Global Cooling

Deb Prothero · Post by **Deb Prothero** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:04 am

My understanding of Climate Change, ygmir, is that it will cool some areas and warm others. Drought will be extensive in some areas and sea levels are set to rise to the extent that Manhattan will flood. Three feet of rise in sea level will easily flood Manhattan.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:13 am

"Ascertaining cause and effect" is the last stand. As the waves lap on the shore of disappearing Pacific islands, not a one of them will ever carry the label "made by man". Conservatives intention demand an unrealistically high standard of proof, in hopes of distracting the issue. Many of these individuals take the Bible as literal on faith, of course.

Deb Prothero · Post by **Deb Prothero** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:17 am

Here is a report to Congress on a rise in sea level.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effect ... elrise.pdf

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:30 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:"Ascertaining cause and effect" is the last stand. As the waves lap on the shore of disappearing Pacific islands, not a one of them will ever carry the label "made by man". Conservatives intention demand an unrealistically high standard of proof, in hopes of distracting the issue. Many of these individuals take the Bible as literal on faith, of course.

and, I said what, relating to politics or religion?.............

I'd offer you a turd sandwich, but, I know you don't like bread........

I was implying that it is a very complex system, the climate and weather.....and, lots of theory exists.........but, to be simplistic and say it has one cause, and, anyone knows it for sure, is, well, IMHO,.....simplistic.
not to mention the long term effects..........we'll only know for sure, after, it's "over".........

what if the warming is necessary?
What if, by stopping (if we could) warming, we enter an ice age that wouldn't have existed if the planet was warmer?

I'm not saying I believe that, but, propose there are a myriad of cause and effect relationships, that, are possible.........

but, if it's easy for you, point at conservatives and xtians and blame them..........

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:33 am

*picks up ten foot pole. goes near arguement. tries to poke it, but just can't*

Let's argue about reproduction some more!

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:47 am

ygmir wrote: but, if it's easy for you, point at conservatives and xtians and blame them..........

I must have touched a nerve.

What I was attempting to point out was that the phrase "ascertaining cause and effect" is a bugaboo used by the conservative movement in denying human connection to climate change. This is a scientific problem, and is being politicized at our peril; surely you see that?

That phrase is not used by and mainstream scientists that I am aware of. If the scientists that I work with, had no faith or understanding of basic scientific techniques and statistics, they'd never get anything done, and this marvelous internet would not exist. How do I know that this fiberoptic cable is a better design than that one? Statistics, no cause and effect. Climatology is no more complex than laser optics or satellite physics.

If we are indeed causing the problem to the degree that we can stop it by minor changes in our behavior, then we don't have to have the connection spelled out in black and white. I am swapping my pickup for a Prius, and I will probably enjoy doing so.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:57 am

Deb Prothero wrote:Here is a report to Congress on a rise in sea level.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effect ... elrise.pdf

And here is the actual observation of global sea level. No trend in sea level change since 2006. It stopped rising.

It is now 2010 and global sea levels have not surpassed the level seen in late 2005.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

And EPA is the last place I would trust. They are not interested in science, they are interested in agenda.

Also, earliest recorded snowfall in history in Czech Republic and Austria. Ski resorts across the Northern Hemisphere earliest openings in history. Spring snows in Argentina, snow in New Zealand where none falls this time of year. All ocean heat gained over the past 25 years is gone, current global average sea temperatures are at the long term average. Current el nino looks extremely weak and may fizzle before Christmas. And the latest kicker, people looking into the Steig paper on Antarctic "warming" have discovered an additional weasel act in that he truncated the data at a specific date to make it appear that the three stations he used showed warming. Take the data record back to 1980 to present and even Steig's data shows cooling.

It is just one fiasco after another. The most recently hilarity is the discovery of the fact that Mann has used four temperature proxies UPSIDE DOWN in his research in order to show "warming" when the data actually goes in the opposite direction invalidating his paper and calling into question other papers based on and citing his paper.

And over 4000 record low temperatures, record low high temperatures (lowest maximum temperature recorded for the date) and record snow fall amounts set in one week in the US in October.

Continental US temperatures for the latest 12 month period (October 2008 to September 2009) are currently nearly at the 1901-2000 mean temperature. All warming noticed since 1976 (when the PDO switched to its "warm" phase) is gone.

There is no "global warming" and there is no reason to use carbon emissions as a tool to manage business, industry, and individuals. But if you want to purchase a "carbon credit" at that kiosk at SFO, go right ahead. Just realize you are paying many times more than the current market price just to mollify your CO2 anxiety. People are getting rich from this thing.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:12 am

Ah yes, of course, how could I have been so stupid? It's all a vast conspiracy of the EPA, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, the UN, Al Gore, and a swarm of Hollywood actors. They are out to get us to give up our SUV's, renounce our God-given right to trash the air and water, and to take away our personal weapons of mass destruction for the preservation of our homes.

USA! USA! USA!

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:41 am

Wow. That chart you referenced is from a report that shows how thermal expansion, alpine glacial melt, Greenland and Antarctic melt are all contributing to a rise in ocean levels, and that is likely accelerating. They pretty much showed how satellite data (Jason & Topex) and surficial data all point to an accelerating rise. 1.8 mm over the entire 20th century and 3+ mm in the last decade 95-05. The trend line is up, up, up.

So specifically, who is behind this vast conspiracy of global warming? Names and associations. I'd like to see, "Prof. So-and-so bought stock in such-and-such prior to releasing his cooked report on blah, blah, blah." You show me 5-10% of the over 2500 climate scientists that agree that there is global warming have these conspiratorial connections, and I will help you uncover the rest.

I am a data head, well studied in environmental change, geography and energy. If you have the connections, I'd like to see them. But from my desk, having read a giant amount of the the actual research from that university you cited, as well as from a plethora of sources, the data on global warming is compelling, collaborated and mostly founded in solid, repeatable, refereed science, published in conservative and academic journals. It IS rocket science.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:59 am

chiefdanfox wrote:It IS rocket science.

No, I know that one.

1. Light fuse.
2. Run away.

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:14 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
chiefdanfox wrote:It IS rocket science.
No, I know that one.

1. Light fuse.
2. Run away.

I stand (run, actually) corrected.

You did leave out:
3. Watch ka-boom.
All science is in threes. Just ask the Tootie Pop owl.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:59 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
ygmir wrote: but, if it's easy for you, point at conservatives and xtians and blame them..........
I must have touched a nerve.

Only in that you narrow the blame so.......the U.S. is not, by any stretch, the only country creating greenhouse gasses, and, contributing to climate change.....and, within that, the groups you mention are certainly not the only ones driving big cars and burning tires in the street......
I am trying, I suppose far to cryptically (one of my many faults), to say that blame for this can be very wide spread.....USSR, China, India....etc......and, why pick on one or more group? I know it's popular to blame the U.S. for the ills of the world, and, those groups in particular, in some circles.........I suppose, for me, it's just tiring to hear everything blamed on the same groups or nation, time and again, when, the blame can and should be spread around.

What I was attempting to point out was that the phrase "ascertaining cause and effect" is a bugaboo used by the conservative movement in denying human connection to climate change. This is a scientific problem, and is being politicized at our peril; surely you see that?

I do see the politicization of the subject, by both sides......I probably miss to much of the MSM to know the catch phrases used....but, in my cynical world I see it politicized, not so much for what may or may not happen, but, for profit........and power, the interchangeable pair.

That phrase is not used by and mainstream scientists that I am aware of. If the scientists that I work with, had no faith or understanding of basic scientific techniques and statistics, they'd never get anything done, and this marvelous internet would not exist. How do I know that this fiberoptic cable is a better design than that one? Statistics, no cause and
effect.
I appreciate science and understand what you say, and, am in agreement

Climatology is no more complex than laser optics or satellite physics.
this, I disagree with. I think there are so many complexities, it is still not well understood. Seems of late, more and more variables are being discovered, leading, IMHO, to a more complex system to understand

If we are indeed causing the problem to the degree that we can stop it by minor changes in our behavior, then we don't have to have the connection spelled out in black and white.
I don't see anything helping if it's just minor changes to our behaviour. Minor changes, IMHO, are the "easy, I feel good about myself" solution. If, you're going to do it, do it right......IMHO.

I am swapping my pickup for a Prius, and I will probably enjoy doing so.
I agree, that, we should do what we can to protect the earth. Thinking trading trucks for hybrids in the U.S. only, even if everyone did it, will make a difference...well.......I dunno. A good volcanic eruption seems to negate anything like that......a matter of degrees, and scale, as such, IMHO.
have you factored the energy and environment costs of buying a new Prius, against keeping your old truck and keeping it in good condition?
maybe, if your serious, living near your work and riding your bike?
How long is the payback, just to break even, considering the more toxic components of the Prius?

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:19 am

The US is responsible for about 1/4 of the world's energy use. Most of that energy is created by burning coal.

What is wrong with asking Americans to shut the fucking windows, turn off the fucking lights and put on a goddamn sweater? My mom harped on this my entire life, and now this is some liberal conspiracy?

Jesus Howard Christ.

Why is conservation a goddamn dirty word to conservatives?
( I'll tell you why: Because they are fucking morons. There is no other reasonable explanation.)

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:11 am

CDF: if that's aimed at me:

nothing wrong with asking, people to close windows, etc.......
didn't say there was.
What I was trying to imply is not to get "smug" that your saving the planet by closing your window......sure, you're doing your small part, and, lots of smalls make a big....but, that large polluters are good targets, but, since so many are off shore, and, the protesters don't want to go there.......

I think conservatives (I'm an anarchist), are no more sensitive to that label than liberals are to theirs.......mostly, it depends on context. When used pejoratively, sure, the label raises ire.

I see the left wing constantly pointing at the right wing and blaming them for all this. And, I can see how they get tired of catching all the heat.
Plenty of heavy industry is owned and operated by left wingers. Plenty of SUV's, etc........
Why keep throwing labels, when it's really all of us?
Why not march on Moscow? New Delhi? Seoul? Tokyo?, etc.......
I see frustration from many quarters relating to not holding all those responsible to the same standards......and, the constant implication that the U.S. is the biggest evil on the earth, except, of course, the wonderful protesters, they are guiltless because they drive a Prius or buy carbon credits, perhaps drink fair trade coffee.

I see it all as divisive.........the name calling and such.
IMHO, if we'd just try to be civil, paint with the same brush, and use the same criteria and action across the board, it'd have more impact.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:05 am

ygmir wrote: I am trying, I suppose far to cryptically (one of my many faults), to say that blame for this can be very wide spread.....USSR, China, India....etc......and, why pick on one or more group? I know it's popular to blame the U.S. for the ills of the world, and, those groups in particular, in some circles.........I suppose, for me, it's just tiring to hear everything blamed on the same groups or nation, time and again, when, the blame can and should be spread around.

Didn't mean to turn you blue, my friend.

I didn't bring up "blame". That's another gambit that I see coming out of conservatives. Nobody is trying to blame or shame Americans.

What works is acting locally, rather than pointing at another camp that has more MOOP than mine and hoping the problem disappears.

Leadership involves being bold enough to take the first step and setting an example, rather than shuffling blame around and rearranging deck chairs.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:58 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:
ygmir wrote: I am trying, I suppose far to cryptically (one of my many faults), to say that blame for this can be very wide spread.....USSR, China, India....etc......and, why pick on one or more group? I know it's popular to blame the U.S. for the ills of the world, and, those groups in particular, in some circles.........I suppose, for me, it's just tiring to hear everything blamed on the same groups or nation, time and again, when, the blame can and should be spread around.
Didn't mean to turn you blue, my friend.

I didn't bring up "blame". That's another gambit that I see coming out of conservatives. Nobody is trying to blame or shame Americans.

What works is acting locally, rather than pointing at another camp that has more MOOP than mine and hoping the problem disappears. Leadership involves being bold enough to take the first step and setting an example, rather than shuffling blame around and rearranging deck chairs.

well said......I concur........

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:40 am

leadership .... setting an example ... what democrat does this?

i see al gore's name mentioned a few posts up ... would someone please explain to me why this guy is still admired? he is the worst kind of hypocrite, but no one on the left seems to care. if a family values republican has an affair, screams of hypocrisy fly all over the place ... but al gore can waste as much energy and make as much money from energy stuff as he likes, and no one on the left gives a damned.

a few weeks ago he gave a talk at a local bookstore. the photo of him on the flyer was fascinating ... his slicked-back hair and bad makeup made him look more like a slimy televangelist than wise environmentalist. the ticket price of the event was not mentioned - you had to ask at the front desk - but the price included his book for "free," so i'm sure it was substantial.

here are a few links, in case you have no idea what i'm talking about...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... reen_x.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96529.html

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:44 am

*noting LF's discovery of the rug under which the left wing hypocrites antics are swept*........

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:47 am

Sure.
That's why everyone voted for him.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:49 am

everyone?........

(did he get the "dead" vote in chicago?)

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:53 am

gyre wrote:Sure.
That's why everyone voted for him.

(sarcasm)
How can anyone miss the massive criticism of gore from the "left", whatever that is?

He could hardly have done worse, of course.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:15 pm

gyre wrote:Sure.
That's why everyone voted for him.

it's been some time since anyone has voted for him... and i don't expect to see him run for office in the future, either. he won't win, and he knows it.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:21 pm

littleflower wrote:
gyre wrote:Sure.
That's why everyone voted for him.
it's been some time since anyone has voted for him... and i don't expect to see him run for office in the future, either. he won't win, and he knows it.

My point.

Lesser evil though.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:30 pm

he can still sell books and lecture tickets ... and win oscars ... that's what i am referring to ...

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:42 pm

My approach to efficiency is somewhat more practical than most.
So far, I'm not getting any attention in DC, except from engineers.
I follow Fuller's ideas in this area.
Consumption and efficiency aren't always exclusive of each other.

There is a large (6000sf) house here of traditional appearance here that uses $140 or less in power each month.
With fewer windows, that can be radically lower.

I am still trying to pitch my light highway proposal.
After I move, maybe I can work harder on it.
It requires no future technology.
None.
Doesn't exclude any either.
And it's affordable.

But then, so is getting rid of the health care denial industry.
That doesn't seem likely.
Are we really stupider than canadians?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:24 am

littleflower wrote:he can still sell books and lecture tickets ... and win oscars ... that's what i am referring to ...

Books and lectures sustain many a retired statesman.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:55 pm

littleflower wrote:i see al gore's name mentioned a few posts up ... would someone please explain to me why this guy is still admired? he is the worst kind of hypocrite, but no one on the left seems to care.

I think that I brought up his name in a satirical post as a special "hot button" item for the climate change deniers. It's clear that Al Gore is a lightning rod for the right, even for those who don't deny climate change.

Al Gore appears to me to be someone who does care about this issue, even with all of his faults (and I'm not a special fan of his). It sometimes takes someone who has great name recognition to bring out the issues, even if that person is not really a paragon of virtue.

Don't get bogged down with personalities. Go for the facts, and recognize the difference between the small stuff and the big stuff.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:52 pm

dr.placebo wrote:
littleflower wrote:i see al gore's name mentioned a few posts up ... would someone please explain to me why this guy is still admired? he is the worst kind of hypocrite, but no one on the left seems to care.
I think that I brought up his name in a satirical post as a special "hot button" item for the climate change deniers. It's clear that Al Gore is a lightning rod for the right, even for those who don't deny climate change.

Al Gore appears to me to be someone who does care about this issue, even with all of his faults (and I'm not a special fan of his). It sometimes takes someone who has great name recognition to bring out the issues, even if that person is not really a paragon of virtue.

Don't get bogged down with personalities. Go for the facts, and recognize the difference between the small stuff and the big stuff.

doc, i would have quoted your post if i didn't note the satire in it... but the flyer for that speech kinda got to me...

my main complaint here is actually the hypocrisy thing. democrats are absolutely vicious when it comes to the demonization of any family values republican who has an affair ... but hypocrisy on the left is tolerated, often totally ignored. al gore is a spectacular case of this. he has the "right" message, so who cares...

it's not about personalities ... and it's a bigger problem than you are likely to understand, i suppose. i know, why bother ... and it's off topic ... i'll go back in my corner now...

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:17 pm

Slicked-back hair? That's a pretty substantial allegation you're making. I hope you have proof!

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:18 pm

Frankly, although I'm often to the left of center, I don't really care about the sex life of politicians. I do care about what happens to people when politics and ideology are allowed to dominate facts and thought.

Is Al Gore a hypocrite? I know that he promotes the notion that unwelcome climate change is mostly anthropogenic, and that he lives a fairly rich life. I don't see him speaking in favor of reducing carbon emissions while taking money from the coal industry (maybe it's secret money). I'm sure that there is more that he could be doing personally, but I'm not comfortable with him being characterized as the worst of hypocrites. Maybe I'm just not privy to enough details about Al Gore.

Sorry if I sounded too harsh. I'd rather that you did not disappear, littleflower.