ross Ice Shelf is in Antarctica. It's getting colder there, not warmer. Secondly, glacier calving is cause when glaciers grow, not when they shrink. The increased length becomes insupportable and it breaks off, calving. It's the sign of a growing, not a shrinking glacier. Antactica has been cooling by an average of 0.7 degrees per decade from 1986 to 2000 according to the McMurdo Dry Valleys Long-Term Ecological Research Station.

236

,

08/06/2007 07:05:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
237

,

08/06/2007 07:16:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
238

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 07:26:08

#249 Nomad, rather than bother to explain to you myself, I’m going to paste the well written explanation as to why we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human sources direct from the www.realclimate.org site dated 22nd Dec 2004. (Note the 2004 date explains why the present CO2 level is “nearly 380”ppm – it is still going up).
If you are interested in understanding global warming, (at present you clearly do not), I suggest you do some studying. This realclimate site is a good source.

Quote from www.realclimate.org for 22nd Dec 2004:

“Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we kn

240

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 07:27:24

contd.
. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chem

241

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 07:58:24

#251 Nomad, re melting of glaciers:
The following is from "The Independent" UK newspaper, 6th June 2007.

Fears that global sea levels this century may rise faster and further than expected are supported by a study showing that 300 glaciers in Antarctica have begun to move more quickly into the ocean.

Scientists believe that the accelerated movement of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula indicates a dramatic shift in the way melting ice around the world contributes to overall increases in global sea levels.

Instead of simply adding huge volumes of meltwater to the sea, scientists have found rising temperatures are causing glaciers as far apart as Alaska, Greenland and now Antarctica to break up and slip into the ocean at a faster rate than expected.

The findings will raise concerns within the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which, earlier this year, downplayed the so-called "dynamic" nature of melting glaciers - when rising temperatures cause them to break up quickly rather than simply melt slowly.

Using radar images taken between 1993 and 2003, scientists at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge mapped a 12 per cent increase in the average rate of movement of more than 300 glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula over the period.

Hamish Pritchard, a co-author of the study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, said
"The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3C over the past half-century. Eighty-seven per cent of its glaciers have been retreating during that period and now we see these glaciers are also speeding up," Dr Pritchard said.

"They are speeding up in a steady, progressive way. Warming causes widespread thinning, which causes widespread acceleration due to an increase in buoyancy. They speed up and the fronts of the glaciers break off and float away."

Chris Rapley, director of th

242

Saoghal Beag,

08/06/2007 08:08:42

oh Rainbird you poor and deluded wee soul.

uptake is a doing word, (that's a verb to the rest of us) it refers to the process of the microorganisms' making use of the oxygen required to metabolise the nutrients available. In the real world that ability to use the availble resources, the nutrients, oxygen, etc are limtied by many factors both chemical, physical and biological. In the lab these varibale are minimised. Therefore the BOD is, under ideal conditions, amount of oxygen required to oxidise the available nutrients....that is a potential, which in the real world is unlikely to be achieved. But you view the worl through engineer's eyes, you only deal in absolutes and don't do variables too weel. hence your over simplified analogy of the tank.

Anyway, you still have answered what BOD has to do with global climate change. Slioch hasn't mentioned it once in his explantions, but he does seem to know what he is talking about.

243

The Journal of Record,

UK 08/06/2007 08:25:07

#224 Elderberry

Putz makes Sense

244

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 10:14:59

HHmm, lets go see what Nomad actually said:
-----------
What Guthrie isn't telling you is this. The albedo effect on Mars is caused by dark surface rocks being exposed by dust devils. The dust devils are caused by the surface temperature of Mars rising.

Guthrie, you seem to be scientifically minded so here's some basic science. The effect, the dust devils, followed the warming. Therefore they cannot be the cause of the warming. The effect can never, never, never, precede the cause.
---------------------------------------------

Or in other words, warming causes dust devils!

Looks like you need to brush up on your english, Nomad.

245

,

08/06/2007 10:18:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 692724, Article id was mapped to record!
246

,

08/06/2007 10:19:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 692728, Article id was mapped to record!
247

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 10:21:25

Hey Nomad- your logic is wrong. Logic is not directly applicable to science, since logic is a method of making things up consistently, whereas science is a method for sorting out what "reality" is really like. What makes science so powerful is its continual reference to evidence and data.

Oddly enough you provide none in your posts.

248

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 10:24:34

Ms Sunshine- where are all these scientists coming forwards to say how this 1 degrees C increase is all natural?

Can you name them? When did they come forwards? Did they give out a press release, or did they admit it in secret, in a dark pub under conditions of anonymity because they didn't want their house burnt down?

249

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 10:31:41

#251 Nomad said, "Antactica has been cooling by an average of 0.7 degrees per decade from 1986 to 2000 according to the McMurdo Dry Valleys Long-Term Ecological Research Station."

Here is some more info. about Antarctic temperatures, from:

www.realclimate.org 25 Aug 2006:
Is Antarctic climate changing?

“While Southern Hemisphere temperature have increased, on average, along with the rest of the globe during the last century, the data are rather sparse at the higher latitudes [i.e. Antarctica]. And although there is evidence for warming in the mid troposphere over Antarctica from radiosonde data over the last 30 years, it is also clear from satellite data that surface temperatures decreased during the years 1982 through 2002.

Stable isotope composition of the ice cores mimics the observed temperature pattern -- warming between the 1960 and 1980s, cooling since then. Using the stable isotope records to extrapolate farther into the past, we find that Antarctica has warmed, on average, in the last century, along with the rest of the globe.”

250

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 08/06/2007 10:52:09

A decade ago NASA recorded sunspot activity and the quake caused by the activity.
Also, new black hole has also been discovered.

The solar system is in a balance...
Does it stand to reason, that the sun's activity caused an inbalance in the system, and the planets had to shift to rebalance?

I have said many times- my opinion is the earth is in a shift and realigning itself within the electro-magnetic framework of the solar system. The magnetic north pole has moved 25 miles toward Siberia ..
all planets have to realign and this probably happens with a frequency of cause and effect related to sunspots, comets, black hole activity- but I do not have data on that- any opinions on that?

251

,

08/06/2007 11:07:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
252

,

08/06/2007 11:09:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
253

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 11:10:28

#267 ms Sunshine:

Clearly you have no scientists then. Failure to provide evidence for their existence means you lose the debate. Congratulations, your a loser.

254

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 11:11:43

#266- if you have no data on it, then you can make no scientific comment, merely, as you say, state an opinion.
The question then becomes why have an opinion on something you have no data for? Is it a religious belief?


(Cue denialists claiming this is what global warming is all about)

255

,

08/06/2007 11:14:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 692969, Article id was mapped to record!
256

,

08/06/2007 11:46:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
257

John McVey,

Thailand 08/06/2007 14:27:55

Carolyn 1 #266 would you like to have a baby with me?

258

Administrator,

08/06/2007 15:25:52

Guthrie

Have you nothing better to do than attack people whose shoes you are not even worthy to shine?

259

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 16:18:09

#257 Slioch,

Slioch said:

"#251 Nomad said, "Antactica has been cooling by an average of 0.7 degrees per decade from 1986 to 2000 according to the McMurdo Dry Valleys Long-Term Ecological Research Station."

This post calls into question your ability to read. I didn't say that Antarctica was cooling at 0.7 degrees per decade, the thermometers at the McMurdo Dry Valleys Long-Term Ecological Research Station say that.

Here's the url for some real science if you'd care to stray of the path of political correctness and get some reliable information from people who actually live in work in Antarctica.

http://www.mcmlter.org/index.html

You cite realclimate as if it were a scientific journal. It's not, it's a politically oriented blog.

Here's the facts. The Antarctic is getting colder, not warmer. How do we know that? We know that because the thermometers that scientists who are at this very moment living and working in Antarctica are very accurate and do not rely on tree rings or core samples. Instead of relying on blog commentaries why not invest a moment in finding out the facts?

260

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 16:24:43

#260 Guthrie

Guthrie said:

"Or in other words, warming causes dust devils!

Looks like you need to brush up on your english, Nomad."

My English is just fine, but thanks for looking out for me, sporty of you. Looks like you need to brush up on your thinking, Guthrie. Take another look at what I wrote and pay attention this time.

261

Earl of Kansas,

Kansas, USA 08/06/2007 16:24:45

49. Carolyn 1, Massachusetts

As always you are correct.

262

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 16:40:54

#258 Saoghal Beag: "Anyway, you still have answered what BOD has to do with global climate change."

This was addressed in post #190. It is not my duty to compensate because you have difficulty extracting the meaning of simple words written in plain English.

And now, for the nail (I dug out my reference books):

"BOD is the quantity of oxygen USED (emphasis mine) by microorganisms in the aerobic stabilization of wastewaters and polluted water. The standard 5 day BOD value is commonly used to define the strength of municipal watewaters, to evaluate the efficiency of treatment by measuring oxygen demand remaining in the effluent, and to determine the amount of organic pollution in surface waters" (P. 283, Water Supply and Pollution Control, W. Viessman Jr. & Mark J. Hammer, 1993, Fifth Edition).

BOD does not represent the "potential" of oxygen demand, it represents the oxygen demand actually USED. Of course, the two of US already knew you were just looking things up on google and reprinting them here without a clue as to what they actually meant.

Now, the rest of the world knows it too...

263

V.,

Greiz, Germany 08/06/2007 16:44:52

279. Rainbird

I looked up putz, and I agree.

264

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 16:47:11

Nomad57

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

How about this one, is it politically neutral enough for you?

"Over the last five years, the shelf has lost a total of 5,700 km2, and is now about 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent.

Ice shelves are thick plates of ice, fed by glaciers, that float on the ocean around much of Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf was about 220 m thick. Based on studies of ice flow and sediment thickness beneath the ice shelf, scientists believe that it existed for at least 400 years prior to this event, and likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago (see more about Dr. Eugene Domack's research).

For reference, the area lost in this most recent event dwarfs Rhode Island (2717 km2) in size. In terms of volume, the amount of ice released in this short time is 720 billion tons, enough ice for about 12 trillion 10 kg bags.

This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years. The retreats are attributed to a strong climate warming in the region. >>>The rate of warming is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade, and the trend has been present since at least the late 1940s. Overall in the Peninsula, extent of seven ice shelves has declined by a total of about 13,500 km2 since 1974. This value excludes areas that would be expected to calve under stable conditions.<<<<"

265

Michael Moore,

Flint, MI 08/06/2007 16:47:13

Rainbird is not a Putz!!!!

266

,

08/06/2007 16:52:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
267

,

08/06/2007 16:57:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
268

,

08/06/2007 17:04:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
269

,

08/06/2007 17:16:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 694679, Article id was mapped to record!
270

,

08/06/2007 17:17:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 694682, Article id was mapped to record!
271

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 17:21:13

#284 Ballindarroch: "I do not find your link credible..."

Of COURSE you wouldn't. From their website:

"Our supporters fund data management and scientific research at the project level. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports the NSIDC Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and funds the production and distribution of remote-sensing data sets. The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides data management for scientists doing polar research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides support for management of NOAA data sets at NSIDC and has funded many of the center's data-rescue activities."

You know, NASA, NSF and the NOAA...they don't know NEARLY as much as your barber, or the paperboy. Yer a clown...

272

,

08/06/2007 17:34:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
273

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 17:59:37

#281 Rainbird

Here ya go. See if you can wade through some actual science.

"A synthesis of Antarctic temperatures
William L. Chapman and John E. Walsh1
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Recent summaries of station data (IPCC, 2001, p. 117; Hansen et al., 2001, p. 23,595; Marshall
(2002); British Antarctic Survey (1981); Scambos et al., 2000 and Kejna (2003)) show
that, aside from the Antarctic Peninsula and the McMurdo area, one is hard-pressed to
argue that warming has occurred, even at the Antarctic coastal stations away from the
Peninsula and McMurdo. Thompson and Solomon (2002, their Fig. 3) present maps of
Antarctic surface air temperature trends for 1969-2000, indicating summer and autumn
cooling over much of the continent, but only two data points can be considered “interior”
locations on the Antarctic continent. Recent attempts to broaden the spatial coverage of
temperature estimates have shown a similar lack of evidence of spatially widespread
warming. Comiso’s (2000) satellite-derived estimates of temperature trends for January
and July of the 1979-1998 period show at least as much cooling as warming, while Doran
et al.’s (2002) spatial interpolation based on an objective analysis showed a similar mix
of areas of cooling and warming, with even a preponderance of cooling in the summer
season. However, the continent-wide temperature analyses in both studies are open to
question. Comiso’s IR-derived temperatures from satellites are biased toward clear-sky
conditions, and the trends in Comiso’s study were presented for January and July only.
The validity of the spatial analysis procedure used by Doran et al. is dependent on the
correlation length scales (CLS) of the station temperatures, and specifically the length
scales of the departures from normal temperatures at the various stations

274

,

08/06/2007 18:06:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
275

,

08/06/2007 18:10:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
276

Toro Sprinklers for Waste Water Affluent,

Bloomington, MN 08/06/2007 18:20:40

#224 Elderberry

Putz makes Sense

277

Saoghal Beag,

08/06/2007 18:27:36

Rainbird, i don't need to reference text, nor google BOD, I know what i am talking about, It is heartening that you went and looked it up in a text book.

As you say

BOD is the quantity of oxygen USED (emphasis yours) by microorganisms in the aerobic stabilization of wastewaters and polluted water.

Now that means that under ideal conditions how much oxygen do the bugs use to oxidise the organic material. As i pointed out. That is the potential, which is rarely reached in the environment. ie under environmental conditions it is unlikely that the same amount of organic material would be oxidised by bacteria as would be measured in the BOD7, ofcourse that is unless the ideal conditions were found in the environment.

The standard 5 day BOD value is commonly used to define the strength of municipal watewaters, to evaluate the efficiency of treatment by measuring oxygen demand remaining in the effluent, and to determine the amount of organic pollution in surface waters" (P. 283, Water Supply and Pollution Control, W. Viessman Jr. & Mark J. Hammer, 1993, Fifth Edition)

That's right it is a measure of the organic contamination of water. We use BOD7 which is not total BOD as it is unlikely that total BOD would be reached in a seven day cycle.

Just how this disagrees with my posting on 258 is beyond me, and if you can't see that, then jeezy peeps. But you are so convinced of you invincibility that you can't believe that anyone would even challenge your infiite wisdom.

in 195 you do not answer what BOD has to do with climate change, you make a passing reference to your over simplistic anaology of a tank of water which in your minds is comparable to the earth. Sort of like comparing a michaelangelo amsterpiece with one of you paint by numbers.

so amybe you can relate BOD to climate change or is it just a red herring?

278

,

08/06/2007 18:34:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
279

Al Sharpton,

Brownsville, NY 08/06/2007 19:11:23

287. Barack Obama, Illinois

That's why I'm in your corner, once you're elected maybe we will find out why and then maybe a brother will finally be able to get a lap dance at Scores.

280

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 19:17:18

#276 Nomad

What on Earth are you talking about?

I quoted directly from your post of 251 (as anyone can check if they are interested) as an introduction to the subject of Antarctic climate change. I then provided further information about Antarctic temperatures, which actually agreed (qualitatively) with the information you had given, but I wished to give information over a longer time span. This was provided by stable isotope ratios in ice cores. Had you bothered to consult the Realclimate site to which I referred you would see that I was quoting from a co-author (Eric Steig) of a paper (lead author Schneider) published in Geophysical Research Letters.
As for the Realclimate site being "politically oriented" as you claim, that is just utter nonsense. It is a site that discusses climate change issues and is hosted by a number of climate scientists of international reputation.

You disappoint me. I had thought you might be capable of rational debate and learning about climate change issues. It seems I was wrong about that.

281

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 19:28:21

Nomad57 #290: "Here ya go. See if you can wade through some actual science."

Well, Either you did not wade through it, or you did not understand what you were reading, LOL:

YOU QUOTED AN ARTICLE THAT NEGATES YOUR ARGUMENT!!!

(BTW, entire paper can be found here:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.200...

You might want to have someone explain to you what the words on page 17 under "Trends simulated by global climate models" and the words on page 19 under "Conclusions" mean. I picked out a few that do not seem over-scientific and should be easy enough for most laymen to understand:

"The composite annual trends for the domain 50-90°S show warming over the entire domain. The maximum warming occurs over the Antarctic continent and the Weddell Sea."

"We show here the projected time series of area-averaged annual surface air temperature departures from 1981-2000 means for the 11 GCMs for 60-90°S over the period 1901-2100 (Figure 17). All of the models project warming over the domain and the range of warming predicted by the models varies from 2-3.5°C over the 21st-century. The projected changes in annual surface air temperature by the year 2100 exceed the interannual variability of the annual means for all models."

Bottom Line: you cited a source which says that YOU are wrong.

BTW, did you realize that you also cited an article that uses IPCC data? LOL...How embarrassing...for you....

282

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 19:36:07

Nomad57 @251: "You might wanna do that. The Ross Ice Shelf is in Antarctica. It's getting colder there, not warmer."

Chapman and Walsh (from the source Nomad Cited): "The models used here are listed in Table 1. There are striking similarities between the trends produced by the GCMs and the observed annual trends (Figure 8). Similarities include the small region of >>>relatively strong warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf,<<< the neutral or slightly negative trends over the sea ice covered regions of the Southern Ocean and the
warming indicated near coastal Antarctica."

What a HOOT!

283

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 19:42:50

Saoghal Beag: "in 195 you do not answer what BOD has to do with climate change, you make a passing reference to your over simplistic anaology of a tank of water which in your minds is comparable to the earth."

Okay, I gues it IS my duty to compensate for your inability to extract the meaning of simple words written in plain English. POST 190, not 195.

I said, "And THAT (BOD) is as basic an interaction between living organisms and the environment as you can get: X number or organisms use up Y units of oxygen, in Z mL of water, over (t) period of time. If you people don't even understand the most basic part of the science, how can you have ANY credibility when you start talking about a GLOBAL SYSTEM with thousands of variables?"

Do you get it now, or should I explain it to my 13 year old daughter and have her translate for you?

284

,

08/06/2007 19:47:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
285

Hockey Fan,

cda 08/06/2007 20:06:12

296. Al Sharpton

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

286

UPS Driver,

TN 08/06/2007 21:18:12

RAINBIRD LOGIC

Rainbird & Wally were sitting on a bench in Arizona talking, and Wally says to Rainbird, "Which do you think is farther away... Florida or the moon?"
Rainbird turns to Wally and says "Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????"

287

Rainbird,

08/06/2007 21:22:09

#303 UPS Driver: "Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????"

Only when your mom bends over, but...DAMN! I wish I had not looked at that!

288

OK Stewart,

OK USA 08/06/2007 22:00:09

# 304 - I think you are confusing a moon with Florida. Not surprised you got something else back-azz-words. I'd show you mine if I thought it would help.
;)
Have a good weekend - try to go a couple of days without an opinion. Life is short.

289

Clippers,

Santa Monica, CA 08/06/2007 22:06:02

305. OK Stewart

:)

290

,

08/06/2007 22:08:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 695283, Article id was mapped to record!
291

Djookers,

08/06/2007 22:10:30

#305 OK Stewart

Whereabouts in Oklahoma?

292

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 22:21:04

#305 Stewart: "I think you are confusing a moon with Florida." Nope, you ain't seen his Mom!

She's big, she's muddy, and she smells like alligators.

293

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 22:22:56

Hey, "ADministrator" at 275- you can go boil your head! Its idiots like you that get in the way of a good discussion.

Nomad, I note you appear incapable of reading what an actual scientist who has studied Mars and its warming says about your cherry picked data. Needless to say I defer to such a person, given my own lack of experience in these areas. Its a shame you cannot, due to your poltiical blinders.


Rainbird- you answered my questions whilst avoiding the substance of my post, which is that knowledge in any area does not mean that someone can or cannot argue about another area. You might like some sort of basic test before allowing people to discuss these things, but I am afraid that complaing about people not getting BOD when they don't deal with water analysis is just stupid.

294

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 22:26:37

Nomad, its a shame your Russian's claims about solar radiation are completely destroyed by the actual measurements of such radiation.

295

Tyson Man,

DE 08/06/2007 22:33:02

307. Djookers

I believe you ;-)

296

,

08/06/2007 22:46:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
297

Djookers,

08/06/2007 23:02:41

#313 Edmond's comment

Well good for you on sending the e-mail.

Here is you first ever post on the boards.

"37. Oliver F, UK
Dear God man, what has come over you? Don't copy their words and provoke them, you have blood on your hands now as well. Have some decency and look the other way."

off topic, just like every post you have made since and posted at 3:19pm 28 Feb 2007. Wow!!! long and faithful reader you... go Edmond.

Pens and Bluntie..... moi, not likely, but you believe what you want. As far as the papers editors go, if they look they will find that I am neither of those two ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))

298

Ret MC,

CA, USA 08/06/2007 23:25:56

I know it's just probably just a coincidence but Djookers, Pens, & Bluntie all question posters with suspicion like they are trying to discredit them, all with the same verbage. Just an observation from a new poster that has been recent reader of the Scotsman since your sailors were captured by Iran.

299

Mine is an 80 bob,

08/06/2007 23:54:21

315 Ret MC, CA, USA

I'm sure that you think you are an extremely observant chap, but the observational skill of anyone who can miss the similarites in the posts below, like you did, bears careful examination.

Very observant of you,
218 Ms. Sunshine,

217. Rainbird
You are a certifiable Putz.
_______________________

225 Landman

"Putz makes Sense"
________________________

231 Regina

Putz makes Sense, and I'm raised my hand.
_________________________

252 Night_Worker, St Enoch Centre

"Putz makes Sense"
____________________________

300

Ret MC,

CA, USA 09/06/2007 00:06:30

316. Mine is an 80 bob

What similarity? All I see is that those people responded to a question, with the answer as required, they mostly all answered the same way with slight differences. How much difference could you possibly answer when your response was given to you in the way indicated? You need to read comment #224 again ..... to see why.

Seems like you struck out on that one. Are you another one of Djookers names or just a friend of his?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.