Earth day

john b wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Not to mention the fines and jail time handed out to BP.. Maybe you should watch it.

I dintt notice the link discrepancy. Your link took me to a deepwater horizon spill story.

OverMyHead wrote: john b wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Not to mention the fines and jail time handed out to BP.. Maybe you should watch it. I dintt notice the link discrepancy. Your link took me to a deepwater horizon spill story.

It is actually a documentary on the culture of risk at BP, the Horizon is just a piece of the puzzle. You really should watch at least enough of it to know the subject matter.

OverMyHead wrote: Joe. I looked for the story in one of your left wing propaganda rags. Amazingly they don't report anything negative against"green" energy turning birds into charcoal.

It's funny like that, actual news sources dont report on things that arent news. Was a study done before hand to determine if there would be an effect on local wildlife, yep was it determined that the benifits to all including wildlife far outweighed the cost, yep. Do dumb birds that fly into heat rays get warm and then if they dont leave the heat ray eventually die, yes... maybe even a few dozen yes...

This is news? Should the New York Times tell us how many birds are hit by cars after every days commute?

I understand dave you are terribly concerned about the birds… just not the 60 million a year cars hit, the hundreds of thousands a year killed by oil spills, the 5 to 50 million killed by towers… the 72 million a year killed by pesticides, or the millions killed by pollution, and certainly not the billion that run into windows.   No instead it’s the half million killed by windmills and the few dozen caught in the solar death ray that any real news source would be reporting on. You claim that those crazy environmentalists would be protesting anything other than wind and solar that killed a few birds huh… If that was the case it seems like I wouldn’t be able to get near my car, windows, oil platforms, cell towers or anything else without running into environmentalists … and yet I didnt see a single protester on my way to work this morning.

If you are still following along with your propaganda techniques score card at home this one would be the ever classic technique known as “Diversion”.    With a little bit of disparaging of those dumb ol environmentalist Nazis thrown in for effect.

Dave, I think a double-standard does to some degee exist. What Joe and I would argue is that it exists for good reason, you would disagree, and I can see both sides of that argument.

The idea is that if you believe in GW, or believe it's a bad thing for us to continue to rely on fossil fuel to the absence of all other sources, then we would sacrifice a few more birds or caribou to get solar or wind up and running versus sacrificing those same animals for another oil well or fracking project.

What that article says is that environmentalists are upset about the birds being hurt, so I'd say the solar project isn't skating free on this issue.

There are no free rides, just best choices.

You guys forgot about all the widdle kitty cats that kills billions of birds and small animals. I say kill 'em all.

Who needs ANWR when we have the North Dakota Bakken! Whoo hoo! Drill baby drill.

bhectus wrote: Actually, based on scientific evidence and past history Alastka should only be about 3-7 degrees warmer in 50 years.

FTFY

Wow, that is some serious drivel from M.D. Harmon. The problem with editorials like this is that if you are not informed it all seems very plausible. Let's deconstruct a few of his smoke and mirrors...

First, he calls CO2 a gas "vital to life on Earth." This is of course true, but trivial. Nobody is calling it a poison, they are saying it is probably dangerous in excess. You know, like eating too much or drowning in water. Both good things until you get too much of them.

Second, while the "97% of scientists" claim is very specific, there are actually many papers published on this and all estimates come out in the 90-97% range. So yes, there is a consensus that cannot be denied. And yes, a consensus among scientists means something. In fact, it pretty much means everything.

Third, he disparages the IPCC and climate models. He goes so far as to use another slight of hand by putting "forcings" in quotes. This is very disingenuous since indeed climate forcings is the correct terminology, but used in this context with quotation marks makes it seem like some kind of dirty trick. Almost like the kind of tricks the author is obviously using.

Fourth, he cherry-picks one of the most famous climate change deniers (S. Fred Singer) to bolster his arguments. This same Dr. Singer also disputes the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, doesn't believe that UV radiation can cause skin cancer, and denies that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. This guy has it all figured out.

Fifth, perhaps his most compelling point is that while the warming is happening it isn't really that bad. I mean, after all it was warm as recently as the Middle Ages, so how bad can a little warming be. But he uses vague terms like "warmer in the historic past", but compared to what? Perhaps this graph from the Wikipedia page on the temperature record presents things a bit more clearly.



Ah yes, it was in fact warmer 2000 years ago than 200 years ago, but it is warmer now than at any time in that record, and more frighteningly, it is warming up very very fast. Hmmm... what else was going on in the last 200 or so years. Well, the industrial revolution and an exploding human population. But I guess we couldn't have anything to do with that, because, well, we just couldn't.

Finally, in a bizarre turn, he basically says "In the end no other country wants to do anything about it even though they think it is real too so let's just all ignore it together." Great logic there. I am also not sure where he is getting this information from, for all I can tell his claims about the motivations of foreign governments is just his personal speculation or opinion.

Interestingly, the NYT had an article just today (you can read the entire thing here) that reminds people like Dave that their local weather is not climate,

"For people throughout the Eastern United States who spent January slipping, sliding and shivering, here is a counterintuitive fact: For the earth as a whole, it was the fourth-warmest January on record.

It was, in fact, the 347th consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th-century average, the government reported Thursday.

That may feel plausible to Californians, whose state experienced temperatures 10 or 15 degrees above normal in some places last month, and especially to Alaskans, where the average temperature was almost 15 degrees above normal."

Interesting article in the NYT. That house in Bakersfield looks pretty grim. That's a serious drought. It will be interesting to see if our weather continues to be colder and wetter than usual for the rest of the year.

MD Harmon is my favorite local commentator. He's actually a good guy. Even the new editor, a much younger guy who is a leftist, considers him a mentor. I figured you guys would try to pick him apart. How can you argue with George Will or Charles Krauthammer? The paper is owned by the husband of our very liberal congress woman Chellie Pingree.

He may be a good writer, and an even better person, but he is still a lousy scientist.

Will is has a background in journalism and politics. Krauthammer in medicine and politics. At best they are reporters, at worst entertainers. I wouldn't take my science from them. I'd read a peer reviewed scientific journal, or at least some commentary based off of one, to learn something about the Earth's climate.

Have a great weekend Bruce!

Hey Seth. Where have you been? When I post on a work day its from my android phone. Its auto spell does not have an appreciation for initials. Type in anwr and it decides you really ment anwar. I much prefer windows spell check underlining words and making me manually change them. Maybe we should rename androids version "spell change" (man made and a very real threat).

Just in interesting anecdote.....Has anyone noticed that climate change polls at the botton of issues important to American people? It seems this issue is being pushed by our government, and "most" people aren't buying it.

OverMyHead wrote: Joe, I have been thinking about this for a while now. We had a global warming trend before we produced significant CO. We came out of a mini ice age in the 1800's and have been slowly warming ever since.(Coincidentally our measured climate record began at that cold period around 1850 so we should expect to see increasing temperatures from the cycles low.) If we look at this period on a graph we see a sawtooth line that climbs steadily from left to right over time. Would we not expect to see the warmest years clustered to the right end of the line? I might play the mega millions if I had a trend predictor like that. Heck I would even predict warming during a warming cycle if I though I could benefit from it.

I agree that given what we know about temperatures and how they are changing that the warmest years should all be exactly where we expect them to be. So Dave, I am getting a little confused. If I understand correctly you no longer dispute that the world is warming, only that people are causing it, correct?

Can you back up your claim that "We had a global warming trend before we produced significant CO[2]"? Is this just your opinion or can you provide some source for this?

What is your definition of "slowly" when it comes to the rate of warming? I assume you saw the graph I posted above and it is hard for me to figure out how you would call the warming "slow" in comparison to the other temperature fluctuations on that figure.

Jamin, Lets start with temp graphs. In general, I do not relay on any single graph or source I synthesis from multiple sources representing different sides of an issue in hopes of finding some truth in the middle. that being said, here is a graph from NASA



I see a gradual rise of 1 degree C over a 260 year period. Most of the graphs from those supporting Global warming use 1850 as a starting point. again at the end of the "Mini iceage" giving the impression that all we ever do is warm and that cycles do not exist.

Here is another graph, It looks similar to those I have seen before. The source sounds official, but I did not really investigate it , I hope it does not offend you.



This represents 800,000 years, and many climate cycles. It does show our current temps are near the top of historic, but the rise and rate do not appear visually out of line from historic.

The ice core temps I take with a grain of salt. They rely on the principle of uniformitarianism,(present is key to the past)(not in my spell check either)but I have plenty of faith in them for this discussion. Looking at this graph gives a different perspective of what our earth does with or without man.   

More to come later.

As long as I am long winded tonight I will take a shot.

Hansel wrote: Wow, that is some serious drivel from M.D. Harmon. The problem with editorials like this is that if you are not informed it all seems very plausible. Let's deconstruct a few of his smoke and mirrors... First, he calls CO2 a gas "vital to life on Earth." This is of course true, but trivial. Nobody is calling it a poison, they are saying it is probably dangerous in excess. You know, like eating too much or drowning in water. Both good things until you get too much of them.

But what really is to much, and for who? Plants thrive with increased CO2, Have you looked at the benefit side of increased co2 on global food production, energy use....Many economist see man made CO2 as a net positive for the economy, unless of course we handicap the economy trying not to produce any CO2

Hansel wrote: Second, while the "97% of scientists" claim is very specific, there are actually many papers published on this and all estimates come out in the 90-97% range. So yes, there is a consensus that cannot be denied. And yes, a consensus among scientists means something. In fact, it pretty much means everything.

actually the 97% claim of scientists is a very non specific statement. more accurate would be 97% of all scientist WHO PUBLISHED PAPERS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (a small percentage of all scientist) could not specifically state that man IS NOT contributing in some degree to warming associated with green house gasses).

Hansel wrote: Third, he disparages the IPCC and climate models. He goes so far as to use another slight of hand by putting "forcings" in quotes. This is very disingenuous since indeed climate forcings is the correct terminology, but used in this context with quotation marks makes it seem like some kind of dirty trick. Almost like the kind of tricks the author is obviously using.

Again, how accurate of a predictor of temperature increase have they been? How often have they reached their lower statistical deviation of predicted temp rise, let alone their mean.

Hansel wrote: Fourth, he cherry-picks one of the most famous climate change deniers (S. Fred Singer) to bolster his arguments. This same Dr. Singer also disputes the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, doesn't believe that UV radiation can cause skin cancer, and denies that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. This guy has it all figured out.

Fred has a healthy skepticism for some government funded science for sure.

Hansel wrote: Fifth, perhaps his most compelling point is that while the warming is happening it isn't really that bad. I mean, after all it was warm as recently as the Middle Ages, so how bad can a little warming be. But he uses vague terms like "warmer in the historic past", but compared to what? Perhaps this graph from the Wikipedia page on the temperature record presents things a bit more clearly. Ah yes, it was in fact warmer 2000 years ago than 200 years ago, but it is warmer now than at any time in that record, and more frighteningly, it is warming up very very fast. Hmmm... what else was going on in the last 200 or so years. Well, the industrial revolution and an exploding human population. But I guess we couldn't have anything to do with that, because, well, we just couldn't.

I think I covered this.

Hansel wrote: Finally, in a bizarre turn, he basically says "In the end no other country wants to do anything about it even though they think it is real too so let's just all ignore it together." Great logic there. I am also not sure where he is getting this information from, for all I can tell his claims about the motivations of foreign governments is just his personal speculation or opinion.

Hansel wrote: Interestingly, the NYT had an article just today (you can read the entire thing here) that reminds people like Dave that their local weather is not climate

Speak for yourself future southern boy, its my climate!