Happy Earth Day
 

The last eco-thread was a bit hostile in tenor. I'll take the hit for that, I gave the thread a confrontational title and so it went.

There is considerable back and forth in the discussions of the issues of the environment--lots of passion, many facts, even more opinions.

I have provided a link below to the sworn testimony of Lord Monckton to the US House subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The text is too long to post it here. It takes about 20 minutes to read and includes fifty "red flags"--specific instances of fraud, misrepresentation, or intellectual dishonesty by those who've pushed the global warming agenda.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Letter to Represenatives Ed Markey & Joe Barton

I think Lord Monckton is spot on. I think the temperature on Earth has almost everything to do with the sun, and almost nothing to do with industrial emissions by humans. Even if you completely disagree, I'd like to hear your logic and your refutations of Monckton's points.

By the way, the sun is as quiet as it's been in a century:

The Press Association: Sun 'at its quietest for 100 years'

WW

There is nothing quite so grand as the merger of junk science and junk economics to put a damper on the worlds economy. You realize by letting the truth out of the bag you are closing a major avenue to greater government regulation, control and most importantly-revenue collection.

The best fix proposed recently was to kill all of the penguins and position them beak up so that their light colored underbellies might reflect more of the sun's harmful rays. As practical and romantic as any solution I have heard so far, how dare the sun mock our world leaders.

Regardless of if you believe in global warming, climate change, or whatever they're calling it these days I think we can all agree that there's nothing wrong with recycling and reducing our consumption to help those that are here after us.

There is a poll on a weather/climate website where I frequently am. We are voting what to call the impending solar minimum should it lapse into a deep minimum (the Maunder minimum was associated with the little ice age.) Gore minimum is one of the choices. The best one though was suggested by another poster: The Inconvenient Minimum.

Brilliant.

WW

Perhaps this will be of comfort:YouTube - Deteriorata slide show


And let us not forget the heartwarming story of one of the founding fathers of Earth Day:




Background
Einhorn was active in ecological groups and was an icon of the counterculture, anti-establishment and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s. At one time, he was a friend and contemporary of Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. He also claimed to have been instrumental in creating Earth Day in 1970, and during the first Earth Day event, which was televised globally, Ira Einhorn was on stage as master of ceremonies, although other event organizers dispute his account.[1] He was known to some of his friends as "the Unicorn" because the name Einhorn (a German-Jewish name) means "unicorn".

Born into a middle-class Jewish family, Einhorn studied at the University of Pennsylvania and had a five-year relationship with Holly Maddux, a graduate of Bryn Mawr College who was originally from Tyler, Texas. In 1977, Maddux broke up with Einhorn. She went to New York City and became involved with Saul Lapidus. When Einhorn found out about this, he angrily called Maddux to come back to Philadelphia to retrieve her belongings. She went back to Philadelphia, but was never seen in public again.

When questioned, Einhorn told police that Maddux had left to go to the store but never came back. His alibi began to crack, however, when neighbors began to complain about a foul odor coming from Einhorn's Powelton Village apartment. Eighteen months later, Maddux's decomposing corpse was found by police in a trunk stored in a closet in Einhorn's apartment. Einhorn's bail was set at $40,000 at the request of his attorney, Arlen Specter; Einhorn was released from custody in advance of his trial by paying 10% of the bond's value, or $4,000. This bail was paid, not by Einhorn, but by Barbara Bronfman, a Montreal socialite and a member of the family that owns the Seagram liquor company.

In 1981, just days before his murder trial was to begin, Einhorn skipped bail and fled to Europe. Einhorn traveled in Europe for the next 16 years, along the way marrying a Swedish woman named Annika Flodin. Back in Pennsylvania, as Einhorn had already been arraigned, the state convicted him in absentia in 1993 for the murder of Maddux. Einhorn was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
wiki

It's all about control. The EPA just declared CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. This leads the way for them to control everything that emits CO2.

EPA's CO2 Ruling May Have Huge Impact - Science & Health news | Newser

Virtually everything in the world emits CO2.

Just saw a report; obese people emit more CO2 than thin people.

very reasonably said
 

I can't speak for everyone, but I bet a lot of the "deniers" would agree with me when I say that we don't pour our oil into the storm sewer, we don't throw old batteries in the campfire, etc.

There is nothing wrong, as you say, with recycling or reduction of comsumption. There is also nothing that necessarily connects either of these things with helping future generations. If recycling some item is economically or energy inefficient it is wasteful. That would tend, on a large scale, to impoverish future generations.

Environmentalists have a tendancy not to want to debate things like this--thay want me to be satisfied with "all recycling is good", and when I am not, they have a statist urge to pass laws to force me to comply.

Recycling should be taken, case by case, on the product's own merits. Some recycling is efficient and productive, some recycling is inefficient and wasteful.

There is nothing worse for the environment than large groups of people whose basic economic needs are not being met.

WW

How much carbon in a belly roll?
 

I'l bet they sequester more carbon as well.

WW

I saw a Global Warming segment on CNN many years back. I've been looking for a clip of it online to post for a couple years now, but have been unable to locate it. I'm sure it's collecting dust in storage, or by now destroyed. I will attempt to paraphrase:

Setup: News Anchor is interviewing one of the most renowned (her words) climatologists on the planet via satellite. Apparently the producer failed to do some homework on this guy because what happened next was hilarious.

Anchor: "So in fact the planet is warming up you say?"

Climatologist: "Yes"

Anchor: "And it's your belief that this can be attributed to the emission of green house gases?"

Climatologist: "Absolutely not, on the contrary, these have very little to do with the normal cyclical temperature changes of the planet."

Anchor: (with the distinct look of panic on her face, long pause as cameras focused on her. Finally, you see her listening to something in her ear piece and...) "Isn't it true that your research is funded by the oil industry?"

I swear this is what she said, couldn't make this stuff up.

Climatologist: "No, most of my research money comes from the federal government through grants, like most research scientists...."

Anchor: "Thanks for being with us today."

Satellite feed goes dead before he can say anymore and CNN goes to commercial.

I sat there going "What just happened?" "Did they just cut that guy off?"

Couldn't believe my eyes. Haven't watched CNN since.

Even the Aussie's agree ... the ice isn't melting !!!

18APR2009
Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | World News | News.com.au

I wonder what's going to happen when people realize that this is all a sham?
It's going to get interesting :)



Fred

Predictions from Earth Day 1970

The following predictions were made during the first Earth Day:
Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." [13]

Senator Gaylord Nelson, the co-founder of Earth Day, stated, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." [13]

Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, "... by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." [13]

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. [13]

Life Magazine wrote, "... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." [13]

Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." [13]

Watt also stated, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil." [13]

Great find. These sobering proclamations were read with considerable amusement.
Lord Monckton has done an excellent job of calling the lie when it comes to the current hysteria and proposed "solutions" such as cap and trade. The problem is that every effort is being made to muzzle him because he is interfering with the business plans of some.
Climate change hasn't proved to be very dangerous, but social engineering has killed hundreds of millions in the last century.

This would be amusing, except...
 

it is a quote from the chairman of the house committee that is writing global "warming"legislation:

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

So said Henry Waxman to NPR
Tavis Smiley . Archives . Rep. Henry Waxman . April 13, 2009 | PBS

Leaving aside the question of whether the calculated global temperature is going up (it's not, it is going down since 2003), and leaving aside the question of whether the polar ice is receding (it's not--see here: http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roo..._ice_area.png.
...isn't representative Waxman's statement about the least well thought out collection of non sequitir you've ever heard?

WW

God help us if that tundra ever gets loose.:D

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

I noticed that Christopher Monckton is a long time political and business consultant - not a scientist, peer reviewed or otherwise.

Thanks for the good faith input but I will continue to believe in the rigor of peer reviewed science.

Quite right, in this respect Lord Monckton and Gore are similar. The difference is that one is using peer reviewed science to illustrate his point and one is trying to force us to buy his product at the point of a gun. :D

Well we can't have people speak their mind that have an opposing view, not can we? Heaven forbid the mainstream media actually report the truth!

Where are the reservations when Gore, Waxman, or some of the other true belivers speak? They are not scientists, peer reviewed or otherwise.

Your point is acknowledged, Monckton is not a scientist but he's clearly done his homework. I pay attention to this stuff--I think he's right on the money. Monckton's professional status aside, what about the content of his presentation? What do you think about the material itself? True? False? Don't know? Settled science? I'd be very interested to hear what you think about that?

I'd also be very interested (and I'm not being sarcastic) to read any peer reviewed literature you could provide that showed any of Monckton's points to be off base.

WW

It's those darned slide-rule inaccuracies! Forget the floating mantissa...

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

What I may think about it is beside the point. I would be interested to hear from scientists familiar with the data telling us what he may be leaving out or where his logic might be flawed. If science is not peer reviewed, it's just an opinion.

OK. Google "National Academy of Science global warming" and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Both organizations have a high concentration of Nobel laureates and make the same basic claims although some details may vary:

- global climate change is happening
- mankind is causing it
- it's going to be bad

Good luck on your quest for knowledge.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

An article from 2004 that gives high marks to UN reports that have since been proven both political in nature and poor in science. Somehow this just isn't going to get it.

Concensus is really meaningless until we actually know the cause, effects and the viability of any solutions proposed and their effects. I can show concensus that the earth is flat if we go back far enough in peer approved writing.

Don't you find it interesting that the loudest noises are selling something(cap and trade) that has proven to be ineffective? Don't you find it interesting that the dissent is not selling anything but asking for a higher standard of evidence that action is required and will be effective?

Pure science is a wonderful thing, but the world is really interested in the practical application of science. Since many of the predictions made in 2004 were derived from poor models and have since proved incorrect, it brings into doubt the solutions proposed then and now. It doesn't help that many of the loudest hucksters are heavily invested in certain outcomes and seek political solutions that may benefit them regardless of their actual effect.

Then of course there is this little monkey wrench:

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is the "correct" temperature for Earth and how do we get there?


Link to graphics and a better explanation:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...ast-12-months/


Good luck in your quest for knowledge!

Peer review does not magically turn an opinion into science. A scientific proposition is one that is verifiable and falsifiable. Peer review is supposed to provide the feedback loop that does/does not verify procedures and results and does/does not falsify the hypothesis. The science may be improved by peer review, but it exists prior to, and independent of, any peer review.

I will check around the websites you recommend, with an open mind, and I will write again here what I find.

I take it from what you say here is that you won't/can't read the text of Lord Monckton's testimony to congress. It is your right to let other people do your thinking for you. Good luck on your quest for a backbone.

WW

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

A layman drawing conclusions from raw scientific data is like Cheney and Rumsfeld interpreting raw intelligence. We all know how well that turned out.

George Monbiot: This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong | Comment is free | The Guardian

A statement showing a lack of trust in individual reason, political alignment and complete disregard of recent data all in one.

Many people do have both careers and egos tied to the argument that makes a change in position sticky for reasons unrelated to logic.

Again, the date of the article is is old enough to not take into account the most recent data. Who denies now sir?

I don't claim to have the training, or the smarts of some PhD. But I will not be a lemming--following the intelligencia over the cliff because they think it's a good idea.

I am perfectly capable of assembling facts, using inductive logic, and making a conclusion. My conclusion should be judged on its merits, whether or not I have a degree and whether or not it is peer reviewed has no effect on a properly formed conclusion.

Your argument here is a red herring. That makes it a weak argument. Not because I disagree with you per se, but because you present a weak case.

I will read your link later when I have a little more time.

WW

Rather than arcing off on tangents, let me ask two questions.

First, Is there solid proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of any climate change? We all know that the earth has gone through radical changes of climate prior to man's existence. Has man now gained control or a high degree of influence over the climate by his activities?

Second, What is the correct temperature for the planet and how do we get to that temperature?

OK, I read your link. I am not convinced--that should come as no surprise.

Monbiot starts out with an ad hominem attack on Monckton's qualifications to comment on this issue. One of his deficiencies (according to Monbiot) is that he is trained as a journalist. A curious and, I think, counterproductive argument from a man who is himself a journalist.

The specifics in this article are, like many arguments on either side, cherry picked (in Monbiot's own words). I am happy to debate any specific issues, but I am not going to go point by point through Monbiot's article.

I will, however, make 2 remarks:

1. Monbiot criticizes non-scientist Monckton for talking science. I looked but was unable to find similar criticisms by Monbiot of Al Gore. Perhaps different standards apply for those with whom Monbiot agrees?

2. Monbiot concludes with the following-- "A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field."
I disagree. A scientific paper is a scientific paper prior to its publication in some journal. Scrutiny by experts is good--it should help prevent fraud, allow for verification (or falsification), and move the discussion forward, but it is not a necessary condition for science.

Did science occur at the bike shop and at Kittyhawk, or only later when it was published?

WW

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

When dealing with systems as huge as the global climate, you're working primarily with probabilities. You can't duplicate this stuff in a wind tunnel.

Look, we've been through all of this before. In the 50s, peer reviewed science started to link cigarette smoking with lung cancer. The tobacco industry hired medical doctors, celebraties and quack scientists to publically characterize those papers and studies as "junk science."

That worked for a while but today you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

We have to get this right because the consequences are global, not just some individual smokers dying of cancer.

I see you can't or won't answer my two simple questions.
You have plucked another red herring out of the can, and I am glad to see it.
What of tobacco? After everyone has seen it to be harmful, governments around the world continue to participate in the manufacture and distribution by making far more in tax revenue than any of the tobacco companies make on the product. The solution for government was to step up their profits rather than eliminate sales.

But, you digress, and knowing that climate is complex look away from complex causes and pin all of your hopes to CO2-ignoring other possible mechanisms for heating or cooling.

So, what is the correct temperature for Earth?

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

They've brought the heart attack patient in and they're getting ready to crack his chest open for the bypass and you're standing there saying:

"Why the surgery? I happen to know that a diet low in fat, salt and cholesterol together with a regimen of moderate exercise is what's necessary for a healthy heart."

You are trying to convince us an emergency exists when in fact there is none. The patient has arrived in a healthy state and you have started up a chainsaw.
We can get back to a climate discussion whenever you are ready.

Again, what is the correct temperature for Earth?

Impact of Global Warming
 

Unnecessary comment removed for reasons of civility. Self-policing in action.

Admirable self restraint. I tip my hat you 11Fan.

WW

Here is a target, anyone care to try shooting a few holes in it? Just for sport you understand.:D






In a paper that will appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics, Dr. John Emmert and his colleagues, Drs. Michael Picone, Judith Lean, and Stephen Knowles, report that the average density of the thermosphere has decreased by about 10% during the past 35 years. The thermosphere is the highest layer in the atmosphere, and begins at an altitude of about 90 km (56 mi).
The study utilized orbital tracking data on 27 space objects that have been aloft for over 30 years and whose closest approach to the Earth ranges from 200-800 km (124-497 mi). The Space Shuttle typically orbits at 300-450 km (186-279 mi), and the International Space Station is at an altitude of about 400 km (248 mi). Although the atmosphere is extremely thin in this region (the air at the Earth's surface is a trillion times thicker), it is enough to exert a drag force on satellites, causing their orbits to decay slowly and ultimately resulting in a fiery disintegration at lower altitudes. By analyzing changes in the orbits of the selected objects, the scientists derived the yearly average density encountered by each object. After adjusting for other factors, the data from every object indicated a long-term decline in the density of the thermosphere.These new results verify and significantly expand a limited earlier investigation, by scientists at The George Washington University, which also used orbital data to derive a long-term decrease in thermospheric density. The new NRL study utilizes more orbital data over a longer period of time and employs more precise analysis methods. By carefully examining all potential sources of error, the NRL team has provided solid evidence that the trend is neither artificial nor the result of physical processes other than internal atmospheric cooling.
Based on the NRL analysis and projections of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the density at thermospheric heights could be cut in half by the year 2100. This change may present mixed blessings: while operational satellites will be able to stay aloft longer, using less fuel, so will damaging spacecraft debris, potentially increasing the frequency of collisions.

You'll be amazed to discover that you've happened on a subject upon which we agree--we do have to get this right.

You are right on target when you say you can't duplicate this stuff in a wind tunnel. Solar weather, ocean temperatures, atmospheric convection, tropopause height, vulcanism, cloud coverage, precipitation patterns, terrestrial vegetation, and thousands of other factors--many of which I'm sure we haven't thought of yet. And yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide (all .0387% of it) counts too.

We can't build an adequate climate model so some scientists have gone with computer modeling. These models describe exactly what has already happened. They were pretty good at predicting the near future as long as the temperature was going up. As far as I know, not one computer model called the global temperature decline that began in 2003. I would not call this settled science.

So, we do have to get this right. And it is about probabilities: draconian environmental legislation will certainly curtail individual liberty and reduce general prosperity; the same legislation might have a little effect on the massive, incompletely understood, dynamic system that is our climate. Seems like a bad bet to me.

WW

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

It looks like you left a couple paragraphs out of the middle of this American Geophysical Union/Naval Research Lab joint release.

Increasing greenhouse gases lead to dramatic thinning of the upper atmosphere

So where does this leave us?

"Higher in the atmosphere, above about 12 kilometers [seven miles], however, these gases actually enhance the ability of the atmosphere to radiate heat out to space, thereby causing a cooling effect. As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the upper atmosphere becomes cooler and contracts, bringing lower-density gas to lower heights."

One might also conclude that raising CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. In any event, it does not explain fully why we have a recent cooling trend.
I can understand your eagerness to show that CO2 is a cause, the question remains though, is it the only cause, what does it cause and can we control climate solely by adding or subtracting sufficient quantities of CO2?

Actually you can't PROVE that smoking cigarettes CAUSES cancer, you can only say it will increase your RISK of cancer, because otherwise there would be a direct correlation from smoking to lung cancer... (I know, yell at me all you want, but try to argue with the late 90's person who has smoked and eaten red meat all their life, and don't have cancer yet... And then you can tell it to the people who have never smoked a day in their life, and get diagnosed with lung cancer...)

As to that 2nd example, that plays into the fact that "science" has to be able to be proven correct as well as proven incorrect. You cannot PROVE that not smoking cigarettes will prevent you from getting lung cancer...

That's essentially the point the people who don't believe in global warming (myself included) are trying to make... You can trot all the celebrities out who believe it, but that doesn't PROVE anything, it just scares the uninformed...

Re: Happy Earth Day
 

If that's what you got out of this, it just amplifies why interpreting scientific
data should be left to the scientists familiar with it.

That's not what it's saying. They're talking about cooling in the upper atmosphere (above 7 miles).

I'm sorry. You are no longer authorized to use Hunter S. Thompson as your avatar.