Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

gunga, omsig, cjhsa and other gun and hunting fellas consider voting democrat and the moon turns red and lions lie with lambs

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/11hunting.html

You still haven't gotten this straight, because you continue to discuss the individual parts of the whole cycle as if they were independent!

I'll try one more time to communicate with you on this topic.

First, my definition of surface water:
surface water = ocean water (e.g., sea water) and non-ocean water (e.g., lake water) on the surface of the earth.

It is a fact that the CO2 ppm (i.e., parts per million) in surface water is not uniform over the surface of the earth. Generally the CO2 ppm in ocean water is greater than the CO2 ppm in non-ocean water.

Also, the CO2 ppm is not uniform throughout the earth's oceans. Also, the CO2 ppm is not uniform throughout the earth's non-ocean water.

When water evaporates from surface water it forms a water vapor mix of H2O, CO2, and other molecules that were originally contained in the surface water. The warmer is a region of surface water, the greater the rate of that evaporation, and therefore the greater is the rate of CO2 ppm increase in the atmosphere over that region of the surface.

Atmospheric winds subsequently spread these vapor mixtures throughout the many regions of the atmosphere. When sufficient relatively cold air blows through a region, the water vapor in that region condenses into clouds and/or rain. When water vapor condenses into rain, H2O and CO2 molecules mixed in that vapor enters surface water.

So on the one hand, earth warming causes more CO2 to be in the atmosphere. On the other hand, earth warming causes more CO2 to be precipitated out of the atmosphere by rains, because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Net, if when the earth warms, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and less CO2 in surface water than when the earth cools.

If no additional CO2 were to be inserted into the atmosphere, almost all of it currently in the atmosphere would eventually mix with water vapor and precipitate into surface water.

For instance, some of us here noticed a wide diversity of temperatures among the stations reporting on the local weatherunderground site. As the relatively short distances between sone stations made broad temperature flucuations implausible, one of our local radio station guys set out to check it out. He found recording instruments placed in the sun, placed in almost fully enclosed areas, placed near air conditioning compressors, placed near clothes dryer vents. This of course would distort the true readings.

The discussion then moved to the fact that the United States has the most temperature reporting stations than anywhere else in the world, and at least one of the longest uninterrupted history of temperature recordings.

by
Patrick J Michaels PhD
Research Professor and AASC-designated State Climatologist at the University of Virginia; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979

Robert C. Balling Jr. PhD
former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University. He received his Ph.D. in geography from the University of Oklahoma in 1979.
(Yes professor Balling in on the Sourcewatch hit list and has done research for both oil and coal companies.)

FACTSHEET: Robert C. Balling Jr.
DETAILS
Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
NCPPR scientific expert on global warming. (1996)

Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[3]

Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3558

The charts on recent versus long term urbanization are interesting. However, I'm not so sure why he would make a distinction. The issue is about human factors into the climate change, and so making such a distinction seesm only to serve an agenda, being that he tells us to disregaurd the plot of C (recent urbanization) in terms of warming.

Honestly, it seems the data still poinnts to human factors.

T
K
O

Hmmmm...so who are these guys? Are they perhaps funded by oil/energy industries? Maybe associated with, say, Cato?

Urbanization is sure ruining hunting opportunities. First the idiots build subdivisions the middle of prime hunting areas, then they are all afraid of guns and love the little bambis like pets. Retarded.

Diest TKO wrote:

The charts on recent versus long term urbanization are interesting. However, I'm not so sure why he would make a distinction. The issue is about human factors into the climate change, and so making such a distinction seesm only to serve an agenda, being that he tells us to disregaurd the plot of C (recent urbanization) in terms of warming.

Honestly, it seems the data still poinnts to human factors.

T
K
O

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

blatham wrote:

Hmmmm...so who are these guys? Are they perhaps funded by oil/energy industries? Maybe associated with, say, Cato?

Yes, as I referenced in my post along with observations that some prefer to play 'gotcha' and/or discredit those with whom they disagree rather than consider the information offered.

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

The charts on recent versus long term urbanization are interesting. However, I'm not so sure why he would make a distinction. The issue is about human factors into the climate change, and so making such a distinction seesm only to serve an agenda, being that he tells us to disregaurd the plot of C (recent urbanization) in terms of warming.

Honestly, it seems the data still poinnts to human factors.

T
K
O

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

One class in Heat transfer will tell you that no amount of heat is eve3r localized.

Think about where most of our cities are located. Think about how many there are. Think about the forrested areas that are being cut down and where they are.

Even if the human factors contributing to climate change aren't uniform, they are present and very abundant. Remember it's not just the amount of CO2 being put out, but also human deforrestation and the pollution of the world's water that helps manage the CO2 increase.

T
K
O

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:

Hmmmm...so who are these guys? Are they perhaps funded by oil/energy industries? Maybe associated with, say, Cato?

Yes, as I referenced in my post along with observations that some prefer to play 'gotcha' and/or discredit those with whom they disagree rather than consider the information offered.

Well, as your president could have told you (given, of course, that he had the slightest shred of honesty or integrity about him) a pre-emptive strategy easily fails when what you are shoving out into the world is a lousy product.

I'm happy to have you back on a2k, but there's no reason I'll sit aside politely where you forward industry-funded propaganda.

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

The charts on recent versus long term urbanization are interesting. However, I'm not so sure why he would make a distinction. The issue is about human factors into the climate change, and so making such a distinction seesm only to serve an agenda, being that he tells us to disregaurd the plot of C (recent urbanization) in terms of warming.

Honestly, it seems the data still poinnts to human factors.

T
K
O

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

One class in Heat transfer will tell you that no amount of heat is eve3r localized.

Think about where most of our cities are located. Think about how many there are. Think about the forrested areas that are being cut down and where they are.

Even if the human factors contributing to climate change aren't uniform, they are present and very abundant. Remember it's not just the amount of CO2 being put out, but also human deforrestation and the pollution of the world's water that helps manage the CO2 increase.

T
K
O

Exactly. So if that thermometer in the middle of the Columbian jungle isn't showing any appreciable or unexplainable increase in mean temperatures as compared to say 50 or 100 years ago, then would an increase in mean temperatures indicated by hundreds of devices located near those dryer vents or near paved parking lots or newly plowed ground or deforested hillsides or within subdivisions, all of which were once open countryside, be reliable as a guage for overall global warming?

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:

Hmmmm...so who are these guys? Are they perhaps funded by oil/energy industries? Maybe associated with, say, Cato?

Yes, as I referenced in my post along with observations that some prefer to play 'gotcha' and/or discredit those with whom they disagree rather than consider the information offered.

Well, as your president could have told you (given, of course, that he had the slightest shred of honesty or integrity about him) a pre-emptive strategy easily fails when what you are shoving out into the world is a lousy product.

I'm happy to have you back on a2k, but there's no reason I'll sit aside politely where you forward industry-funded propaganda.

So, after I already indicated the source and the bias of which they are accused, you felt it necessary to post a half page of defamatory material from more biased sources that those that are being rebutted?

Anyhow, thanks for the oh so warm welcome.

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:

Hmmmm...so who are these guys? Are they perhaps funded by oil/energy industries? Maybe associated with, say, Cato?

Yes, as I referenced in my post along with observations that some prefer to play 'gotcha' and/or discredit those with whom they disagree rather than consider the information offered.

Well, as your president could have told you (given, of course, that he had the slightest shred of honesty or integrity about him) a pre-emptive strategy easily fails when what you are shoving out into the world is a lousy product.

I'm happy to have you back on a2k, but there's no reason I'll sit aside politely where you forward industry-funded propaganda.

So, after I already indicated the source and the bias of which they are accused, you felt it necessary to post a half page of defamatory material from more biased sources that those that are being rebutted?

Anyhow, thanks for the oh so warm welcome.

Unless you can refutte the facts about the authors of your source, your complaint really doesn't mean much. Also, since when is sourcewatch a biased source?

T
K
O