kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuote
Do you think human activity had anything to do with the ozone "hole" over he Antarctic?
Nope, and if you had read the latest research on that you would understand my position.
I just read recent results from NASA, the British Antarctic survey, and NOAA. But what do those morons know! YOU must be correct.
Didn't you just say this in another thread?
Quote"Why would anyone be surprised. The Bush administration has over-ridden scientists at NIH, NOAA and other government labs for doctrinal or political reasons".
So which is it? Does NOAA have any credibility or not?
-
The scientists do. Their political masters do not.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Do you think human activity had anything to do with the ozone "hole" over he Antarctic?
Nope, and if you had read the latest research on that you would understand my position.
I just read recent results from NASA, the British Antarctic survey, and NOAA. But what do those morons know! YOU must be correct.
Didn't you just say this in another thread?Quote"Why would anyone be surprised. The Bush administration has over-ridden scientists at NIH, NOAA and other government labs for doctrinal or political reasons".
So which is it? Does NOAA have any credibility or not?
-
The scientists do. Their political masters do not.
But you claimed to have read from a British Antarctic and NOAA Survey. Was this produced by the Scientists or their Political Masters? How could you tell the difference? Is this another case of a report having credibility with you if it says what you believe and no credibility if it doesn't?
wiggle wiggle....
-
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Do you think human activity had anything to do with the ozone "hole" over he Antarctic?
Nope, and if you had read the latest research on that you would understand my position.
I just read recent results from NASA, the British Antarctic survey, and NOAA. But what do those morons know! YOU must be correct.
Didn't you just say this in another thread?Quote"Why would anyone be surprised. The Bush administration has over-ridden scientists at NIH, NOAA and other government labs for doctrinal or political reasons".
So which is it? Does NOAA have any credibility or not?
-
The scientists do. Their political masters do not.
But you claimed to have read from a British Antarctic and NOAA Survey. Was this produced by the Scientists or their Political Masters? How could you tell the difference? Is this another case of a report having credibility with you if it says what you believe and no credibility if it doesn't?
wiggle wiggle....
-
I am not aware that the Bush administration has attempted to suppress any results of the British Antarctic Survey. There is lots of evidence that they have suppressed research from US government labs when it suits their political agenda.
Since research disproving human cause for the ozone hole would support the administration's agenda there is no reason to suppose they would suppress it, if it existed.
Simple, really.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
I am not aware that the Bush administration has attempted to suppress any results of the British Antarctic Survey.
The fact you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it either did or didn't happen.
QuoteThere is lots of evidence that they have suppressed research from US government labs when it suits their political agenda.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were stating you had read seperate reports from NASA, NOAA, and the British Antarctic Survey. Are you saying it's all one report? Can you provide a link?
QuoteSince research disproving human cause for the ozone hole would support the administration's agenda there is no reason to suppose they would suppress it, if it existed.
I wasn't aware the Administration disbelieved human cause for the ozone hole. Since you seem to ascribe Bush Admin. policy to any position taken by a govt. agency, isn't the mere fact that NOAA and NASA agree the ozone hole is expanding due to human produced chlorine and bromine evidence that Bush agrees?
QuoteSimple, really.
It's comforting to know that in the future we can rely on you to let us know what data coming out of Govt. agencies has been manipulated by Bush and which ones have not since you seem to have the inside track. Makes things simple, really!
-
kallend 1,623
Quote
It's comforting to know that in the future we can rely on you to let us know what data coming out of Govt. agencies has been manipulated by Bush and which ones have not since you seem to have the inside track. Makes things simple, really!
-
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-timeline.html
I suppose you'll be telling us next that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program, Basques are muslims and Bush never claimed to be a conservative.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I'll have to read some of the info on that site when I have time.
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
kallend 1,623
QuoteI'll have to read some of the info on that site when I have time.
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
No.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
speedy 0
QuoteQuoteI'll have to read some of the info on that site when I have time.
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
No.
My guess is that they have probaly got that wrong too.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteI'll have to read some of the info on that site when I have time.
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
No.
My guess is that they have probaly got that wrong too.
They got wrong not making an incorrect prediction? Have you started New Year celebrations already?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
fudd 0
well....the rain is pooring down here today...wait...
I live in Norway and its the 31st of december....shouldn't it be snowing?
Global warming...nah...
note to self: The lawn needs to be cut...
There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
I live in Norway and its the 31st of december....shouldn't it be snowing?
Global warming...nah...
note to self: The lawn needs to be cut...
There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
speedy 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'll have to read some of the info on that site when I have time.
Is this one of those sites that claim 2006 will have more hurricaines than ever before?
-
No.
Oh yeah! Next year is 2007 and not 2006. Must lay of that Absinthe
My guess is that they have probaly got that wrong too.
They got wrong not making an incorrect prediction? Have you started New Year celebrations already?
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 1,623
Quotewell....the rain is pooring down here today...wait...
I live in Norway and its the 31st of december....shouldn't it be snowing?
Global warming...nah...
note to self: The lawn needs to be cut...
Ditto Chicago. We're over 10C above our average December temperature, have been for the past three weeks, and the forecast is the same for the next 10 days...
Wish they hadn't sent the Otter south for the New Year.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,399
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Cattle farts are a major contributor to global warming.
True. Methane from domesticated animals (and other human sources) contributes about 25% of the total forcing. The bad news is that it's another contribution to the total forcing that's driving up the temperature; the good news is that it's starting to level off as we get better about not venting methane (mainly from russian oil wells) directly into the atmosphere. It also has a shorter lifetime (avg 12 years) so a decrease in emissions of methane are seen fairly rapidly.
Another bit of good news is that CFC's, which are very strong greenhouse gases, are on the decline since most of them have been banned.
Summary of various forcings shown in attachement.
True. Methane from domesticated animals (and other human sources) contributes about 25% of the total forcing. The bad news is that it's another contribution to the total forcing that's driving up the temperature; the good news is that it's starting to level off as we get better about not venting methane (mainly from russian oil wells) directly into the atmosphere. It also has a shorter lifetime (avg 12 years) so a decrease in emissions of methane are seen fairly rapidly.
Another bit of good news is that CFC's, which are very strong greenhouse gases, are on the decline since most of them have been banned.
Summary of various forcings shown in attachement.
speedy 0
Looking at your attachment Bill, I find it rather worrying that the level of scientific understanding of solar forcing is stated as vey low.
Although some scientists have tried to study solar forcing in more detail, their findings are drowned out by the CO2 crowd.
Now if we could introduce "Solar Credits" and there was money to be made from them..... mmmm...
Although some scientists have tried to study solar forcing in more detail, their findings are drowned out by the CO2 crowd.
Now if we could introduce "Solar Credits" and there was money to be made from them..... mmmm...
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 2,399
>Although some scientists have tried to study solar forcing in more
>detail, their findings are drowned out by the CO2 crowd.
?? We've orbited satellites to look at solar variability, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on it. There is no "drowning" going on; millions of dollars are being spent on such research. (Note that lack of acceptance of a pet theory is not the same as "drowning someone out.")
Basically, there are three proposed mechanisms that might cause solar forcing:
1) Changes in solar irradiance directly affecting the climate. (i.e. "the sun is just plain brighter.") This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be too small to cause any major effect (i.e. fractions of a watt per square meter change.)
2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, but is a small fraction of total variability. On the other hand, a lot is absorbed by the atmosphere.
3) Changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) causing changes in cloud cover by nucleation changes.
We understand 1) pretty well; it's relatively easy to measure with satellites. We understand 2) less well; I don't think we currently break down our irradiation history by wavelength. And we don't understand 3) very well yet. Note that 3) suggests that increased activity may DECREASE warming by decreasing nighttime cloud cover.
>detail, their findings are drowned out by the CO2 crowd.
?? We've orbited satellites to look at solar variability, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on it. There is no "drowning" going on; millions of dollars are being spent on such research. (Note that lack of acceptance of a pet theory is not the same as "drowning someone out.")
Basically, there are three proposed mechanisms that might cause solar forcing:
1) Changes in solar irradiance directly affecting the climate. (i.e. "the sun is just plain brighter.") This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be too small to cause any major effect (i.e. fractions of a watt per square meter change.)
2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, but is a small fraction of total variability. On the other hand, a lot is absorbed by the atmosphere.
3) Changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) causing changes in cloud cover by nucleation changes.
We understand 1) pretty well; it's relatively easy to measure with satellites. We understand 2) less well; I don't think we currently break down our irradiation history by wavelength. And we don't understand 3) very well yet. Note that 3) suggests that increased activity may DECREASE warming by decreasing nighttime cloud cover.
Amazon 7
Gee its raining and 56 degrees here at 48 degrees N Lat and 122 degress west Longitude....
Nope nothing happening here at all.. perhaps we all need a sandbox in our back yards for head burying
I always wonder what kind of SPIN the detractors of climate change will come up with WHEN its too friggin late to do anything about it.
Nope nothing happening here at all.. perhaps we all need a sandbox in our back yards for head burying
I always wonder what kind of SPIN the detractors of climate change will come up with WHEN its too friggin late to do anything about it.
speedy 0
Quote>Although some scientists have tried to study solar forcing in more
>detail, their findings are drowned out by the CO2 crowd.
?? We've orbited satellites to look at solar variability, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on it. There is no "drowning" going on; millions of dollars are being spent on such research. (Note that lack of acceptance of a pet theory is not the same as "drowning someone out.")
Basically, there are three proposed mechanisms that might cause solar forcing:
1) Changes in solar irradiance directly affecting the climate. (i.e. "the sun is just plain brighter.") This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be too small to cause any major effect (i.e. fractions of a watt per square meter change.)
2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, but is a small fraction of total variability. On the other hand, a lot is absorbed by the atmosphere.
3) Changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) causing changes in cloud cover by nucleation changes.
We understand 1) pretty well; it's relatively easy to measure with satellites. We understand 2) less well; I don't think we currently break down our irradiation history by wavelength. And we don't understand 3) very well yet. Note that 3) suggests that increased activity may DECREASE warming by decreasing nighttime cloud cover.
So why does your graphic say we have a very low understanding of solar effects on climate?
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
billvon 2,399
>So why does your graphic say we have a very low understanding of solar effects on climate?
Because we don't fully understand the effects of nucleation caused by cosmic radiation, which in turn is mediated by solar wind (which is somewhat proportional to total solar output.) We also don't have good breakdowns of spectra over history. Right now all we have are estimates.
We have a pretty good idea of the _direct_ causes of solar effects; every climactic model out there uses a well-proven average solar flux as the basic source of energy that drives the climate. But that's not considered a forcing since it's part of our climactic baseline.
Because we don't fully understand the effects of nucleation caused by cosmic radiation, which in turn is mediated by solar wind (which is somewhat proportional to total solar output.) We also don't have good breakdowns of spectra over history. Right now all we have are estimates.
We have a pretty good idea of the _direct_ causes of solar effects; every climactic model out there uses a well-proven average solar flux as the basic source of energy that drives the climate. But that's not considered a forcing since it's part of our climactic baseline.
billvon 2,399
One explanation why otherwise-reasonable people often think that global warming is a big hoax:
-------------------------------------------
Scientists say oil company misinforms public on global warming
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:14 a.m. January 3, 2007
WASHINGTON – ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.”
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.
Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for “public information and policy research” distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to “create the illusion of a vigorous debate” about global warming.
---------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Scientists say oil company misinforms public on global warming
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:14 a.m. January 3, 2007
WASHINGTON – ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.”
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.
Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for “public information and policy research” distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to “create the illusion of a vigorous debate” about global warming.
---------------------------------------
On the upside, energy prices are dropping. 
This topic is now closed to further replies.
I just read recent results from NASA, the British Antarctic survey, and NOAA. But what do those morons know! YOU must be correct.
Didn't you just say this in another thread?
So which is it? Does NOAA have any credibility or not?
-