Video: Global Warming Swindle

[paulj]

The greenhouse gas theory can be traced back to 1900, when Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea that an increase in CO2 could produce warming. Being a resident of cold Sweden he thought that was a good idea.

I don't recall much about the warnings in the 70s about impending ice age. There, of course, have been lots of speculation about what triggered the ice ages, and how long it might be before continental ice sheets might again advance. I suspect the more alarmist talk was coupled with nuclear winter warnings.

However our ability to model the earth's climate, and to make observations, has advance significantly since the 1970s. Our knowledge of past climate has also advanced significantly, using ice cores, deep ocean cores, tree rings, lake bottom cores, and other indicators.

paulj

 

[teotwaki]

Like posters have said, there is always two sides to every story. The truth is in between.

About your hypocritical brother in law comments, if you dig deep enough everyone is hypocrit.

The only way to have 100% non-impact to the environment, we as a human will need to be deceased or live in huts. Since thats not pratically, we have conserve (not preserve) limited resources.

Yes, everyone is a hypocrite about something, but that is such a general statement as to be disingenuous with respect to our discussion.

I don't want my brother-in-law or Al Gore or anybody to lecture me specifically about Global Warming when they have different rules for themselves.

The truth that is in between? If blatant pollution is curbed and when "Global Warming" is as thoroughly debunked as "Global Cooling" was we'll be in a nice middle ground. The fact is that the two extremes battle it out and the middle ground yields some nice dividends. Cars that use less or no gas. Airliners that are bigger, quieter, faster and more reliable that allow us to access the entire world. Cheap and high quality goods from China (and then their pollution blows here, sigh).

I will not roll over and die to bring about 100% non-impact. Living in a hut is no answer as the "peaceful-respectful" Mayans wreaked havoc on the environment in their day.

Being a cheapskate, I rarely run the heater at home and when appropriate, new vehicles are chosen with fuel-efficiency as a big factor. However, I won't melt down my perfectly good 1989 full-sized Ford Bronco. My son drives it 25 miles a week for school so little gas is used. However, the energy invested in its manufacture and raw materials that are lost upon scrapping are not worth its premature demise. It is better to continue using it than spend $20k on a new car that eats up more irreplaceable natural resources soley in the name of fuel economy.

 

[teotwaki]

The greenhouse gas theory can be traced back to 1900, when Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea that an increase in CO2 could produce warming. Being a resident of cold Sweden he thought that was a good idea.

I don't recall much about the warnings in the 70s about impending ice age. There, of course, have been lots of speculation about what triggered the ice ages, and how long it might be before continental ice sheets might again advance. I suspect the more alarmist talk was coupled with nuclear winter warnings.

However our ability to model the earth's climate, and to make observations, has advance significantly since the 1970s. Our knowledge of past climate has also advanced significantly, using ice cores, deep ocean cores, tree rings, lake bottom cores, and other indicators.

paulj

Time Magazine has written an embarassed rebuttal of a previous 1974 Global Cooling shill piece. So did Newsweek about their 1975 article. In 30 years they'll do the same for Global Warming.

 

[paulj]

So Hubbard Glacier advanced in 1996 and 2002, threatening to dam an inlet and form a 'Lake Russell'. As best I can tell, it hasn't surged since then. The Google Earth image looks similar to the image in the 2003 paper. I can't find any news of a further advance.

Apart from disproving any simplistic 'all glaciers are melting' claim, the behavior of Hubbard Glacier does not disprove GW. I suspect the Hubbard Glacier case is being used to knock down a strawman, rather than advance a serious dialog about the subject.

Wiki has a lengthy article on glacier retreat, with lots of photos.

paulj

 

[Super Doody]

Yes, everyone is a hypocrite about something, but that is such a general statement as to be disingenuous with respect to our discussion.

"disingenuous"? You brought up your brother in law not me. I'm just commenting on it.

 

[Super Doody]

here is another good video on GW

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

 

[teotwaki]

"disingenuous"? You brought up your brother in law not me. I'm just commenting on it.

Super Doody

Sorry for being too sharp sounding. I used that word because I was being specific about Global Warming and my irritating b-i-l's hypocrisy but to me your comment was a non-related generalization about human nature that only served as a distracting tangent to the core issue.

Wow. What a run-on sentence generator I am....

 

[teotwaki]

here is another good video on GW

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

God that busted me up. Will Ferrell for President!

 

[teotwaki]

So Hubbard Glacier advanced in 1996 and 2002, threatening to dam an inlet and form a 'Lake Russell'. As best I can tell, it hasn't surged since then. The Google Earth image looks similar to the image in the 2003 paper. I can't find any news of a further advance.

Apart from disproving any simplistic 'all glaciers are melting' claim, the behavior of Hubbard Glacier does not disprove GW. I suspect the Hubbard Glacier case is being used to knock down a strawman, rather than advance a serious dialog about the subject.

Wiki has a lengthy article on glacier retreat, with lots of photos.

paulj

the strawman is "Global Warming" which is where the fear-mongering and simplistic "all glaciers are melting" mantra originates.

Typical quote with emphasis added by me:

"Photographer Gary Braasch holding a 1932 photo of Broggi glacier near Huascaran in the Peruvian Andes, while rephotographing this receding glacier in 1999. Glaciers everywhere in the world (with a very few exceptions) have been shrinking throughout the 20th Century, a prime signal of rapid global warming. Loss of tropical glaciers is particularly rapid. This glacier, previously photographed by the Austrian Hans Kinzl, receded about one kilometer in 67 years.

Note the dismissive "with very few exceptions" since we don't want to confuse the sheep with this minor issue.....


This poor Russian scientist stepped into a maelstrom for doubting "Global Warming".

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Given that I helped put the first Mars Rover there it must be my fault....

 

[Haggis]

I can remeber being in elementry school in the mid 70's and being taught all about how in thirty years that glaciers would extend as far down south as here in NW PA and that there would be hundreds of feet of ice covering our ruined towns. There were videos and worksheets, there was even a "expert" that came and visited our school to educate us poor dimwitted hick childrens. If an "expert" (ie. educated idiot) tells you something on any subject first check to see what his monetary interest in the subject is and you will most likely find someone looking for a handout (govt. grant or your donation) to finance himself instead of actually doing something productive with his time.

 

[paulj]

Note the dismissive "with very few exceptions" since we don't want to confuse the sheep with this minor issue.....

So one exception has been mentioned, any more?
I recall one other exception (from a glaciology gather several year ago), Taku Glacier south of Juneau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Glacier
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/juneau icefield.htm

Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?

Aren't you curious as to why some many glaciers are retreating? Or are you going to take the attitude that since there are exceptions to a blanket statement, it is impossible to use glaciers as an indicator of climate change?

paulj

I might add that there is another category of glacier that advances every so often, surging glaciers. Black Rapids in the Alaska Range is one that has been well studied; if it really 'kicked up it's heels' it could over run an Alaska highway. Variegated Glacier near Hubbard is another. McGinnis is one that surged recently. Surging is something that facinates glaciologists, but like the advance of tidewater glaciers, has more to do with conditions at the bed of the glacier than global climate changes.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers05-en.html

another page on the swiss site shows other retreating and advancing glaciers. Lots of good material on glaciers at this site.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers04-en.html

Here's an accessment of glacial changes in Norway. Norway depends strongly on glacial meltwater for hydro power, and, thus has spent a lot of money studying them. There is even a tunnel under one glacier that gives access to a cavity in the base of the glacier. I know a prof who installed some strain guages there.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3561&lang=en

 

[teotwaki]

[THREAD JACK]

Say, what do you do? I ask because I worked on and around a couple of the JPL Mars programs, MGS and Odyssey that the rovers talk to, and MRO. I work at SEAKR, hardware side of things (SEAKR did the SSRs and we also do CTIF, C&DH, etc).

[/THREAD JACK]

Mars sort of runs in the family. My oldest brother wrote software for image processing on the Viking landers back in in those days. On Sojourner I was the RF/Telecom fix-it guy. When the original Rover team had trouble testing the lander/rover radio modems for bit error rate I helped them rebuild the test set up. The modem's main reference oscillator had to be redesigned (long story). I took over the procurement and test and install of the lander's low gain antenna waveguide stack and I also did the same for the receive/transmit diplexing filter. I was flight hardware certified and got to wear the bunny suit and all in the assembly room. :beer:

As a side note I designed and built the original 4 channel DDS phase-continuous RF sources for the Deep Space Network 70 meter dishes. Those were used to talk directly to the rover. On the first day of landing when they had trouble talking to the rover, who did they call? (Even though I had left the Labs)



Not quite a thread-jack! This actually helps me to bring up that I worked with scientists and mathematicians of the highest caliber in a government funded pure research environment. I knew PLANETARY climatologists that were the best in the Solar System. Some GW proponents need to understand that I know enough that "global warming" sets off my very qualified bull**** detector. As recalled by others, we saw it all before in the 70's and the familiar smell is back.

Again, mankind is not innocent of pollution and waste. We can improve and I know conservation is a good thing. It is unfortunate that GW is so politicized and hyped that mildly interesting basic climate research has been perverted into a politician's run for office and scare-mongering to control vast sums of money.

 

[elcoyote]

Here's something for contemplation:

Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: March 8, 2007
Byline: Andrew C. Revkin
Original URL


Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.

In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.

Environmentalists are trying to use such a listing to force the United States to restrict heat-trapping gases that scientists have linked to global warming as a way of limiting risks to the 22,000 or so bears in the far north.

It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. The Fish and Wildlife Service this week held the first of several hearings in Alaska and Washington on the question.

Over the past week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. Under the heading “Foreign Travel — New Requirement — Please Review and Comply, Importance: High,” the cover note said:

“Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.”

The sample memorandums, described as to be used in writing travel requests, indicate that the employee seeking permission to travel “understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”

Electronic copies of the memorandums and cover note were forwarded to The New York Times by Deborah Williams, an environmental campaigner in Alaska and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration.

“This sure sounds like a Soviet-style directive to me,” Ms. Williams said.

A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, Bruce Woods, confirmed the authenticity of the notes, but interpreted them differently.

“The cover memo makes it clear nobody is being told they can't talk about these issues,” Mr. Woods said. “What the administration wants to know is who is going to be spokesperson and do they understand administration policy? It's not saying you won't talk about it.”

Limits on government scientists' freedom to speak freely about climate change became a heated issue last year after news reports showed that political appointees at NASA had canceled journalists' interview requests with climate scientists and discouraged news releases on global warming.

Can you say "Spin Doctors" 10 times real fast????

 

[teotwaki]

Here's something for contemplation:

Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: March 8, 2007
Byline: Andrew C. Revkin
Original URL

.................SNIP..................

Can you say "Spin Doctors" 10 times real fast????

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH. Black helicopters and conspiracies! Big governments and big companies love to control information flow. So does the UN, Green Peace and Earth First. Money and politics have polarized the whole discussion.

 

[teotwaki]

So one exception has been mentioned, any more?
I recall one other exception (from a glaciology gather several year ago), Taku Glacier south of Juneau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Glacier
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/juneau icefield.htm

Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?

Aren't you curious as to why some many glaciers are retreating? Or are you going to take the attitude that since there are exceptions to a blanket statement, it is impossible to use glaciers as an indicator of climate change?

paulj

I might add that there is another category of glacier that advances every so often, surging glaciers. Black Rapids in the Alaska Range is one that has been well studied; if it really 'kicked up it's heels' it could over run an Alaska highway. Variegated Glacier near Hubbard is another. McGinnis is one that surged recently. Surging is something that facinates glaciologists, but like the advance of tidewater glaciers, has more to do with conditions at the bed of the glacier than global climate changes.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers05-en.html

another page on the swiss site shows other retreating and advancing glaciers. Lots of good material on glaciers at this site.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers04-en.html

Here's an accessment of glacial changes in Norway. Norway depends strongly on glacial meltwater for hydro power, and, thus has spent a lot of money studying them. There is even a tunnel under one glacier that gives access to a cavity in the base of the glacier. I know a prof who installed some strain guages there.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3561&lang=en

Thanks for the links and the other bits like this:

"Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?"

Therefore (in my best Monty Python voice) if your Toyota has freezing doors, then you are the cause of all freezing doors!!!

One exception does not necessarily blow down the Global Strawman of "Warming" yet one exception seems to have you pretty determined to stamp it out. That helps other folks to further question the total facade of "global warming" and not rush to worship at the altar of climatalogical apocalypse.

I don't dismiss glacial melting as being part of climate change. Show me where I said that. Glacial melting has happened billions of times on this planet and others. What I do dismiss is the supposedly foregone conclusion that glacial melting is the fault of mankind.

Yeah, yeah. Science is so much more wonderful and accurate since the BS about Global Cooling 30 years ago so how could we possibly be wrong this time??? :xxrotflma