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

I was thinking the same thing. I keep bringing up the fact that the climate has been warming for almost 60k years and is probably heading for a rapid flip-flop into cold cold cold, but nobody seems interested in the data (or they ignore the long term data and only argue about the last few meaningless centuries). The discussion always seems to turn into a conservative versus liberal argument. I don't think people are really interested in "climate change", I think they are interested in "ideology change".

A good point, farmerman. You have done your reading. quote from "Unstoppable Global Warming" bySinger and Avery--P. 11

"For at least 2 40,000 years Co2 has been a LAGGING INDICATOR of global warming, NOT A CAUSAL FACTOR. Within the last 15 years the ice cores have revealed that temperature and co2 levels have tracked closely together during the WARMINGS AFTER EAHC OF EARTH'S LAST THREE ICE-AGE GLACIATIONS. However, the Co2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes.GLOBAL WARMING HAS PRODUCED MORE CO2 RATHER THAN MORE CO2 PRODUCING GLOBAL WASRMING. This accords with the reality that the oceans hold the vast majority of the planet's carbon and the laws of physics let cold oceans hold more co2 gas than warm oceans" .

Thanks for the heads up, farmerman!!

I agree, Monrtery Jack. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil but not because we fear the oven of 2100( two whole degrees higher-oh my) but because our country will benefit from Hydrogen Fueled Autos.

I will sign a letter with you, if you wish. We will send the letter to the AFL Unions in Detroit whose people work making autos. We will ask them to stand down until Hydrogen Fueled autos can be produced.

I do not think that President Obama will have anything to do at this time which will increase the Unemployment rolls or cause companies to fail because of excessive cost involved in"greening".

You made no comment on this,Monterey Jack. It is a vital part of the discussion.

You realize, of course, that the consumer drives the economy. When Oil was at 140 a barrel, people were talking about the Volt. Now that Oil is at 4 0 a barrel,almost all talk has ceased. Why is that?

rosborne 979, You are so right. You have hit it on the head. They want an "ideology change". This change is especially sought by America haters who would love to see our economy return to eighteen century levels. I am convinced that the hippies of the sixties and seventies and their offspring want to return America to a kind of a frontier land where the air is perfectly clean and the streams are pristine. I don't think there is much of a chance of this happening since it would also probably mean that there would be no indoor plumbing. The superannuated hippies talk a good game, rosborne 979 but they would never agree to do without indoor plumbing!

Global warming - whether man-made or due to other causes - became a political issue when AGW advocates demanded actions to counter it which will certainly have significant, and in some cases, devastating economic side effects on populations throughout the world.

While it is true that the decline in demand and the attendant drop in the price of petroleum from over $150/barrel to about $40/barrel today has reduced investment in "new" technologies ranging from solar to the efficcient extraction of petroleum from the tar sands in Alberta, it is not necessarily advisable for us to replace natural economic incentives with specific legal requirements, such as the proposed new CAFE standards. In the first place people generally, and manufacturers in particular, are generally smarter and more adaptive than the brueaucrats who craft and enforce regulations - CAFE standards didn't work in the past and they aren't likely to work in the future.

The least disruptive and likely most efficient government intervention in this area would be a new Federal tax on petroleum - whether used in vehicles or for the generation of heat or power. However, because the costs of this action are so clear and obvious, no one dares propose it. Politicians favor instead less effective options that cost more but hide their real cost behind a wall of illusions.

The least effective and most disruptive forms of government intervention are in things like CAFE standards, direct subsidies for favored technologies, or hidden subsidies such as the California requirement that electrical power producers produce a specifice fraction of their output from politically favored "green" technologies (oddly zero emission nuclear power is not one of them). All these do is create the illusion of constructive action; destroy the exonomic incentives for the development of lower cost green technologies; and impose even higher future costs on an economy not currently able to bear them.

George OB1- How are you. As usual,your abilty to cut to the heart of a debate is apparent. I must replicate your opening sentence. I hope everyone will read it again.

Global warming - whether man-made or due to other causes - became a political issue when AGW advocated demanded actions to counter it which will certainly have significant, and in some cases, devastating economic side effects on populations throughout the world.

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

Of course, Ican,but the left wing is very frighttened of such data. Solar activity is indeed implicated in the alleged global warming, but since there is nothing that can be done about the sun's activity, the left wing rejects that explanation as at least part of the problem.

You see, Ican, with your explanation, no one can begin to REMAKE AMERICA!!!

ALAS, YOU ARE CORRECT. TRUTH ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD IS TRULY DISPIRITING TO THE PERPETRATORS OF THAT FRAUD.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
YEAR . CAD ... SI ... A-AAGT . AAGT
1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546 287.606
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296 287.356
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270 287.330
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409 287.469
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464 287.524
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473 287.533
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422 287.482
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405 287.465
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.324 287.384

Irrelevant. Short term trends (mere centuries) can not be differentiated from data noise and random fluctuations.

The long term trends are clear, cyclic and regular.

UNLESS someone thinks that the present quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to alter the long term trend. And nobody has even hazarded a guess about that yet.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Trend

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

You forgot the House of Hansen, osborne, they are not only guessing, they are etching the guesses into stone, and now Obama is making big noises about demanding the car companies charge you alot more for a car, and probably the cost of everything else as well, to pay lip service to reducing CO2. I say lip service, because it will do little or nothing in that regard.

Those cars, where companies have reduced the CO2 emission, don't cost more - at leas not when you look at the price you pay for them.

I asmit that still the emission is quite high - but technically it's not really a problem: some manufacturers can do it, why not the others?

I mis-spoke, Walter, Obama is not demanding the cars cost alot more, but some industry analysts are predicting they will, in order for the companies to meet the new government standards that are being suggested by Obama. It seems logical that it would increase costs, and this in the face of a failing industry does not seem all that logical, it certainly needs to be proven that it can be done reasonably without unintended consequences. For example, would it lead to more people driving older cars, which actually may render worse results in terms of emissions?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28846202/

"But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law. And it estimated the rules would cost the industry more than $100 billion to implement the changes by 2020."

So, we're trusting Bush admin estimations now, Okie?

Didn't you learn better than that over the last 8 years? LOL

Cycloptichorn

On comparing the Co2 footprint of the flawed inauguration ceremony to that of the valid one in the Map room I would say "plate-lip service" and not feel I was exaggerating.

How come, 10, 15 years ago the EXPERTS were telling us that
an ice age was coming and we would all be frozen over in a few years ?
Now it's global warming and the coastal dwellers will all drown.
"Global Warming" is now such big business that we can't afford to perhaps
admit that it is a natural happening.
We are susceptible to believing unproven concepts if they are repeated often
enough by 'experts' " be they real, self-perceived or self-proclaimed."


The Great Global Warming Swindle ?

Al Gore won't be testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week ... because there is going to be a snow storm.

Al Gore and global warming are fast becoming a universally recognized joke.

I think you are the big joke.