Conversation Among Friends - Climate Change - Comments

Polar Ice Loss

Joey — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:47:02 -0400

JM,

Sticking with the "sun as culprit" theme. I wonder if polar ice loss is especially indicative of a solar effect. My earlier post cited scientific studies of other locations, some of which had increases in ice coverage. Thus ice loss is not uniform as one might expect in the case of an atmospheric cause.

I'm thinking of the magnetosphere and the field lines directing charged particles (higher energy particles) to the poles.

Would be nice if our resident physicist would grace us with a comment, Bob?

Moral obligations

Joey — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:23:31 -0400

JM,

Yeah, this will be interesting. Seems we will have to wait until April to see this.

The Catholic Church has long had a moral teaching on prudent stewardship w/r/t creation.

Good of PBXVI to provide some clarity at this point.

Pope to make climate action a moral obligation

Jonathan — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:57:43 -0400

Pope to make climate action a moral obligation: link

warmer and warmer

Peter — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:46:55 -0400

looky: some more dissent from a fairly big thinker - i actually bookmarked that page, it is so lucid. have a read

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

excerpt: "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do..."

new global (warming?) data

Peter — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:52:35 -0400

fyi

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

'No Sun link' to climate change

Jonathan — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:44:48 -0400

BBC News article: link
journal article: link

Gore and Scientific Scrutiny

Joey — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:05:30 -0400

Here is a simple summary of work that appears to refute Al Gore's calims regarding global warming.

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

Canadian Fjords & Sun Spots

Joey — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:48:02 -0400

This article makes claims that the use of Canadian fjord sediment is most stable and very telling about climate cycles, especially that they correlate well with sunspot activity.

Read the sunspots

Woo, there is Al Gore's hockey stick - right near year 0.

nice data

Peter — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:31:56 -0400

Joey, the link in your post tells a riveting tale. I am amazed. Now, SOMEone is lying, either him or them.

I just find it hard to believe that so many scientists would succumb to mass hysteria, but maybe grant money can induce someone to speak in tongues(?) I am well aware that a lot of scientists have little common sense and/or no backbone, but this level of hypocrisy would be astounding. on the other hand, here are my impressions from the pertinent scientific/environmental issues from the last 30 years:

1970s and 80s: the "death of the woods" (german: waldsterben), eradicates large sections of eastern german and soviet block forests from noxious industrial exhalations
same period: acid rain. some lakes in scandinavia reach the pH of acetic acid due to the industrial emissions coming over from england.
1980s and 90s: ozone hole over the antarctic
1990s and 2000s: global warming

interestingly, to my knowledge, a lot of scientists made nice careers based on misrepresentations (mostly exaggeration of the type "we're all gonna die") in the first three cases. would i believe that this will happen again with global warming? OF COURSE.

However, i think it simply indecent to continue spewing CO2 crap into the atmosphere. it is like shitting where you eat. global warming or not, we should clamp down on emissions.

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

Joey — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:40:42 -0400

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

From: Climate caos? Don't believe it

Klaus...

Peter — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:18:45 -0400

As much as I appreciate Mr Klaus (he is a somewhat known figure in europe), and tend to agree with his views re: freedom, hysteria, etc, i am not sure he would know fact from fiction when it comes to science, viz:

"...irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures ..."

Exactly what is a 0.6% temperature increase? Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Celsius?

President of the Czech Republic

Joey — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:24:56 -0400

Here is a voice of reason on this hysterical panic over a few tenths of a degree.

Freedom, not climate, is at risk by Valcav Klaus

OK - Ice melts two ways

Joey — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:47:57 -0400

Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming

So, some ice can melt via CO2 and other ice can melt via photons. . .

LINK

I think we know nothing about how ice melts.

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Jonathan — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:52:00 -0400

Joey,

Was the program you watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

If so, the following web site seems to be a fairly detailed rebuttle of the film: link

About the 800-year lag, it cites the same web site you did with this summary explanation:

"...historical warm-up periods begin via some variable event that starts a warming cycle. (e.g. Milankovitch changes in the earth's orbit that change the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the northern hemisphere, a human induced spike in carbon dioxide concentrations, etc.) This initial warming triggers a chain reaction/feedback release of carbon dioxide (blue line in the above chart) and methane (red line in the above chart) from the earth's oceans, which then drives the rest of the warm-up cycle..."

increases in CO2 emissions

Jonathan — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:11:08 -0400

From an article in USA Today (link):

Fueled by rapid growth in coal-reliant China, rates of carbon dioxide emission from industrial sources increased from 2000 to 2004 "at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s," says a report released by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.