Re: Ontopic AGW Real, Affects Agriculture, ie Horses

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:14:10 -0400, "RPM1" <rpm9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Aunt Nasty"
I read this group regularly, and hadn't left.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

That's good: some folks would do away with
freedom of expression entirely, however, to
promote their agenda.

If you really want to be welcoming, start
having some empathy for others.

After 22+ years dedicated to [non-union] Human Services, in lieu of a decent
paycheck, I think I'm pretty well set for empathy, thanks.

That doesn't matter if you support doing
horrific harm to millions of other people.

The phrase "...little impact on the US temperature
trend (much less the global trend)" would mean
exactly what, in your lexicon?

It means that Ruedy is, predictably, minimizing the data correction. No
great surprise.

What causes you to believe that?

Are you aware that the rate of glacier and
polar melt is accelerating?

Where's your data?

I don't have any one favorite source for information, but, rather collection
of resources.

Any besides Rush Limbaugh?

Anything peer-reviewed?

I do tend to be squinty eyed toward the straight-up climate
modelers; considering how they're poised to effect people's lives, I feel
compelled to look beyond their agenda driven scope.

What's going to affect the lives of humans and
horses is the global warming going on.

Deserts don't tend to produce good pasture or
hay, in case you hadn't noticed.


"Unique climates and the species that inhabit them may disappear from the Earth entirely
due to global warming, computer models suggest.

Changes in regions such as the Peruvian Andes, portions of the Himalayas and southern
Australia could have a profound impact on indigenous plants and animals, said John W.
Williams, assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

The findings are being published in this week's online edition of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/26/science-climatechange.html


Here is one I'm most interested in at the moment - look toward the bottom
for the link for the data THEN compare it to your favorite global
temperature chart. The flips in the PDO seem to match GW trends. 1976 in
particular is very interesting. Who's leading and who's following in the
dance is not clear:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

The chart you mention there depicts a significant overall
warming trend, actually.


Also interesting:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/15/stalagmite-story/

That warmer periods occurred in the past isn't in question.

That overall warming trends are in evidence isn't, really, either,
nor that human activity contributes to them.


"As the world gets hotter by degrees, millions of poor people will suffer from hunger,
thirst, floods and disease unless drastic action is taken, scientists and diplomats warned
April 5 in their bleakest report ever on global warming."

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070331_climate.htm


One certainly hopes that you're not into forcing people and
other animals to endure uncomfortably high temperatures
without access to water, but if you support what Bush
and Cheney are doing to Iraq, you must.


Of course we also follow:
www.realclimate.org

Nothing there actually refutes the scientific findings, though.

Again, you should go for that which is peer-reviewed, if you
develop the self-discipline to manage it.

"...There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in
ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices,
called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is
more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause
these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise
temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further,
and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to
start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is
sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere..."

http://energybulletin.net/3647.html

See also:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/biodiversity.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/2004021116504.html
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/grhskill.html

General:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

I've got dozens of links if you really want them. Somehow I doubt you're
really interested.

I'm interested in that which is peer-reviewed and confirmed
by the available data.

Why aren't you?

If you weren't mistaken, what good would you do? As you
are, don't you care at all about the harm? Is Exxon paying
you to promote their profits at the expense of others?


"...as the world?s average temperature warms from 1990 levels, the projections get more
dire. Add 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit -- 1 degree Celsius is the calculation scientists use?and
between 400 million and 1.7 billion extra people can?t get enough water, some infectious
diseases and allergenic pollens rise, and some amphibians go extinct...

....Add another 1.8 degrees and as many as 2 billion people could be without water and
about 20 percent to 30 percent of the world?s species near extinction. Also, more people
start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts?all caused
by global warming...

....a 7- to 9-degree average temperature increase, the chart predicts: ?Up to one-fifth of
the world population affected by increased flood events ... ?1.1 to 3.2 billion people
with increased water scarcity? ...?major extinctions around the globe.?..."

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/31/climate-report-maps-out-highway-to-extinction/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F17889856%2F&frame=true


The thing is, I'm not yet convinced on AGW as opposed to GW [a naturally
occurring geological/historical trend]. I'm fully prepared to change my
mind. Whatever concrete 'proof' of AGW is yet to come - I don't see that
happening for 2-3 years. Until then, I gather information. ANY
information - from any side.

You're saying that you believe humans don't add any heat at
all to the environment.

Do you often believe in such magical, nonscientific things?

AGW or not, our carbon footprint is at 19/23 just in case [17 is the World
Average - 80 is the US average, from which Al Gore is exempt].

Al Gore would have secured civilian aviation, and not
invaded Iraq.

That would've made a significant difference in energy
and climate issues, including carbon, right there.

Your idol is definitely making the heat more oppressive
in Iraq. Why do you support forcing even babies to go
without water in temperatures higher than 100°F? If
you support the warmongers, then your statement
above is a tad too similar to boasting of having
dusted off your knickknacks after getting back
from shitting in all your neighbors' foyers.

It just
makes economic sense to conserve energy, but it also makes scientific sense
to be a skeptic.

The thousands of scientists who note the evidence for
global warming aren't unskeptical, though.

RCM
"Wrong does not cease to be worng because the majority share in it."
~Tolstoy

If anything has ever been wrong, the way Americans are
being robbed and killed to rob and kill others while cashing
in on all the suffering and burning out even future generations
is wrong.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:01:50 -0400, "RPM1" <rpm9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Welcome back!

I read this group regularly, and hadn't left.

If you really want to be welcoming, start
having some empathy for others.

Too often people mention that their first
impressions of some horse people are ones
of elitist insensitivity to the real world. I
do appreciate when posts here reflect a
sense of connection to more than mere
selfishness, fallacy, and myth.

Um, you might want to know that NASA

The phrase "...little impact on the US temperature
trend (much less the global trend)" would mean
exactly what, in your lexicon?

your hero...

What forces you to make unwarranted presumptions?

What makes you confuse the insignificant for the significant?

Where's your data?


"Sheesh... Didn't take the trolls long to show up, did it?

For readers actually interested in a discussion of the science involved in climate change
(oriented toward "beginners"), here are my suggestions:

RealClimate's "Start here":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

NCAR's "Weather & Climate Basics":
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html

NASA's global warming pages:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/

If you'd rather listen than read, I've put together some podcast episodes on the topic
(scroll to the bottom & work your way up):
http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/category-climate.html

Posted by: Lorne Ipsum | Aug 9, 2007 12:33:29 PM"

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/climate-change-.html


"The Netherlands reported the highest temperature since measurements were first taken in
1706, averaging about 7.1°C (44.78°F).

This temperature is 2.8°C (5°F) above the 1961-1990 average.

In Germany, the temperatures in January soared even higher, averaging 4.6°C (8.2°F) above
the 1961-1990 average."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-08-01.asp

See also:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aQmnv789UoyQ&refer=canada

http://greenoptions.com/2007/08/08/newsweek_takes_on_global_warming_deniers

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:48:22 -0400, "RPM1" <rpm9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs ...

Why do you believe such nonsense?

Worse yet, why do you spread such pollution?

Do you hope to get a check from Exxon for it?

Why don't you contact the American Physical Society,
NASA, the Netherlands, Germany, the sources above,
and the relevant journals then get back to the group
with what they tell you in response.

Here's a site with links to the experts at NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/


Those glaciers are melting away just for the fun of
it, right?


Do you believe that horses would benefit from the
effects of human carelessness with climate effects?

Why?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Brrr - Coldest April In China In 50 Years
    ... Here is Hansen's recent analysis of the bunk of global cooling. ... We conclude there has been no reduction in the global warming trend. ... Q. Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: Climate change? Global warming?
    ... statement that global warming "may be" real or cyclical. ... I alluded to here is simply a couple of centuries worth of temperature ... the trend will continue, stabilize, or reverse itself. ... agreement......but direct measurement of temperature is still the most ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... Is it the H2o in the atmosphere - water is after all more powerful than CO2, it acts in both positive and negative feedback loops and we have no idea if it is cooling the Earth or heating it. ... Helped in getting panic reaction to possible leapard in the bushes; but definitely hurts when researchers fudge the data processing to get trend lines that show GW in real data as well as random numbers. ... While conceding that global warming is occurring, you argue that we should not use means at our disposal to reverse it. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: How does this snow fit in with global warming?
    ... How do AGW enthusiasts square this with global warming, ... So the upward trend is being masked by the falling average ... temperature since 1998. ... indeed...but i see no falling global trend for the last 10 years. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: O/T - Global Warming has ceased
    ... I think seven years of no temperature change is a good trend to show ... A response to "Has global warming really stopped?" ... But look at the change in the average over the long term, and the trend is ... Look at the graph below, showing global temperatures over the last 25 years. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)