New US military report on global warming raises worry

Calls theories on the cause ‘contradictory’

By Bryan Bender

Boston Globe / December 6, 2008

WASHINGTON – A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is “contradictory” – a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn’t fully embraced the urgency of climate change.

The long-range planning document, published Thursday by the US Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which is responsible for developing blueprints for future military strategy, is intended to provide a “basis for thinking about the world a quarter of a century from now.”

But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.

The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that “the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent – and controversial – national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer.”

It adds: “In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.”

That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.

Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually “wrong” and “out of line,” saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.

Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.

“It’s very wrong,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. “The jury is not out” on what is causing global warming, he added. “I don’t know where that statement came from, but it’s pretty bizarre.”

Emanuel also took issue with the report’s assertions about future storm intensity.

“Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much,” he said in an interview.

The Joint Forces Command maintains that it is fully cognizant of the threat posed by climate change, saying the purpose of the report was not to debate what is or isn’t causing global warming.

“We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” said Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”

He added in an interview yesterday: “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.”

At yesterday’s conference, specialists agreed that the cascading effects of global warming – including drought, flooding, population flows, and disease epidemics – present the United States and other countries with enormous security threats in the years ahead – warnings that have been echoed by recent Pentagon reports and intelligence assessments.

Ronald Sugar, the CEO of Northrop Grumman, one of the nation’s leading defense companies, spoke of the need for private industry and the government to begin the difficult task of bridging the enormous knowledge base about what is happening to the earth’s climate to development of technical solutions that can help repair it.

“We have to build something that does not exist,” Sugar said.

But Burke said in a follow-up interview that it remains worrisome that some in the military command responsible for helping prepare for future dangers still appear to question the science of why global warming is occurring. She believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to New US military report on global warming raises worry

  1. philw1776 says:

    “We have to build something that does not exist,” Sugar said.

    Perfect! A great response to a crisis that does not exist.

  2. Ecotretas says:

    Great stuff. It’s absolutely normal that military consider realistic scenarios. And global cooling would certainly be one of them!
    Ecotretas

  3. Michael J. Bentley says:

    Well, well, well.

    Conclusions on global warming are contradictory are they??? Sometimes the military can be “the mouths of babes”. Of course, the “get’erdone” crowd is aghast at such heresy.

    The military as a voice of reason in the cacophony of panic – now that’s an oxymoron….

    Mike

  4. It would be a blessed miracle if some of the honesty and pragmatism in this report makes its way undiluted to President-elect Obama. With many warning of an “ice-free Arctic” any second now, the melting of Greenland and incipient flooding of Manhattan, etc., thank God not every government scientist is obsessed with the bogeyman of carbon dioxide.

    Ten years from now, when the cooling has begun in earnest, this debate is going to get really interesting. And, by the way, I’m not catastrophizing on the side of cooling. I predict that we will handle the pendulum swinging toward cold for a few decades.

    In the meantime, I simply don’t know how “scientists” live with themselves as they continue to frighten people about the wrong problem.

  5. Paul Hildebrandt says:

    But Burke said in a follow-up interview that it remains worrisome that some in the military command responsible for helping prepare for future dangers still appear to question the science of why global warming is occurring. She believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.

    These people in the military command who do not fully embrace the science will be singled out and sent to indoctrination camps so that they do fully embrace the consensus science. IOW, “How dare they question the science?”

  6. Bill Marsh says:

    I sense a purge of the military high command coming. They are clearly ‘not of the body’.

    “Emanuel also took issue with the report’s assertions about future storm intensity.

    “Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events “could” (emphasis mine) go up with global warming, although we argue how much,” he said in an interview.”

    Well, stating ‘could’ vs ‘will’ certainly doesn’t makes that statement itself a tad self-contradictory, doesn’t it?

    The High Priests of the Church of CO2 Worship are not pleased. They find your lack of faith… disturbing.

  7. Bill Marsh says:

    Oops, meant to delete the ‘doesn’t’ from that sentence. More coffee is needed.

  8. Mike M says:

    amazing when a government document speaks the truth it causes a hub-bub.. the Military has a life and death obligation to it’s troops, so it speaks without bias to the root of whatever it is analyzing.

    the real urgency seems to be in the pushing of the AGW religion. Professional adherence to what is and is not known cannot be tolerated.

  9. AASmith says:

    These comments came from consultants of “Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.” Do you wonder if they actually read scientific literature and know of the ongoing debates about climate? Or do they just read bits and pieces of editorials, watch National Geographic specials, and the like. It is a shame that these same consultants’ remarks will always be reported and quoted and taken as the gold standard. Good for the US Joint Forces Command ! At least they are trying to present a more unbiased view of causes and effects.

  10. Mike Bryant says:

    Kerry Emanuel, the scientist, said, “Everyone PRETTY MUCH agrees that the intensity of events COULD go up with global warming, although WE ARGUE how much. ” Those are weasel words that give weight to the military’s statement.

    Any thinking person who reads this blog knows that the military’s statement is the unvarnished truth.

    I think the military is saying, no matter what the cause, keep us strong to handle any “intense events”.

  11. Sean Ogilvie says:

    I love this quote:

    “Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much,”

    It says NOTHING! He doesn’t say it will.
    If; 1. The earth warmer and 2. There are fewer storms he can say; “We said it COULD go up not that it WOULD go up.”

  12. JB says:

    …(T)here are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.

    Good.

  13. D Caldwell says:

    More evidence that the field of climate science has become more advocacy than science.
    Allowing any further debate on the science simply distracts us from the task at hand – reducing CO2 emissions.

  14. David Ball says:

    The driver of the “climate car”, as anyone who has remotely looked at this subject knows, has yet to be determined. No matter what side of the discussion you are on, there is no “conclusive proof” for any( or all) of the possible suspects. To claim otherwise is non-scientific. I have my suspicions as to the culprit(s), but one has to admit, we do not have all the information necessary to draw any absolute conclusions. IMHO, there are still too many variables in an extremely complex system for us to determine root cause(s). The AGW believers jump on this saying that we skeptics don’t have an answer, and they do. That is simply not the case. The turtle won the race, didn’t he?

  15. tarpon says:

    Pay more in taxes to gubbermint, so gubbermint scientists can pretend to control the weather — The perfect tax fraud.

    So how will we know when something is being accomplished? And when we are done? And then there is the issue of what those taxes will be spent for — See the tobacco settlement for details.

    There are some facts worth thinking about, when it gets warm, you sweat, plants grow and food crops flourish. When it gets cold, the reverse happens, in particular, food crops suffer. We should be preparing for cold, instead we are busy chasing around a tax fraud scheme trying to ration energy and control people’s lives. This is not going to end well for the planet and it’s people.

  16. Mike Bryant says:

    The New American Army

    Of course, all combatants will be clad in the new zero carbon suits which automatically converts the polluted (CO2) exhalations of the soldier into it’s component parts C and O. The C and O will be collected by the new Carbon Retrieval Force which will serve alongside the combatants. Oxygen, it goes without saying, is also a pollutant in large quantities just as CO2 is.
    The Army will be equipped with all electric transport, and will be armed with Bows and arrows. Of course anything that involves chemical explosions of any sort will not be used on the battlefield. Slingshots will be used as sidearms. The Air Force will use only gliders powered by catapult and electric motors. The Navy Ships will be converted to galleys and be powered by paddles. The Marines will power the galleys. Ships will be equipped with catapults and archers.

  17. sod says:

    these are the same guys, who made Powell claim, that he knows where the WMDs are stored, in front of the UN.

    yes, Obama will allow scientists and experts to be heard, not those who simply have the task to spin the truth and obfuscate reality. good times ahead.

  18. JimB says:

    Some very interesting stuff from Sharon…seems she led a climate-war games exercise recently:

    http://newsecuritybeat.blogspot.com/2008/09/guest-contributor-sharon-burke-on.html

    And in her write up, she states that one of the differences is the projections used were real?

    “The context of the game was an emergency ad-hoc meeting of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters in 2015—China, the European Union, India, and the United States—to consider future projections (unlike most war games, the projections were real;”

    Page listing “projections”:
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/WarGaming

    Mommy?

    JimB

  19. JimB says:

    Conclusion of the game posted on Nature:

    “10:15 a.m.
    The game ends. Delegates worked out compromises on the emissions targets, with regard to both India and China, and then spent another 45 minutes poring over the rest of the agreement. What’s remarkable is how fast a role-playing “game” turned into a seemingly interminable political and bureaucratic exercise. Notes were passed, objections were raised. No word was too small to dispute.

    But United Nations Secretary General John Podesta finally rang the bell, acknowledging that a number of issues – including his own proposal to create a major new international fund for clean technology – were left on the table.

    Significantly, the game ended without a binding agreement on emissions reductions. The United States and Europe committed to a 30 percent reduction in emissions by 2025, and all of the parties agreed to shoot for the same targets at a global level. But China, while endorsing the idea of numeric targets, did not actually agree to any specifics. India walked away with specific targets, but with some contingencies as well. And even these concessions might not have been possible without a substantial cash infusion from the West.

    On migration, the countries agreed on the need to recognize climate refugees as such, while stressing that they must be distinguished from people who are displaced by other natural disasters, such as earthquakes. “Non-coercive repatriation” to the country of origin should be the preference, and international assistance should be forthcoming to smooth this process.

    The draft agreement broadly supports new agricultural programs and regional partnerships for managing water resources, although there is little in the way of specifics. It would also create a new “International Disaster Relief Organization” to help coordinate emergency operations around the globe. ”

    See Climate War Game: Angry Red Chart here:

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/events/climate_war_game/

    Ima hide now.

    Jimsomebodyelse

  20. Paul says:

    I think the military doesn’t understand a key point about global warming: even when it’s getting cooler, it’s actually getting warmer.

  21. Mike Bryant says:

    So sad that the military is more intelligent than the CIA.

  22. LarryOldtimer says:

    Consus is not science. The whole AGW panic is a hoax by people who stand to make a lot of money from the panic. But then, I don’t guess that scientific method is taught by all that many professors these days.

    Better to get the grant than pursue any real science these days.

  23. Gary says:

    In the meantime, I simply don’t know how “scientists” live with themselves as they continue to frighten people about the wrong problem.

    May I suggest that it comes from their own fears: 1) that they truly believe in CO2 induced AGW and it scares them, 2) that they find themselves in a position of responsibility for warning of disaster and fear being blamed for failing to do so, 3) that they fear the consequences of not following the consensus, 4) that they are worried about their livelihoods and the professional competition of their colleagues. Fear and greed are primal motivators. We see the greed in the cap-and-trade scam. We shouldn’t overlook the aspect of fear motivating scientists.

  24. Freezing Finn says:

    OT – or maybe not – but I’d be interested in some educated, yet open minded ;) thoughts on a phenomenon called “chemtrails”, thanks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

  25. AKD says:

    Good to know that a consensus of “scientists” is no longer important, just a consensus of “specialists.” If all the AGW “specialists agree” that AGW is real, then clearly it is.

  26. You can see what’s coming next. After January 20th, no Pentagon climate-related report will doubt that the science is settled.

  27. Bruce Cobb says:

    Science is such a difficult thing for the AGW Religionists to grasp. To them, to express any doubt or skepticism is heresy. They cannot understand it, and cannot abide by it.

    But then we have:

    “The Joint Forces Command maintains that it is fully cognizant of the threat posed by climate change, saying the purpose of the report was not to debate what is or isn’t causing global warming.

    “We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future” said Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”
    He added in an interview yesterday: “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.””

    That is quite an amazing display of back-pedaling and spin, undoubtedly in response to the frantic objections of the AGW propagandists.
    Do they really “see what is happening”? I highly doubt it. What “effects” is he even talking about? He doesn’t know, or care what is causing climate change, but knows it “will be a national security driver in the future”.

    This, I guess, is what is called “military intelligence”. Fighting an unknown “enemy”, keeping us safe from the bogeyman.

  28. Mongo says:

    “The military as a voice of reason in the cacophony of panic – now that’s an oxymoron….” Michael Bentley. This is sterotypical and has no place here, and is just as inaccurate as man-made CO2 being the principle driver of “global warming”. Most people just have no clue how many truly gifted, intelligent and very well educated people are in the military and that a culture of learning and higher education exists within it’s corporate culture. Having recently retired from the military after 30 years, I know this to be fact. Also to address one other post – the CIA was responsible for the intelligence product used by Pres Bush and SecState Powell. The mlitary is a tool or wepaon, wielded by the policy makers folks – not the other way around.

    These reports, cover a wide range of issues that affect equipment, training and operations, and ultimately funding and focus. Lots of synergy in the process, and the fact that it made the comments concerning conflicting theories made it through to the final version speaks volumes about the lack of politicization, despite what you see on your TV’s. They are also used as a basis for conducting exercises to see what unforseen effects if any show up and how to cope with them.

    Unfortunately, what it also signals is that day has now ended as politics will most definitely shape what the military states in public what it thnks is causig “global warming” from this day on.

  29. Bill Marsh says:

    I think the military is missing the boat here. It seem to me they should be concentrating on development of ‘carbon offsets’ for any munitions or fuel expended during operations. I suppose they should cease any offensive operations when they exceed the established offsets for that operation and should immediately surrender if a defensive effort exceeds those offsets. It’s the right thing to do..

  30. Hi Gary. Yes, fear is powerful. Many of my posts on http://talkingabouttheweather.com explore same.

    Best,
    Harold

  31. Paul Shanahan says:

    “But Burke said in a follow-up interview that [...] she believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it.”

    I would suggest it’s not that they don’t embrace it, but perhaps they just don’t believe it’s the true cause of the changing climate…

  32. peerrev says:

    over at the guardian uk, an interesting “discussion” is ocurreing about a published article on 2008 being cold.

    It appears the Guardian is deleting anti AGW posts

    HANG ON GUARDIAN!

    When I looked at this story 12 hours ago an intelligent, point-by-point post by ‘reismc1′ debunking climate alarmism appeared near the top to this thread (Dec 05 08, 4:01pm). It attracted a staggering 150 recommendations from interested readers.

    I check back now and the Guardian has deleted it! Why? Are we now to understand that for the Guardian ‘Comment Is Free’ – unless it effectively deconstructs the newspaper’s own politically skewed self interest – in which case Comment Is… Disappeared!

  33. Douglas DC says:

    As a former Professional Pilot, and one who has been involved in ah, “Government activities” the Chemtrail thing is as I can put it “Bravo
    Sierra”.To get an industry and even military organizations to be
    co-operative in such a cover-up is ludicrous. It would have to involve
    the cooperation of thousands if not millions. To keep something secret, you have to have the loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings.With Chemtrails
    where are the Chemicals, the spray equipment,the people to do this?.
    I’d believe in UFO’s before Chemtrails….

  34. eric anderson says:

    I read this blog every day. I hope I didn’t miss someone posting this earlier, but I think it deserves a new blog entry of its own. Hansen, as reported in the Wall STreet Journal is as apocalyptic as ever about global warming, but he disagrees with the cap and trade being promoted by politicians.

    “Mr. Hansen also had the honesty to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, while reproaching his followers — President-elect Obama among them — for not doing the same. To wit, Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only ‘honest, clear and effective’ way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. ‘Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,’ he writes.”

    I like the idea of a rebate to individuals. I think the carbon reduction thing is a stupid unnecessary idea, but if it must be done, I’d rather it be done this way. Then I can make some money instead of Al Gore’s corporation that will broker carbon credits or whatever.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843675983981401.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

    Soldier on, folks.

  35. Phillip Bratby says:

    “there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.” Did we scientists get to vote on this? I thiought science was evidence-based. Did we get to look at all the evidence? Or is it a consensus of politicians and bureaucrats? Truly the lunatics have escaped the asylum and have become politicians.

  36. deadwood says:

    The AGW religion will be embraced by all in federal service after January 20th. What we have here is the last whimper of the dying beast called truth.

  37. Tom in Florida says:

    “We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” said Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”

    Effects due from nuclear exchanges and natural disasters (including large meteorite strikes) are probably in the mix also. Like the Admiral says, their concern is not the cause but how to adapt to the results.

  38. Jeff Id says:

    Wide consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. What a pile.

    I just did a short post on the myths of global warming.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ten-global-warming-myths/

  39. Bob Buchanan says:

    Lots of names, but no comments. What am I missing?

  40. Jeff Wiita says:

    I feel sorry for the individuals in the military. Gays in the military, politically correct speech, and now global warming having to be included in their long-range planning. Why is the military always the target by the left-wing nuts?

    Liberalism is clearly a mental disorder. It is clearly suicidal towards themselves and society. The problem is this: I am part of the society. I do not mind if they want to commit suicide. Just keep me and society out of it.

  41. Bob Buchanan says:

    Now they show up …

  42. Michael J. Bentley says:

    Mango,

    Obviously you don’t understand scarcasm –

    MJB

  43. JimB says:

    Susan pretty much has to maintain the party line…as her paycheck depends on it. Why the public can’t see this correlation is beyond me.
    Happens all the time in politics, and the press jumps on it like a hobo on a baked ham. But all of the conflicts of interest in climate studies?…They MUST be right.

    Sad.

    We need those 30sec sound bites, I’m tellin’ ya.

    Jim

  44. J.Peden says:

    “Some very interesting stuff from Sharon…seems she led a climate-war games exercise recently”

    “Climate War Games”, eh? Why didn’t Sharon Burke’s parents just let her play with GI Joe’s like she wanted to, instead of forcing her to become a “facilitator” involving Group Therapy “role-playing” among supposedly well adjusted adults? And genuine “real projections”? ‘Reminds me of the time I first noticed wallets advertised as being made out of “genuine faux leather”.

    You don’t know how badly I wish we didn’t have to be taxed merely in order to support people’s acting out of their infantile psychoderangements and attendant Fairy Tales.

  45. Ron says:

    Ms. Emanual says…everyone “pretty much agrees” that the intensity “could” go up with global warming’??? What the hell does that mean…talking about hedging your bets. If this is sooo certian why don’t they just say “everyone agrees” the intensity “will” go up, one reason, they are not certian. What the country needs is a national debate about Glabal Warming, get the ten best on each side and have it out on national TV, but the belivers refuse to debate the subject, to them the debate is over, so give me your money and shutup.

  46. Michael J. Bentley (10:18:11) :
    Mango,
    Obviously you don’t understand scarcasm -

    As so much in a blog is affected by [at times, meaningless] personal bias it can be hard at times to recognize scarcasm [sic], so sarcasm should be clearly marked as such, e.g.

    This is sarcasm or THIS IS SARCASM, or [start sarcasm] blah blah [end sarcasm]

  47. Bob B says:

    Ron, the believers refuse to debate because the last time they did, they got their butts kicked.

  48. Richard deSousa says:

    The bovine excrement is piling higher and higher.

  49. Pete says:

    Very interesting that perhaps the Military will be the voice of reason on this topic. In fact, their analysts are probably some of the best at objective assessment since when they develop plans, unrealistic assessments cause people to die.

    Granted these are long term plans, but if current investments are influenced toward technologies and systems suited for some catastrophically warm climate and cooling is what actually happens, as many think might actually be more “likely” in the next 20-30 years, military readiness suffers and soldiers die.

  50. Mr Anderson,

    Do you know why carbon taxes do not work, let me share with you a tale from the Carbon Tax program here in British Columbia Canada…

    The tax came in and fuel prices spiked with this summer’s insane run up in oil prices, a hike in rates for Natural Gas, fees on electricity to fund research, a two fronted assault causing massive demand destruction.

    So now as the economy stutters under the dual load on financial deleveraging and world economic recession the revenues from the Carbon Tax are falling far short of the goals. This is a problem because it wiped out the surplus in the budget and will mean only one thing in the new year.

    The Income Tax cut (the rebate portion) will be smaller and the Carbon tax increase larger than expected, or reduction in the subsidies to the poor (a la Hansen Plan) because the Government is broke ( here in Canada unlike other countries being in deficit is a Governmental death sentence) or reduction in other services like education or healthcare to meet the subsidy obligations.

    This is why consumption taxes that are used to fund programs that require non-fixed expenditures like rebates never work, the income is too unpredictable and the expenditures rise in direct accordance with the reduction in tax collected.

    The point being you cannot fund a program to reduce consumption by taxing what you are ultimately subsidizing, in this case energy. This is common sense, lost on all who think a price on emissions is a good thing.

  51. Pete says:

    Rear Admiral John M. Richardson said: “We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” ….. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”…. “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.”

    Unless I missed something, the Admiral didn’t say what kind (direction) of Climate Change they were looking at. My guess is that they would look at all scenarios, but they would need to understand which is most likely based on the science, which has the most severe consequences and develop long range plans to maximize “coverage” among these scenarios.

  52. Paddy says:

    This is OT, but relevant to any discussion about government responses to climate change. Check out:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-12-04-greenjobs_N.htm

  53. Michael J. Bentley says:

    So,
    So,

    There is more to this story than meets the eye. Yeah, the AGW crowd is up in arms (pun intended) about the report. O’course we on this thread jump on it as a glimmer of intelligence in government (for the military is an arm of the government). But here’s the rub…

    Let’s just say that the AGW crowd has its way and sacks a few military staffers for having the temerity to speak out. So what?

    The military goes on a buying binge to procure newly developed and wonderful equipment for the supposed warmer climate, trains its troops for hot weather combat, (not desert combat they’re trained for that) and for the parts of the world that would be at risk for insurrection when it happens.

    But it doesn’t. The climate does what is usually does and remains the same or gets colder let’s say. The troops are untrained, unequipped and mentally unready to fight in another part of the world now tipped into war (sarcasm intended) by the cold.

    Result: The US of A is without an effective defense force.

    So let’s see, in addition to killing lots of old people who froze in their homes because Gore wanted his Carbon Offset money, now these (epithet here) people who want “Political Correctness in AGW” have killed good men and women who are “serving” their country.

    That my friends I call a crock.

    Mike

  54. DR says:

    Jeff Id,
    You left out another unproven assumption, that being the atmospheric resident time of CO2 being up to 200 years. Like a strong positive feedback that makes no sense, CO2 life cycle is yet another creative way to spread the fear. Henry’s Law is also canceled.

  55. Michael J. Bentley says:

    And obviously my second post was just “So So”…

    MJB

  56. J.Peden says:

    “Wide consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. What a pile.”

    Imo, the only possible “consensus” seems to be that there is in fact a scientific consensus about AGW, when, back here in reality, none has been demonstrated.

    Shouldn’t people have to actually sign a specific statement affirming or denying the statement – in order to record their real opinions and to add up the numbers? Moreover, just what would this “consensus” mean or constitute numerically? 50.1 vs 49.9%?

    And here I’d been thinking all along that Journalism Schools and Governmental Science Agencies weren’t supposed to cull the significantly delusional and scientifically illiterate – right!

    [Not that consensus has anything to do with the Scientific Method to begin with.]

  57. DR says:

    Paddy,
    Those are not real jobs, but workfare ala FDR, whose similar spending did little to abate unemployment.

    Now that the government will effectively own the auto companies and force them to build cars Americans do not want or cannot afford (i.e. Chevy Volt and other “green” cars), we can expect a perpetual flow of corporate welfare to pay off the unions for their financial support of certain politicians.

    BTW, my job heavily relies on the current bailout talks for the Big 3. As with the global warming industry scientists who also depend on tax payers for their existence, do I wish for the Big 3 to go belly up? I’d rather not say :)

  58. Freezing Finn says:

    Douglas DC – the “former Professional Pilot” (09:08:22):

    “To get an industry and even military organizations to be co-operative in such a cover-up is ludicrous. It would have to involve the cooperation of thousands if not millions.”

    You mean like the Manhattan Project which involved 120.000 people (I think it was) and not so long time ago?

    Or the “Saddam-was-behind-9/11″ hoax just “recently” and which involved the United Nations as a whole?

    Well, all you really need is a military-style hierarchy and people “just following orders” and not asking too many questions.

    Anyway – here’s a quick quote from elsewhere – and well, just consider it as “food for thought”:

    “Dr. Edward Teller wrote a white paper in the late 1990s describing a remedial operational strategy, epic-in-proportion, to change the predicted course of what was believed by an international group of scientists, including Dr. Teller and Livermore National Laboratories, to be the inevitably cataclysmic results of global-warming, crisis level Ultra-Violet/Cosmic radiation, crisis Ozone layer depletion and other theoretical doom. It should be noted that Dr. Teller, “Father H-Bomb,” was responsible for many ill-conceived strategies; not one of which considered consequences such as safety, toxicity, lethality, environmental impact or ethics.

    According to Teller, et al, ultra violet (UV) radiation from ozone depletion and global-warming from the harmful effects of greenhouse gases could be effectively mitigated through the deployment of specific sub-micron particulates into the various layers of the atmosphere.

    Barium, aluminum, thorium and selenium were to be processed into a sub-micron particle dispensed from high-altitude aircraft and ionized with a specific electrical charge. We must surmise that ionization keeps the specific heavy metal particulates aloft for longer periods of time.

    This electronically-charged particulate matrix might also be the perfect RF control field. Theoretically, the heavy metals would block and reflect the sunlight from entering the Earth’s atmosphere and reflect 1 percent to 2 prevent of the UV radiation back into space causing UV radiation levels to decline.

    Teller also recommended the use of commercial and military aircraft to carry out the enormous task of seeding the Earth’s stratosphere with these experimental substances.

    We believe that the implementation and subsequent weaponization of these technologies has been well demonstrated. Under the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) program entitled “RF Dominance” the military has been experimenting with enhancing, jamming or intercepting radio communications with the aid of these particulates.

    The U.S. Air Force VTRP virtual imaging technology for fighter aircraft pilots also rely on an atmosphere seeded with these heavy metals.

    A U.S. Air Force paper entitled, “Weather—A Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025,” clearly describes the military advantages of using the particulate-laden troposphere to “own” (create, control, manipulate or direct) the weather.” http://proliberty.com/observer/20060504.htm

  59. Leon Brozyna says:

    I’m sure that, were he alive today and could compare the present climate to that which he experienced during his last command, General Washington would acknowledge the present warmer climate. There is no doubt that present conditions are warmer than those during the depths of the Little Ice Age. There may even be some additional warming before this current large natural cycle peaks in a century or two.

    As to causes; well, Sharon Burke herself is out of line to call the military’s report “out of line.” The military doesn’t achieve success by closings its eyes to reality. Or toeing an ideological party line. It is good to see that they recognize that there are differing opinions on what is happening to the climate and why. Rear Admiral John M. Richardson put it well when he said, “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.” If the climate cools over the next half century before resuming its warming, that may effect military operations and they would be ill advised to adhere to ideological purity.

  60. Rod Smith says:

    Please notice that those who criticized the military’s assessment are a) not military, and b) not in the military command structure, and c) not even government officials.

    In other words, they are entitled to their opinion, but probably have no idea what the military should do to “plan” for anything, let alone how to execute the plan.

    I would classify it as ‘noise’ at this juncture.

  61. bbeeman says:

    Just wait until the Prince Elect gets in office. He will make those Generals sing the right tune.

  62. CodeTech says:

    First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    AGW is a religion, as I define it, because it is a belief system based primarily on faith, not science. Therefore all of this is a violation of the very first Amendment, arguably the most important.

    The New Army: shoot a man, plant a tree.

  63. Moptop says:

    sod has it nailed. You just repeat what politicians you trust (red flag) are saying without examining it because it is “too complicated” and then pretend to yourself that you are smarter than everybody. It works great. It is the new smart.

    The new motto of the left “Don’t Question Authority!”

  64. CodeTech says:

    “Freezing Finn”

    There was a hoax that Saddam was behind 9/11? Where? Who ever said that? I am aware of few ill-informed anti-right types who twisted words to that effect.

    Perhaps you don’t realize that ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…

    Oh… and the Manhattan Project was hardly “secret”. What secrecy there was lasted a very short time, after the project was completed virtually everyone in the world became aware of it.

  65. Hank says:

    Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: “Everyone *pretty much* agrees that the intensity of events *could* go up with global warming, although we argue how much.”

    That’s “could” go up, not will go up. The sentence is so hedged that I’m not sure is qualifies as declarative. I think it’s very fair to say that statements coming from global warming scientists are contradictory about global warming.

  66. Michael J. Bentley says:

    OK Leif,

    From you I’ll take lumps…

    I’ll label my humor (?) sarcasm (?) and other tongue-i- cheek (hereafter abbreviated as “TIC”) statements.

    Me? I don’t have any meaningless personal biases.

    (SARCASTIC HUMOR!)

    Mike

  67. Michael J. Bentley (15:13:39) :
    Me? I don’t have any meaningless personal biases.
    Perhaps my parahippocampal gyrus isn’t working too well today, anyway, sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit…

  68. Off topic, but holy crazy-sea-ice-melt-pattern, Batman, has everyone seen this?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.2.jpg

  69. Lee Kington says:

    It is always alarming to me for policy makers and member of think tanks to use the terms consensus, debate is over, and confusing things that “could” happen with reality. To me, it reflects that they are not intellectually qualified to have an official voice of opinion.

    I write extensively on the climate change issue. Quite often I broach the topic of governmental responsibility. In the above article an urgency for the military to accept and prepare for ‘global warming’ is conveyed. While catastrophic global warming is unlikely it is still essential for the military, and civilian entities, to have contingency plans for a number of scenarios. The case that catastrophic global warming is a reality should not, however, be made. An ‘over focus’ in one direction.

    For each dollar, for each hour, invested in contingencies for catastrophic global warming an equal amount should be invested in contingencies for extensive global cooling. It is the governments responsibility to prepare for all contingencies, not just one loosely theoretical and remotely possible. Those who advocate the latter do a disservice to the nation, to humanity.

    An equal investment of time and funds would result in a greater true understanding by man of the climate. An equal investment of time and funds would result in more REAL climate science and less political science. We might even find that severe global cooling has an equal or greater potential of reality than catastrophic global warming. Is the populace and military being prepared for that potential?

  70. lichanos says:

    Mike M.

    the Military has a life and death obligation to it’s troops, so it speaks without bias to the root of whatever it is analyzing.

    I am happy to see that the military has some clear thinkers in its ranks who can cooly analyze a situation, but you are wrong to assert that this is because of their “life and death obligation” to the troops. They have fallen on their faces many times regarding that, most recently in their quest for Iraqi WMD. Why these clear headed people were put in this report, and not in the ones eight years ago..? Interesting question.

  71. james griffin says:

    What gets me about this whole AGW “debate” is that it is either getting warmer or it isn’t.
    The records for the last decade overall show a decline…so how can AGW’s say their theory is correct when the temp is going down whilst CO2 is going up?

    I am obviously missing something (deceit?)

    We now know the Aqua satellite found no hotspots in the Troposhere and that the CO2/water vapour interaction takes place at low altitude, the temps for the 1990’s downgraded as the 1930’s is once again accepted as the hottest decade of the last century.
    The Hadley Cente admitted they did not allow for “natural variations” in their climate models…which roughly translated means they put in the pros of their argument in the mix but not the cons.
    We also know the ice is returning to the Arctic (9% up at end of melting season in mid-sept and + 30% in late October on last year).
    And yet we are still being told that AGW is real….
    Do you mind if I swear?…give me ….ing strength.

  72. Freezing Finn says:

    CodeTech (14:44:42) :
    “I am aware of few ill-informed anti-right types who twisted words to that effect.”

    Well, there’s no need for you to twist the whole issue into a false left right paradigm – meaning I don’t believe in it – but ok – let me refrase… there was an attempt to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 – couldn’t do that – so, they tried to link him to Al-Qaeda – that didn’t work out either, so finally they came up with the idea of WMD’s – and which then was “good enough” to start the war against Iraq and which they were after in the first place.

    Better?

    “Perhaps you don’t realize that ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…”

    Well, thank you for your “educated” and “open minded” thoughts. Exactly what I was after.

    “Oh… and the Manhattan Project was hardly “secret”… after the project was completed virtually everyone in the world became aware of it.”

    Wow, you sure got me there – with my pants down and all – now the whole world is aware of my little secret too… ;)

  73. Michael J. Bentley says:

    Lief

    Yeah, but it’s still humor……

    sort of…..

    Mike

  74. Leon Brozyna says:

    Here’s an O/T article that illustrates how dogma corrupts science:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204133853.htm

    Melting glaciers have revealed an area in Lapland, in northernmost Sweden, where it’s been found that trees were growing from 7,000 to 11,800 years ago. After the last major ice age, the ice melted so much that forests developed in this area until approx 7,000 years ago, when the climate cooled enough to bring a return of glaciation which covered these forests. Now that the climate’s warming once again, do scientists consider this a natural return to earlier warm conditions? Silly question. Dogma trumps science.

  75. Michael J. Bentley (17:00:52) :
    Yeah, but it’s still humor……
    sort of…..

    Better to say directly what is on your mind without using “Sarcasm as a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target”. Sarcasm is unnecessary ad-hom, and it’s not that funny, especially not if it is intended to insult and taunt.

  76. Voodoo says:

    Harold Ambler (07:08:51) says”

    In the meantime, I simply don’t know how “scientists” live with themselves as they continue to frighten people about the wrong problem.

    Simple: Follow the money.

  77. Bill Marsh says:

    Finn,

    “You mean like the Manhattan Project which involved 120.000 people (I think it was) and not so long time ago?’

    Actually that isn’t that hard to do, especially in wartime. it’s called ‘compartmentilization’. While all 120,000 people contributed to the development of the first atomic bomb, it’s doubtful that very many knew that that was the end goal. They knew what they were assigned to do, but had no real idea about the end goal. Even enlisted who were at the site and set it up when the first one was set off did not know what it was, other than some secret weapon.

    “Or the “Saddam-was-behind-9/11″ hoax just “recently” and which involved the United Nations as a whole?”

    ?? Apparently that was kept SO secret that I’m not even aware that it was ever there. As early as Sept 2002 President Bush stated to the press that he didn’t believe Saddam was behind 9/11, so who perpetrated this ‘hoax’ you’re talking about?

  78. Michael J. Bentley says:

    Code Tech and Freezing Finn,

    Wading into this discussion without using sarcasm, (((HUMOR – JUST HUMOR)))

    And taking the latest first, Saddam and WMD’s. In retrospect, it looks as if there were some attempts to link SH with Al Quida and on balance, I think there were some contacts. The real reason for going to Iraq will come out in the future. We had our noses bloodied badly on 9-11. The world was days away from a financial meltdown because of the collapse of the twin towers – which knocked out the communication circuits to the New York Stock Exchange. (that building with the widow-maker sticking out of it was a telephone building that had the circuits to the NYSE by the way)

    After the death of some 3K innocent people, Saddam blustered about WMD’s and like the playground bully, got his nose punched for his efforts. My belief is he did have them and shipped them to friends elsewhere, but that’s not important here. You can speculate all you like about the reasons, I’m willing to wait for history to illumine me.

    The Manhatten project was a bit different. Yes, it was a large secret undertaking, and yes it involved many people, but what you’re both missing is the attitude of the time. The US had been attacked by Japan, and almost to a person, people were committed to seeing that nation destroyed.

    Yes, there was propaganda and yes there was secrecy, but the average person wanted revenge on the warmongers. In addition, the press was carefully controlled.

    Not so today. We are much more individual in our outlook. The press is in the field with soldiers, and I think it’s a mistake. Soldiers have to ask the question before they pull the trigger; “Am I going to be courtmartialed for doing this?” I think the press hampers the prosecution of a war, because they bring the carnage of the situation into your livingroom each night.

    War is insanity, and to permit someone untrained and unused to combat into the theater is a disservice to our fighting men and women. Bad things happen to people in war, such is the nature of the activity. The “If it Bleeds it Leads” theory of news, projecting that into our living rooms at 5 PM is warping our society.

    The ability to keep a secret in today’s society is much less than in 1942. Look at the tabloids and the number of folks who speak out on subjects that make you say – OH, My! I didn’t want to know that!!

    Sort conclusion: I don’t think any secret the size of Manhatten could be kept today.

    The military, in looking at all options, is looking out for the soldier as best it can. If the AGW folks change the equasion toward GW and the catastrophies projected by computer models, ordinary citizens and soldiers will die who didn’t have to.

    Mike

    Mike

  79. Michael Adams says:

    Sigh! In the Clinton administration it was settled fact that Saddam was allied, if loosely, with alQuaeda. That’s why Berger e-mailed Armitage, that the missiles that were being lobbed into training camps in Afghanistan would cause “old Osama to boogie to Baghdad.” Late in ’01 and early ’02, the focus of the Left was on stopping us from “getting entangled in a horrible quagmire in Afghanistan,” if we were so foolish as to invade. My Lefty university type friends were sure that we ought to let the UN handle the Taliban. Then, in later ’02 and early ’03, Democrats and Republicans in Congress were all very concerned that Saddam would give the weapons he had been known to have since the Clinton years, to al Quaeda.
    I was paying very close attention to NPR in ’02 and early ’03, and daily listened to the reports of the games Saddam’s people were playing with the UN inspectors, e.g. allowing them to inspect a warehouse at the end of a long road into the desert, which, when they got there was found to have been scrubbed clean, as the inspectors saw a dust trail stirred up by trucks, driving overland into the desert, away from the warehouse. If people don’t remember that far back, they would do well to do some research, reading newspapers from those days, for example, or else leaving the thinking to the grownups.

  80. Michael J. Bentley says:

    Leif,
    (and you don’t have to post this) OK, I understand your argument, but in re-reading my original post, intended in a somewhat sarcastic tone, I impuned no one. The military in this country is looked upon by some as troglidites, who are merely those doing the bidding of government masters. I used that in my post to illustrate the ultimate word-meaning conflict – an intellegent military response (ie. Military Intellegence)

    While my response to Mango was terse, it was intended to reflect the meaning of the piece. There are many other examples of thoughful folks using similar vehicles on this website.

    I will be careful to label my humor (of any kind) in the future –

    I do respect your opinion, but in this case, don’t agree with it.

    Mike

  81. henry says:

    eric anderson (09:23:04) :

    I read this blog every day. I hope I didn’t miss someone posting this earlier, but I think it deserves a new blog entry of its own. Hansen, as reported in the Wall STreet Journal is as apocalyptic as ever about global warming, but he disagrees with the cap and trade being promoted by politicians.

    “Mr. Hansen also had the honesty to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, while reproaching his followers — President-elect Obama among them — for not doing the same. To wit, Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only ‘honest, clear and effective’ way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. ‘Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,’ he writes.”

    Hansen’s saying that Washington politicains shouldn’t get the tax money raised from carbon?

    He won’t last long with that suggestion…

  82. Craig Moore says:

    Prof. Svalgaard, I am very appreciative of your participation here. What I would like to know is what you think will happen with climate trends in the next 3 to 5 years and what the drivers will be, and why. Thank you.

  83. RICH says:

    Sorry OT,

    Hi Steve Bloom,

    I want to congratulate you on being the topic of discussion on Anthony Watts’ website. Your head must have swelled after reading that one. Despite your ‘stature’ in the AGW community, I am questioning how much merit one has as being a ‘representative’ of the Sierra Club, especially when the Sierra Club recommends…

    “After you’ve finished baking, turn off the oven and open its door to let the heat into your kitchen. You’ll be amazed by how long the extra warmth lasts.”

    http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2007/11/daily-tip-no-12.html#comments

    It appears that the Sierra Club has trouble understanding how radiation works, ehh Steve?

    Also Mr. Bloom, wouldn’t the ‘green’ in greenhouse gas suggest that we are already being green?

    “Change or die!” – Kipp Alpert

    Steve, respectfully wondering, how much have you personally paid in carbon offsets? You should lead by example. How much have you paid and how much should I be forced to pay? How will this help?

  84. Katherine says:

    Harold Ambler wrote:

    Off topic, but holy crazy-sea-ice-melt-pattern, Batman, has everyone seen this?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.2.jpg

    Hmmm… volcanic eruption? Military test? Carbon footprint? Looks like a nice exclamation point. =)

  85. I agree with Leif. Even though it’s mostly just us Anti-AGW’s here, sarcasm gets old very quickly and is more a measure of our frustration than of someone else’s lack of wisdom.

    And now for the word of the day:

    burke, transitive verb:
    burked , burk•ing , burkes
    1. To suppress or extinguish quietly; stifle: he burked the dissent by declaring it ‘out of line.’

  86. Jeff Alberts says:

    What gets me about this whole AGW “debate” is that it is either getting warmer or it isn’t.
    The records for the last decade overall show a decline…so how can AGW’s say their theory is correct when the temp is going down whilst CO2 is going up?

    For me it’s not even about that. It’ll go up, it’ll go down, it’ll go up… For me it’s about certainty. I just don’t believe those who say they’re certain when there’s still a lot of things they don’t understand about weather or climate. There’s certainly no proof of catastrophe, so we have time to find out what’s really happening, and I suspect that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.

  87. Craig Moore (18:57:43) :
    What I would like to know is what you think will happen with climate trends in the next 3 to 5 years and what the drivers will be, and why.

    The answers are mostly unknown, except that some well-founded speculation may be given:
    (1) 3-5 years do not make a climate trend, a couple of decades would be needed. Climatologists define climate as the mean weather over a 30-year interval.
    (2) There is little doubt that land-use and CO2 have some [small] effect; nobody knows how small. It is not correct to claim that e.g. CO2 has no effect whatsoever [although you might come across some rabid people that go to that extreme].
    (3) Climate has changed all the time without much help [or damage - depending on your political view] from human activities and will continue to do so. The Sun varies too little on a time scale of centuries, so cannot be counted on for significant climate change, although a small effect on the order of 0.1 of a degree is often claimed to have been detected. Variations of the Earth’s orbit are large enough to influence the solar insolation in such a way as to cause serious climate change [glaciations] because of the uneven distribution of land and sea. This theory [the Milankovich effect] has recently found some confirmation from studies of deposits on Mars [which has its own - different from the Earth's - Milankovich cycles]. The oceans store 300 times as much heat as the atmosphere and circulation of sea water driven by salinity, wind, and temperature can [and does] have significant climate effect, and may be causing the recent [small] temperature changes.

    All of this is rather bland and un-sensational, but you can find all kinds of interesting nonsense on the Internet to spruce up any discussion. This blog has its fair share, so stay tuned.

  88. John Andrews says:

    Anthony,

    Your readers may also be interested in this lecture from Leeds: http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture9/lecture9.html.

    The link to it was posted on Test Blog on Friday. See: http://my-test-blog-website.blogspot.com/2008/12/global-warming-direct-and-indirect.html.

    John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

  89. CodeTech says:

    Well, sorry to discuss politics, but that one issue really gets under my skin. I WAS paying attention in 2001, 2002, 2003. There WAS no attempt to say Saddam was behind 9/11, and everyone who had been paying attention in any way shape or form knew that. For one thing, Saddam was just a brutal thug with delusions of Hitlerhood, incapable of the vision required to actually pull off such a thing.

    And yet I hear the two claims made by both sides, and I really wish people would get their facts straight before they repeat falsities.

    Oh, did I say two? Yes… in addition to the fact that nobody ever claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 (except those who weren’t paying attention and twisted the association of Saddam with AQ into cause and effect), if your memory is working as it should be you’d know that Iraq wasn’t about, nor was it justified by, WMDs.

    Unfortunately, WMDs were the one item in a fairly long list of justifications to ending Saddam’s brutal reign in Iraq that was seized on by naysayers. When the expected stockpiles were not found, it was simple to point and say “See? unjustified”, without even remotely considering where they went. Anyone else remember the satellite imagery of giant convoys of heavy trucks clotted at the borders out?

    Anyway, in my earlier post I somehow lost an “a”, as in “I am aware of A few…”

    The thing about giant conspiracy theories is that a large group of people can only be relied upon to keep a secret for so long. Compartmentalization extends that time, but after five, ten, twenty, fifty years, some or all of a giant project is going to become common knowledge. Was JFK assassinated as part of a conspiracy? 45 years later, it’s unlikely that a) few enough people knew, b) all who knew kept it secret.

    The Manhattan Project was certainly secret for a while, but even if it hadn’t been officially revealed, it would eventually have come out.

    What entertains me about the AGW industry is that a relatively small number of people are pulling the strings, and they are all operating from pure selfish interest. They’re all making money from it, and increasing their perceived value, so they have no incentive to tell the truth. AGW doesn’t qualify as a “conspiracy theory” to be ignored for the simple fact that there are so many people out there telling the truth. Watching them be silenced and marginalized was one of the first things that alerted me to the fact that the whole thing was fabricated. REAL SCIENCE doesn’t have to shut down naysayers or contrarians. Pseudo-science does.

    Another thing I find interesting is that people who have no problem believing a conspiracy existed in the Bush administration to down the WTC or to fabricate evidence against Iraq to justify an invasion to steal their oil somehow have a BIG problem believing that AGW alarm is fabricated. I’d laugh more if I wasn’t watching the damage they are causing.

  90. crosspatch says:

    Of course climate change will be a major national security issue but maybe not in the way most people immediately think of when that is said.

    Russia, for example, produces a lot of oil and a lot of other mineral resources in areas that are already pretty darned cold in Winter. What would happen if temperatures plummeted? How would Russia react to more difficult access to those resources and shorter growing seasons? What about Canada? How would our own activities in places like Prudhoe Bay be affected? What would happen in Northwestern China?

    The world political climate and our security could be in for a dramitic change in the face of even a moderate cooling. Generally, cooling would be more of a national security threat than warming. Warming could ease access to resources, reduce energy consumption, increase food output and ease stresses that often result in conflict. Cooling would tend to aggrivate economic problems making conflict more likely.

  91. stun12 says:

    Katherine wrote:

    Hmmm… volcanic eruption? Military test? Carbon footprint? Looks like a nice exclamation point. =)

    I thought it looked like the string for hanging Xmas baubles on trees.

  92. E.M.Smith says:

    The good thing is that the military can simply say “Yes, we must prepare for Climate Change (of all sorts) – and since that may include a [human induced] little ice age as [whoever it was] said, we clearly must prepare for weather extremes of all kinds.”

    Then they can go about business as they always have. Preparing for the worst that man and nature can throw at them from any and all sides.

    I’d expect the generals to be able to wangle both new amphibious vehicles [Sea Level Rise!] and new cold weather vehicles [Gulf Stream Shutdown!] out of it along with more airplanes [Avoid land changes!] and ships [Exploit the added sea!]. They are pretty bright folks.

    I’m also quite certain that the military meteorologists will be unswayed by PCness in making predictions. WWII D-day hinged on the weather and everyone knows that. They will say what they need to say and salute whatever they are not busy polishing or painting; but at the end of the day they will get the weather right.

    On the OT thread of WMDs. Aside from the Clinton era involvement that gets forgotten, we also have history & pictures. Sadam USED WMDs (poison gas) on Kurds and admitted it. There is no doubt what so ever that he had WMDs (gas). The only question is where they went.

    Now, if you want to limit WMD to nuclear weapons (a wrong definition, BTW) then it’s more murky. He clearly wanted them. He was clearly buying plans and materials. My rampant speculation is that his nuke program was on the convoy of trucks that bugged out to Syria when the fireworks started. That would explain his actions later (as a distractor from what really happened – in a good shell game the pea is not under any of the shells…).

    Per the (very beautiful!) polar ice picture: Clearly it’s just God putting an explanation point on who’s in charge! ;-) Have I mentioned lately that it’s getting colder?… (On TWC they are presently talking about the expected areas of abnormal cold in the next few days and where the snow will be piling up… gotta love it.) Do I read the picture right that Iceland is now 80%+ iced up to Greenland? Looks like you could snocat from Canada to Siberia…

    At the present rate of cooling, January 20th is going to be Very Cold… Does anyone know if AlGore has an invite to the inauguration? If so, maybe we can get a blizzard out of it! tee hee …

    Per secrets: Ever heard of the Skunkworks? Know what they are working on now? And what is really done at Area-51? Yes, they can keep secrets. Chemtrails? Looks like a fantasy to me. Though I do have a tangental related point:

    I like to propose to AGW fans that we solve it with aerosols. Since sulphate aerosols reduce warming, and since airplanes have multiple fuel tanks… just fill up the ‘cruise’ tanks of commercial traffic with high sulphur fuel and put lots of sulphate into the stratosphere. Fuel costs would go down and we’d “solve” AGW. You can still use ultra-low sulphur fuel for takeoff and landing to keep smog down.

    This usually just gets me dirty looks, but sometimes I can get them all the way to speechless! The fact that it might just work and would cost nearly nothing is just gravy 8-0

  93. Tim L says:

    Michael J. Bentley, Leif Svalgaard LOL
    thats all folks!!!
    Doh….

  94. 1 more spotless day and we get back on the Spotless day list
    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
    Funny how when there isn’t any heat on in the house, no matter how well insulated or greenhoused it is, when you come home late at night in the winter, it darned cold in there.
    And on a hot summers day, the dog or the kid left in the car with the windows rolled up and greenhoused doesn’t last too long.
    I guess we will have to wait until the next super solar cycle trend rolls around to find out if AGW works with high input to the system.
    In the meantime, we are close on the heels of 1911/1912 spotless days tracks (200/253) with 2007/2008 spotless days (163/250) wherein in 1912 the Great Lakes froze over and 1913 the West froze darn good.

  95. We got 19 spotless days racked up:
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
    That stuff adds up when you’re not looking.

  96. M White says:

    “New race to explore the Himalayas”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7765395.stm

    “But those who have been in the climate business for years now say it is largely a money matter. “

  97. Gordon Walker says:

    With reference to the increased frequency of storms the argument seems to proceed as follows:-
    1. Global warming is a bad thing which will cause more bad things to happen
    2. Storms are bad things so global warming will cause more storms.

    However, according to the climate models the poles will warm much more than the tropics. (which may well be true)
    This reduces the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles which is the main engine driving the frequency and intensity of storms in middle latitudes.
    Obviously climate alarmists have not heard of reductio ad absurdum!

  98. tty says:

    No, satellite data dropout. Happens now and then.

  99. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “Slingshots will be used as sidearms. The Air Force will use only gliders powered by catapult and electric motors. The Navy Ships will be converted to galleys and be powered by paddles. The Marines will power the galleys. Ships will be equipped with catapults and archers.”

    Actually, that would be an army and a war, I could support!!

  100. Steven Hill says:

    Can someone please turn on some global warming, it’s 17F here this morning and snow is on the ground.

  101. Fred Middleton says:

    Old Sparta. What a nice place some say. They used classic concepts to fix problems.

    I think science outside of government may be the final straw of free thought. Media is well within the corral and the gate is swinging closed. Gov’mnt science is Academia world wide. Teach the kids, and change the world.

    Military is disciplined aggravation. There are accounts of several cowboys (not the later UFO one’s) that witnessed from afar a very large ‘dust cloud rising vertically in 45′ New Mexico. Manhattan media section did a superb job of smoke and mirrors by playing into public science ignorance.

    Spartans of old , at least for a short time before their world collapsed, would annually put the politicians (Congress, etc) on trial. Purpose was to validate ‘their’ effectiveness and truthfulness. ??.. Mass starvation-super-sized Little Ice Age may be the only fix by the Spartans of today.

  102. Peter says:

    Gordon Walker:

    However, according to the climate models the poles will warm much more than the tropics. (which may well be true)

    That is, until you throw water vapor feedback into the equation. As there’s little water vapor at the poles (none in winter) there cannot be any such feedback.
    Which of course means that, as they’ve failed to demonstrate that temperatures in the tropics (where there’s more water vapor) have risen faster than at the poles, water vapor feedback hasn’t been shown to be a factor.

  103. Arthur Glass says:

    Didn’t Emmanuel Kelly recently publish a book in which he argued, as does Chris Landsea of the NHC, that global warming would tend to produce stronger mid-level shear zones and thus diminish the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones?

    There is a consensus that there is a consensus that there is a consensus.

    ‘I’ll retire to Bedlam!’ There’s a seasonal refernce for you.

  104. Bruce Cobb says:

    Leif said:
    “Better to say directly what is on your mind without using “Sarcasm as a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target”. Sarcasm is unnecessary ad-hom, and it’s not that funny, especially not if it is intended to insult and taunt.”
    Hmmm… Perhaps Leif should follow his own advice, particularly when the discussion revolves around the sun and its effect on climate. Leif not only seems to think his (the sun has only a minor effect) is the only valid viewpoint, but goes out of his way to belittle the views of others. The link between our climate and solar activity, while not entirely understood is certainly a valid one.

  105. Arthur Glass says:

    ‘Santa Clause sliegh test gone wrong.’

    Sanity clause? I don’t believe in no sanity clause!

    That’s as Marxist as I get.

  106. Arthur Glass says:

    Here is a quotation from the October summary issued by the Office of the State Climatologist of New Jersey.

    ‘Despite the wide swings in temperature and precipitation, the averages of each variable were quite close to their long-term means. At 53.5°, the preliminary temperature was 0.7° below average, making for the 39th coolest October since 1895.’

    My observation is that there is an apparent contradiction between stating that a monthly average temperature is ‘quite close to [its] long-term mean’ and then stating that the month was ranked among the top third in terms of coolness. I wish they would present this datum in terms of standard deviations.

  107. Freezing Finn says:

    Let’s see if I got it right.

    Now, whereas AGW is considered a hoax by most people here (incl. myself) involving most of the world’s goverments, the UN and other intergovermental organizations, numerous transnational corporations and a handful of scientists – let alone the mainstream media and the public (hey, we’re talking about millions of people here) – “chemtrails”, on the other hand, are just a “ludicrous fantasy”?

    Now, did you come to this conclusion before doing any research on the issue or what?

    Before opposing something that I don’t know much – or anything – about – and in case I get interested in the issue, of course – I at least try to do some research on my own first.

    So, let me help you at it – first a few documentaries in English (with a lot of pictures ;) at
    http://thebigagenda.com/channel.php?id=17

    And a recent presentation in German – for those who know German, of course at
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2948615405691506381&ei=vME7SfaDM4-MiQKv1fikDA&q=chemtrails&so=1&dur=3

    Just for starters – and you either want to know more about it or you don’t, and either way, it’s fine with me. However, I’m really not interested in Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Distraction” – nor UFOs…

    Now, someone mentioned the magic word “compartmentilization” – and that’s exactly what I was after too. I feel most of us have gotten quite used to it already, but I wish to remind you all that we’re still at a – neverending – global war called the “war on terrorism”, remember?

    Well, never ever has the world been more “compartMENTALized” than today. While “specialized” (=compartmentilized) “experts” (scientific, political, financial etc.) run the “show” – “just don’t mind the men behind the curtain” – the majority of people are in a constant hypnosis made possible by the conditioning mainstream media, dumbing down effect of the modern school systems everywhere and the constant flow of entertainment.

    And it seems to me as if most of the so called experts were in a hypnosis too – for you can’t really explain any other way how this AGW hoax has gotten this far – and why it’s still far from being over.

    Time to wake up, folks?

  108. JimB says:

    CodeTech:
    “Another thing I find interesting is that people who have no problem believing a conspiracy existed in the Bush administration to down the WTC or to fabricate evidence against Iraq to justify an invasion to steal their oil somehow have a BIG problem believing that AGW alarm is fabricated. I’d laugh more if I wasn’t watching the damage they are causing.”

    Whenever I make this same point to my alarmist friends they just stop talking. There is a fairly long list of “stop talking” points that can be made with simple facts. The problem is that 10mins later?…They’re right back on it.
    Whack-A-Mole…

    But I still find a common “theme” among them…and that is that someone must somehow suffer…that us human’s have somehow gotten away with things long enough, and now it’s time for us to PAY. Us Americans are spoiled brats, along with some other civilized countries, and we’ve long used up more than our “fair share”…so it’s time to pay, etc. etc.

    Me?…I just like being happy ;)

    Oh…and warm.

    Warm good.
    Mmmmmmmmmm.

    JimB

  109. Mike Loe says:

    Here is a bit of interesting history concerning glacial retreat from the national parks web site. It appears, as noted by the the founder of the Sierra club, the effects of “CO2 man made global warming climate change” on glaciers started well over 100 years ago. How can this be??? Now I know why my great great grandfather moved to higher ground.

    Sailing through Glacier Bay today, you travel along shorelines and among islands that were completely covered by ice just over 200 years ago. When Captain George Vancouver charted adjacent waters of Icy Strait in 1794, he and his crew described what we now call Glacier Bay as just a small five-mile indent in a gigantic glacier that stretched off to the horizon. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.

  110. Arthur Glass says:

    Also, the mean temperature for October based on the record from 1895 to 2007,
    http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/njhisttemp.html
    is 54.7, which makes October 2008 1.2 degrees below the mean. The 54.2 figure is the average from 1971 to 2000. October is one of two months (the other is January) for which the 30-year average is lower than the 100+ year average.

  111. Lex47 says:

    I think the key point is that military planning requires facts. Political spinning does not.

    The shame is that most organisations don’t risk admitting their doubts because they will be targeted, as shown by the deteriorating comments in blogs. For companies, being targeted can cost the business.

    I personally believe we are in the highly variable period that occurs after the end of the inter-glacial. The primary cause of the inter-glacial has ceased and we are now subject to a variety of second order effects as the earth moves into the next ice age.

    Lex

  112. Dylan says:

    I love how many of the comments here applaud the military for saying that climate change may or may not happen. One wonders the reaction if a defence force’s paper said that gravity may cause something to fall or it may not.

  113. Denis Hopkins says:

    Lysenkoism comes to mind…….

  114. Jon Jewett says:

    News from the Hadley Centre.

    Of particular interest is Mr. Stott’s title in this article. George Orwell would be proud!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack

  115. Geoff Alder says:

    I live where we never see frost. But in areas subject to frosts, (so they tell me) when there is no night cloud cover, there can be severe frost. When there is cloud cover, no frost. Patently, on a cloudless night there is vast heat escape by radiation from the earth’s surface, providing the loss of sensible and latent heat necessary for frost formation.

    Am I a simpleton in thinking this tells me that atmospheric water vapour and cloud cover play the major role in controlling heat escape from the surface of the planet? Am I a simpleton in believing that atmospheric CO2 would be incapable of playing role in any way comparable with this? Is this whole issue being absurdly over complicated? But then again, I am no sparkling bright scientist!

  116. Cathy says:

    Having read this piece regarding the feminisation of males of many vertebrate species – I thought – well – there’s something the global warming catastrophizers could get behind to some good effect.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html

    Sadly, one expert links his concerns about this catastrophe to – yes – global warming.

    “Whole wildlife populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at risk from hazards such as global warming.”

    I guess the link has to be made to garner funding for research. Depressing.

  117. Bill Marsh says:

    Robert,

    I’m sure you know this, but hothouse/car in the sun warming != atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect. It isn’t the same thing.

  118. Ed Scott says:

    An inconvenient truth? CouId? If?

    Melting ice may slow global warming

    Scientists discover that minerals found in collapsing ice sheets could feed plankton and cut C02 emissions

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming

    Collapsing antarctic ice sheets, which have become potent symbols of global warming, may actually turn out to help in the battle against climate change and soaring carbon emissions.
    ——————————————————-
    He said the number of icebergs in the Antarctic was expected to rise by about 20 per cent by the end of the century, which could remove an extra 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, if they all seeded plankton growth.

  119. Steve Keohane says:

    OT-Cryosphere’s arctic ice image. Not only is there the odd exclamation point image, but massive melting has occured overnight from the tip of the point to western north Russia. There is melting in between Alaska and east Russia as well. ‘Russia’ might be dated, can’t think of what they call themselves today.
    http://i37.tinypic.com/33ejz4p.jpg

  120. George E. Smith says:

    I’m a whole lot tired of reading in these scare the horses tales about how this or that Government agency may not take global warming or climate change seriously enough.

    Just what is the scientific measure of “seriously enough” ?

    Some of us actually consider “very seriously” that it is essential to get the science correcct. For me, that is my only interest; and that we do that before stampeding fools do some actual real damage to this planet and its human population.
    And please don’t go flying off and asking; “what about the rest of life on earth.
    I consider the wellbeing of all life on earth to be of serious interest to human wellbeingand for more reasons than just our enjoyment of the wonder of life.

    So it isn’t us at any cost; but one thing is for darn sure; if WE don’t survive, in a sane fashion, it doesn’t really matter (to us) what else happens.

    So I’m not interested in whether some beurocrat thinks government agencies don’t take climate change seriously enough: I am concerned that supposedly educated people who actually imagine themselves to be scientists; don’t take that station in life seriously enough to follow some sort of Hippocratic oath to first DO NO HARM.
    Instaed we see many operate under a hippocritic oath: to scare the less informed into foolish actions.

    The English language does not have words to describe my contempt for people who lie or steal; they are vermin.

    I feel the same way about so-called scientists who set out deliberately to deceive for some other personal agenda: those who understand have a moral duty to not mislead those who for no fault of their own, do not.

  121. Steve Berry says:

    Leif, just check your shoes for gravel – would you mate? Some things just aren’t needed to be stated. Do you understand? Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with sarcasm at all, in fact it’s very often appropriate. And if I remember my grammar lessons (often I don’t) Michael J Bentley’s post couldn’t be “ad hom” either, as (again, IIRC) ad hom can only be against a singular person, not a group. Found the gravel? That’s it, just shake it out mate, then you won’t be so needlessly grumpy.

  122. Neil Jones says:

    A lot of posts run the theme that “whole AGW panic is a hoax by people who stand to make a lot of money” to quote one poster (Postee?).

    Has anyone looked at this in terms of “The Hydraulic Empire” concept?

    If you do it makes more sense and gets a whole lot scarier.

    N.

  123. eric anderson says:

    I’d echo what Jeff Alberts said about certainty. Look at the table (Figure SPM-2 “Radiative Forcing Components”) on page 4 of the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers report. That table covers the anthropogenic factors the IPCC thinks is adding to global temperature: GHGs, ozone, surface albedo changes (from land use or deposition of carbon black on snow), aerosols (an anthropogenic cooling effect), and contrails. Note in the right hand column of that table (“LOSU” meaning level of scientific understanding) that for most of these factors the IPCC report admits the scientific understanding is “medium” or “low.”

    Logically, you cannot posit that you are highly certain of the effects of man on global climate when most of the man-made factors influencing temperature are not extremely well understood. The conclusion is inescapable: We. Don’t. Know.

    But what we do know is that over very long periods of time, CO2 levels have not driven global temperatures to major swings up or down. If anything, it would appear that the reverse has been true. On very long time scales (say 500 million years), assuming the proxy measurements of temperature and CO2 levels are anywhere near accurate, it is hard to see any correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature at all.

    This talk of “certainty” from the global warming alarmists is illogical. It is pure hubris, poppycock, and fantasy.

  124. Richard M says:

    I read the above article,

    “This is where we have found the temperature rising between 0.1C to 0.4C in a year, and that means species are shifting northwards at the rate of 80 to 200 metres in 10 years,” says Mr Sharma.

    “This is quite alarming.”

    OMG, how will they adapt having to move an entire 8 meters in just a single year. [sac off]

    The climate in this region is quite harsh. The reality, I imagine, is warming (if it even happened in this region) would be a significant positive influence.

  125. Jerry Malone says:

    Off topic: I’m looking for a story, published here a few months ago, about how GISS processes temperature data. It had graphics of a pulling a rabbit out of a hat, driving a bulldozer, etc. Anyone have the link to this?

    Thanks

  126. If the climate models accumulate more C02 at the poles than the equator, and the insulation factor in the models is correct, the temperature gradient difference will be less.
    Now, where did they get that idea? The poles of Mars?

  127. Pete says:

    OT, but that Hansen comment that a tax is better than cap & trade probably deserves a thread.

    I think he’s probably right if you are going to charge for carbon use, but I wonder if his making such a public comment is an indication that perhaps he is setting himself up for a reversal!

  128. LarryOldtimer says:

    Humans change climate? Sort of like a flea climbing up an elephant’s leg with rape on its mind.

  129. Jeff Alberts says:

    I used that in my post to illustrate the ultimate word-meaning conflict – an intellegent military response (ie. Military Intellegence)

    Except that people in the military can spell “intelligence”. ;)

  130. Jeff Alberts says:

    “Mr. Hansen also had the honesty to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, while reproaching his followers — President-elect Obama among them — for not doing the same. To wit, Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only ‘honest, clear and effective’ way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. ‘Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,’ he writes.”

    Except that it’s not honest to promote apocalypse without evidence.

  131. Pete says:

    J.Peden (11:44:33) :

    “Shouldn’t people have to actually sign a specific statement affirming or denying the statement – in order to record their real opinions and to add up the numbers? Moreover, just what would this “consensus” mean or constitute numerically? 50.1 vs 49.9%?”

    I propose the Governments of the world establish professional licensing programs with the licensing fees going toward “solutions”. Just about anyone can be licensed, but they would be subject to whatever penalties other licensing programs levy on one who fails in their professional duties. Missing the direction of any Climate Change might be one reason.

  132. peerr says:

    mybe global freezing it not such a bad idea
    http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk/news-7604.html

  133. peerr says:

    Steve Keohane

    any idea how you can melt so much ice overnight?

    are the pics some how “adjusted”

  134. Pamela Gray says:

    Santa forgot his driver’s license and had to return to the pole to get it. Then decided it was too damned cold for a test run so stayed home to snuggle with the Mrs. By the way, because Rudolph had his headlight on, we now know that the toy station (or maybe the home residence) is not actually at the pole but further south and nearly behind the iron curtain.

  135. Pamela Gray says:

    I wants heard an OSU prof complain that the proven null hypothesis research never gets published to the detriment of scientific advance. If you don’t find anything, that is as important to know as when you find something. Making scientists pay for wrong conclusions would drive them towards unethical practices more strongly than their paycheck does right now.

  136. Bruce Cobb says:

    Freezing Finn:
    Let’s see if I got it right.

    Now, whereas AGW is considered a hoax by most people here (incl. myself) involving most of the world’s goverments, the UN and other intergovermental organizations, numerous transnational corporations and a handful of scientists – let alone the mainstream media and the public (hey, we’re talking about millions of people here) – “chemtrails”, on the other hand, are just a “ludicrous fantasy”?

    The description of “hoax” to describe the AGW behemoth is in no way accurate, though the word may be used occasionally as a shortcut. In short, it is an industry based on a simple hypothesis which was never proven. Its original proponents had their own varying motivations for wanting it to be true, be they political or monetary. In time, though, it took on a life of its own, with numerous and interconnecting feedbacks. Careers, both political, scientific and others have been built on AGW, and are now dependent on it.

    Not so with the “Chemtrails” fantasy. They are contrails, nothing more. I find the arguments for them about as convincing as the ones for the WTC conspiracy.

  137. Jeff Alberts (10:23:29) : “…Except that people in the military can spell “intelligence”. ”

    So help me, Jeff, I got a resume once that said: “When i was in the military, I was in military inteligence (sic).”

    Pete (10:01:58) : “…that Hansen comment that a tax is better than cap & trade probably deserves a thread.”

    Yes, Pete, I’d been thinking the same thing, that in a way, Hansen may have blinked. Definitely deserves a thread, and not a knee-jerk rush to judgment.

    Robert Bateman (09:44:22) : “If the climate models accumulate more C02 at the poles than the equator…”

    I don’t recall seeing any statement like that, Robert.

    Geoff Alder (06:59:43) : “…in areas subject to frosts, (so they tell me) when there is no night cloud cover, there can be severe frost….”

    Ja, Geoff. I was told in Physics class that an open Thermos bottle could accumulate liquid air in the desert on a still, clear night. The black body temperature of the night sky is 4°K. Never tried it, though.

    Steve Berry (08:46:00) : “…there is nothing wrong with sarcasm at all, in fact it’s very often appropriate….”

    Yes, Steve, I must admit that at times I find sarcasm hard to resist, given the nonsense we see off-site from rabid AGW’ers. (Still, I agree with Leif in principle. IMO, like Tabasco sauce, sarcasm should be used sparingly.) Thank you, Steve.

    And thanks, Leif. I always enjoy your input, even though I don’t fully agree with some of it.

  138. hmccard says:

    Compare today’s Cryoshpere image of Arctic Ice extent with yesterday’s:

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=07&sy=2008

    Maybe yesterday’s image was the work of Santa’s helpers

  139. Ed Scott says:

    Dr. Pachauri strikes again! Attack on bovine flatulence. Can homo sapiens be far behind (pardon the pun).

    Proposed fee on smelly cows, hogs angers farmers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
    MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.

    “It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses,” said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

    “We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share,” he said.

  140. Smokey says:

    I don’t know if this is bogus or not: click

    But I suspect it is. If the someone could control the weather, Phoenix and Las Vegas would have no more worries about lack of water.

  141. H.R. says:

    @Ed Scott (16:53:28) :

    You posted: “Dr. Pachauri strikes again! Attack on bovine flatulence. Can homo sapiens be far behind (pardon the pun).”

    Proposed fee on smelly cows, hogs angers farmers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
    MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.

    “It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses,” said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

    “We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share,” he said.”

    If I’m not mistaken, a vegetarian diet tends to produce a higher proportion of greenhouse gases than a good ol’ colon-cloggin’ meat and potatoes diet (vegans and vegetarians please feel free to jump in and correct me).

    If so, we’ll all pay about the same if humans pay for their (ahem) personal emmisions. The meat eaters will pay the passthrough cost from the farm and the veggie folks will pay more directly.

    What I really want to know is who will go around monitoring human emmisions? Will this new job count towards the 2.5 million jobs soon to be created? I don’t think I really want to read that job description when it’s posted. ;o)

  142. Pamela Gray says:

    Good God. I meant “once”, not wants. Damned global warming.

  143. Ric Werme says:

    Smokey (17:49:59) :

    I don’t know if this is bogus or not: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html

    But I suspect it is. If the someone could control the weather, Phoenix and Las Vegas would have no more worries about lack of water.

    Probably about as bogus as the chemtrails Haarp is linked with.

    Try the source: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html

    If it’s not bogus, I’d say HAARP’s aim needs work.

  144. Ed Scott says:

    H.R.
    Reflecting on the general population and noting the number of citizens who are willing to mind your business as well as their own, there should be no shortage of volunteers for the monitoring ass-ignments. I am curious about the job description and the name for the agents. I am sure the EPA can come up with a catchy acronym. It might be prudent to buy stock in the Bean-O Company. In Washington, D. C., and in the words of the esteemed Senate majority leader, the new US$71 million visitors center, which cost US$621 million, alleviated the necessity for our elected representatives to smell the stench of We the People. There is a stench in Washington, D. C., but it does not derive from We the People.

  145. Jeff Alberts (10:23:29) :
    Robert Bateman (09:44:22) : “If the climate models accumulate more C02 at the poles than the equator…”

    I don’t recall seeing any statement like that, Robert.

    Try getting a stronger understanding of the logic of “If….then”.
    The AGW crowd beats up on the Anti-AGW crowd and vice versa.
    Did it ever occur to anyone that the answer might actually be …
    both, boss? Global cooling can occur with lack of sunspot activity despite CO2 increase and Global warming can occur with high sunspot activity in the presence of high C02.
    Sort of like a filter. You don’t record much blue light when the star is a red giant, but you sure do when it’s a type O.
    What you folks need is Carl Sagan, somebody to connect to John Q. Public.

  146. Jeff Id says:

    I just want to go on the record and surprise everyone by saying this juror is still out. The world has lost it’s little blue marbles.

  147. AndrewWH says:

    Meanwhile, activism rears its head again:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7770513.stm
    Hope they wrapped up warm, it was pretty chilly (for southern England) last night.

  148. anna v says:

    hmccard (13:07:48) :
    OT
    Compare today’s Cryoshpere image of Arctic Ice extent with yesterday’s:

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=07&sy=2008

    Maybe yesterday’s image was the work of Santa’s helpers

    and other Cryosphere observers.

    It is not the first of April, so a prank by a graduate student seems unlikely. Maybe to see if anybody is watching? :)

    If it is not a prank, since it has ice colors the only thing it could be is an instantly freezing geothermal plume?

    unless it is in topic and it is some military test?

  149. George E. Smith says:

    “” Ed Scott (16:53:28) :

    Dr. Pachauri strikes again! Attack on bovine flatulence. Can homo sapiens be far behind (pardon the pun). “”

    Well I have the perfect solution for Dr Pachauri.

    In the firm belief that charity begins at home, I suggest that the good doctor focus his entire energies on ridding this planet of that well known scourge; the “sacred” cows of India. Utterly worthless and serving no useful purpose to mankind, they should be easy for the Doctor to get eliminated.

    When you have achieved that Dr Pachauri, then come and talk to us about what WE should do to satisfy you.

    Mind your own business first Dr Pachauri.

  150. anna v says:

    Continuing on the maybe OT bow on the december 6 cryosphere image of the arctic, the link
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ has 4 jpg images from different angles /projections.

    On strange natural phenomena I would like to describe the starlings which come in huge, literally huge, flocks from all over europe to spend the winter in greece. Every day they rise in huge synchronous flocks and go towards the woods and fields, and every sunset they come back, usually roosting in very specific trees downtown and making a guano mess below.

    Once, I thought I saw a huge shining metalic elongated object towards the sunset: UFO :). It was a starling flock coming to roost beating its wings in synchrony so that the white side underwing flashed like metal.

    The other morning while going down on the fields they made a huge spiral staircase shape from a kilometer up to landing.

    This bow of course cannot be from living things. I can see a huge plume of steam though, freezing on the edges into icicles making such a shape for these instruments.

  151. E.M.Smith says:

    from Dylan (06:35:49) :
    One wonders the reaction if a defence force’s paper said that gravity may cause something to fall or it may not.
    -end quote

    Well, I, for one, would say they had it right! Sometimes it makes the airplane fall and sometimes the pilot points it nose up and hits the gas 8-}

  152. E.M.Smith says:

    From Geoff Alder (06:59:43) :
    Am I a simpleton in thinking this tells me that atmospheric water vapour and cloud cover play the major role in controlling heat escape from the surface of the planet? Am I a simpleton in believing that atmospheric CO2 would be incapable of playing role in any way comparable with this? Is this whole issue being absurdly over complicated?
    -end quote

    Nope. I’d say you’ve got a pretty good handle on things… Oh, BTW, clouds are not modeled in the computer models that predict our demise from AGW. Just one of many bogus items in them…

    Why? No idea, but I’d speculate that its because clouds are very hard to model so easier to just make them an invariant plug number…

    On this we are basing our future economic health?

  153. E.M.Smith says:

    From eric anderson (08:49:46) :
    Logically, you cannot posit that you are highly certain of the effects of man on global climate when most of the man-made factors influencing temperature are not extremely well understood. The conclusion is inescapable: We. Don’t. Know.
    -end quote

    A wonderful example (proof?) of the fact that we can’t know is here:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

    where he used IPCC data and shows that even it is is accepted as true, the error band on the aerosols swamps the CO2 impact. You can’t even know the sign of the net human impact, never mind the magnitude.

    Never have your precision exceed your accuracy…

  154. Freezing Finn says:

    Ok, I asked for some “educated” and “open minded” thoughts on the phenomenon called “chemtrails”.

    And though not as “open minded” nor as “educated” as I was hoping for – here are some of them along with some comments & questions added:

    Quote:

    “To get an industry and even military organizations to be
    co-operative in such a cover-up is ludicrous… To keep something secret, you have to have the loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings.”

    Questions:

    (1) Isn’t military ALL about “loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings”?

    (2) And if it was a secret military operation still running, they wouldn’t talk about it in the open at this point, would they?

    Instead – and considering the possible size of it – they’d do it in “secrecy”, disguise and/or “compartmentilize” it – one way or the other (Open Skies, HAARP, “fight against AGW” etc.) – and so that it would be very difficult for anyone to “connect dots” for a full and clear picture.

    Besides, corporations, too, and even universities tend to keep things secret as well as compartmentilized – especially when they make deals/co-ops with the military/military complex.

    Quote:

    “I’d believe in UFO’s before Chemtrails….”

    Question:

    (3) Now, that’s a “straw man”, isn’t it?

    Quote:

    “…ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…

    Question:

    (4) Using the word “ludicrous” is probably meant to make your the “point” stronger, but is it really?

    Well, I’ve heard the “argument” before – for example: “Lyndon LaRouche was in jail for fraud – don’t listen to him, he’s a criminal.”

    Or – “Ron Paul is a creationist, so anything he says about the Federal Reserve, the US Constitution, Austrian Economics etc. must be crazy too”.

    And please note: I’m an “agnostic atheist” myself – yet that hasn’t stopped me from listening to what he has to say on other issues. I also listen to what LaRouche has to say, for his views make a lot more sense than the “official” stories.

    Quote:

    “..people who have no problem believing a conspiracy existed in the Bush administration to down the WTC or to fabricate evidence against Iraq to justify an invasion to steal their oil somehow have a BIG problem believing that AGW alarm is fabricated. I’d laugh more if I wasn’t watching the damage they are causing.”

    Question:

    (5) What “damage” and to what or to whom?

    Now, I personally doubt the official 9/11 story – which BTW also is a “conspiracy theory” and questioned by a lot of experts such as engineers and scientists – and very much like in this AGW-believers vs. sceptics debate – the circumstances are strikingly similar. Then again, science never is, and never can be completely free of politics.

    But I also doubt the UN-sponsored AGW-theory – so, the argument above doesn’t apply here now, does it?

    On the WMD-issue – well, it was fairly “safe” to assume that S. Hussein still had them then for it was made possible in the first place by the US during the 1980’s. It was also the West that originally put S. Hussein in power… but since we’re way OT already, I’ll just stop here and return to the original issue. ;)

    Quote:

    “They are contrails, nothing more. I find the arguments for them about as convincing as the ones for the WTC conspiracy.

    Comment/question:

    (6) The first sentence is a statement – and the second one is just another “straw man” to “support” that statement, isn’t it?

    Quote:

    “Probably about as bogus as the chemtrails Haarp is linked with. Try the source: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html

    Comment:

    Why not go directly to: https://www.cia.gov/

    “.. an INDEPENDENT US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US POLICYMAKERS.”
    (emphasis added)

    Sounds a bit like the IPCC, doesn’t it ? ;)

  155. Ric Werme says:

    anna v (22:18:25) :

    hmccard (13:07:48) :
    OT
    Compare today’s Cryoshpere image of Arctic Ice extent with yesterday’s:

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=07&sy=2008

    If it is not a prank, since it has ice colors the only thing it could be is an instantly freezing geothermal plume?

    I assume that the images are stitched together from multiple passes of a near-poalr orbitting satellite. My guess is that there were gaps in the scans that day and the software that does the stitching together of the stripes did the best it knew how, leaving a bit of a mess for later processing that figures out the ice coverage.

    It’s curious that http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ has 12/05/2008 images for NH ice and 12/07/2008 images for SH ice. They’ll probably straighten it out today, if not, it would be worth contacting them.

  156. Ric Werme says:

    Freezing Finn (04:44:35) :

    Ok, I asked for some “educated” and “open minded” thoughts on the phenomenon called “chemtrails”.

    And you did that with a two line request and posted a Wikipedia link. So, just how much time did you expect people to spend on a response to an OT request like like that? I’m sorry I replied – I’ve wasted enough of my life responding to other people people as lazy as you. I did stumble across one quote that I’d seen before and convinced me that 95% of of the people who take Chemtrails seriously have no understanding of what they’re looking at.

    Consider this quote:

    Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mares tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a “fake cirrus-type cloud” that persists for hours.

    Give me a break. Have we descended so far into TV watching, computer game playing, Weather Channel watchers to not bother to go outside to experience weather? In my experience, jets flying through cold dry arctic air that visits us in New Hampshire (like today) leave contrails that last a few minutes. I’ve seen some that lasted about 10 seconds and wouldn’t be surprised if dry enough conditions lead to no contrails at all.

    Conversely, when a more southern air mass comes in contrails persist much longer and in cases where the air is supersaturated they can grow, spread out, and “drip feathers and mares tails” just like ordinary cirrus.

    If you want conspiracy, consider this – why has no one bothered even to aim an IR spectrometer at a “Chemtrail”? If they’re all over the place and defy normal cloud science, surely some curious scientist would have done that. Why don’t Chemtrail sites suggest natural explanations for parallel Chemtrails? I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an active movement to suppress sensible explanations in order to garner more attention to the conspiracist’s sites or to distract the public’s attention from the real evil designs by the mastermind behind the Chemtrail conspiracy. Who may well be Lyndon LaRouche.

    I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense. Many people who could say something haven’t because people like you post a one or two sentence troll and have (despite protestations to the contrary) no intention to apply simple science to the question.

    Oh, and use your real name too – “Freezing Finn” sounds like a name a “professional wrestler” in the US would use.

  157. Jeff Alberts says:

    Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :

    Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?

  158. Novoburgo says:

    Anthony,
    Wow! Just finished reading through most of this blog. Feels as though I just went through the comments section in one of those crackpot British tabloids. Tin hat wearers have taken over WUWT.

  159. CodeTech says:

    Ric Werme wrote: “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”

    Bingo, count me in.

    Novoburgo: Tin hats? Taken over? Nah… but it is a good example of how actual open comment sections attract all types. I’d prefer the occasional nutjob posting to the gleeful censorship at, you know, some sites around…

    Personally, I sometimes find myself posting humor that I later realize is not being taken as humor. I apologize if my post explaining how Santa’s heavy industry and transportation operations at the eco-fragile North Pole was taken seriously. But I still say it’s foolish to build a base of operations on a frozen-over stretch of ocean.

  160. Rod Smith says:

    CodeTech (08:08:48) :
    Ric Werme wrote: “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”

    “Bingo, count me in.”

    ————–

    All in favor? (Raises hand…)

  161. Habit.

    Jeff Alberts (06:51:44) :

    Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :

    Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?

  162. Mike Bryant says:

    I would also like to nix the chemtrails nonsense.
    Mike Bryant

  163. Bruce Cobb says:

    Freezing Finn: You win, Chemtrails do exist – they do, they do, they do. And, there goes Bigfoot…

  164. Freezing Finn says:

    Ric Werme (06:17:30):

    “I’m sorry I replied – I’ve wasted enough of my life responding to other people people as lazy as you.”

    Ad hominem abusivis?

    Anyway – I’m feel sorry too – trying to participate in online discussions seems like such a waste of time.

    Reading articles is fine, but the “discussions”… well, there seems to be no point really for it’s ultimately all just an “us-against-you-tribal-sorta” thing.

    “Have we descended so far into TV watching, computer game playing, Weather Channel watchers to not bother to go outside to experience weather?”

    My point exactly.

    Now, I don’t even have a TV – my kids play computer games though I let them do that only a max. of one hour a day + I have “weather channels” – meaning windows – all around my house.

    And about “experiencing the weather” – well, I grow some of my own food (and not in a greenhouse), I make the firewoods needed for the winter myself (30-40m3 per year on average) and thanks to the fact that we have snow around here for 5 months each year, I spent quite a lot of time shovelling snow, too…

    “In my experience…” etc.

    Well, how do you explain this – “artificial clouds over Germany” – on German TV with English subtitles (note: the tranlation isn’t perfect, yet the point is still pretty clear):
    http://chemtrailawareness.multiply.com/video/item/11

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an active movement to suppress sensible explanations in order to garner more attention to the conspiracist’s sites or to distract the public’s attention from the real evil designs by the mastermind behind the Chemtrail conspiracy. Who may well be Lyndon LaRouche.”

    Sounds like a “conspiracy theory” to me – and I figure you’re not a fan of LaRouche either.

    “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense. Many people who could say something haven’t because people like you post a one or two sentence troll and have (despite protestations to the contrary) no intention to apply simple science to the question.”

    Understood -now, I’ll be outta here right after this one:

    “Oh, and use your real name too – “Freezing Finn” sounds like a name a “professional wrestler” in the US would use.”

    Well, it seems to me it’s not a very wise thing to do – unless you already agree with the rest – or at least with the “majority” and on the “key issues” here – otherwise you get attacked pretty easily – and on the personal level too.

    But hey, that’s what the internet is all about, in my opinion – the ultimate tool for “social compartmentilizing”…

  165. Novoburgo says:

    Got me convinced! Yup, those anomalous clouds over Germany did it.
    Never did trust the Deutscher Wetterdienst!!
    (strictly sarcasm)

    Freezing Finn don’t stop now, you’re beginning to attract a following.

  166. anna v says:

    Ric Werme (05:31:54) :

    I assume that the images are stitched together from multiple passes of a near-poalr orbitting satellite. My guess is that there were gaps in the scans that day and the software that does the stitching together of the stripes did the best it knew how, leaving a bit of a mess for later processing that figures out the ice coverage.

    Interesting, I did not know that but should have guessed that the end result we see in such lovely images has undergone a lot of handling. What you say explains nicely the crystal like radial structure in December 1980
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=1980&sm=12&sd=06&sy=2008
    and several months before and after. It could be excess overlaps by the program.

    But the curious pattern of dec 6 2008 does not have such symmetry. I wish they had some explanation pages on their site :(.

    I think I will ask where it says: Questions and/or comments.

  167. Paul Shanahan says:

    Robert Bateman (09:59:00) :
    Habit.
    Jeff Alberts (06:51:44) :
    Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :
    Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?

    Your being framed. Just like CO2… :D

  168. sky says:

    Dr. Svalgaard:

    Because seawater salinity varies little, and the effect upon the oceans’ heat capacity is consequently negligible, I’m mystified by your placement of it at the head of the list of possible “drivers” of oceanic circulation that “may account” for the variations in climate that we are experiencing. My understanding is that the global anticyclonic circulation is wind-driven. Also, it would seem that something more variable than heat capacity (perhaps cloud albedo) is required to explain the considerable year-to-year variations of global temperature that are observed. Please explain.

  169. sky (14:07:40) :
    Because seawater salinity varies little
    It varies a lot, contrast the brackish Baltic Sea with the salty Mediterranean Sea.

    There are good indications that the melting of ice barriers at the end of the last ice age would have allowed large glacial freshwater lakes [the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada are still such remaining bodies of water] to enter the oceans and temporarily change the salinity enough to upset the normal circulation and cause dramatic climate change. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

  170. Ric Werme says:

    sky (14:07:40) :

    Dr. Svalgaard:

    Because seawater salinity varies little, and the effect upon the oceans’ heat capacity is consequently negligible, I’m mystified by your placement of it at the head of the list of possible “drivers” of oceanic circulation that “may account” for the variations in climate that we are experiencing.

    It varies enough. Probably the most important case is the Gulf Stream. It’s high salinity is due to evaporation, but the warm temperature keeps it buoyant until it reaches the Arctic whereupon it sinks. If there is a flood of fresh water from Canada or Greenland, that can float on top of the Gulf Stream cutting down on the Gulf Stream warming in Europe.

    Search for “Thermohaline Circulation”. My http://wermenh.com/2016.html may have some useful references. Basically, it’s density, not heat capacity, that’s important.

  171. Wondering Aloud says:

    Kerry E of MIT better consult with Richard Lindzen he should be able to find him.

  172. Jeff Alberts says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:38:43) :
    There are good indications that the melting of ice barriers at the end of the last ice age would have allowed large glacial freshwater lakes [the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada are still such remaining bodies of water] to enter the oceans and temporarily change the salinity enough to upset the normal circulation and cause dramatic climate change. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

    I dunno, I think they’re really stretching that theory there.

    From the Wikipedia article [emphasis mine]:

    In western Europe and Greenland, the Younger Dryas is a well-defined synchronous cool period.[9] But cooling in the tropical North Atlantic may have preceded this by a few hundred years; South America shows a less well defined initiation but a sharp termination. The Antarctic Cold Reversal appears to have started a thousand years before the Younger Dryas, and has no clearly defined start or end;

    The prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.[12] The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water “lid” from the north Atlantic Ocean. This theory does not explain why South America cooled first.

    Previous glacial terminations probably did not have Younger Dryas-like events, suggesting that whatever the mechanism is, it has a random component.

    However there is evidence that termination II had a post glacial cooling period similar to the younger Dryas but lasting longer and being more severe.

    There is evidence that the so-called Younger Dryas impact event, 12,900 years ago in North America could have initiated the Younger Dryas cooling.[13]

    So they’ve got multiple data points which conflict with the theory. It also seems to me that all interglacials would have such a problem. Also, with wind patterns then being roughly the same as today, the cold should have swept all across the northern hemisphere, but it seems only Western Europe, Greenland, and North America are mentioned (unless I missed something), as happening in conjunction with the Younger Dryas.

  173. Freezing Finn says:

    Novoburgo: “you’re beginning to attract a following.”

    Can’t you read? The “tribe” has spoken already – remember:

    – “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”

    – ““Bingo, count me in.”

    – “All in favor? (Raises hand…)”

    – “I would also like to nix the chemtrails nonsense.”

    So, keep up the “good fight” guys!

    ‘Cause although the people behind the AGW-hoax are just too “simple” to understand most of your arguments, the “best” arguments – based on “good science”, naturally – will ultimately prevail, eh?

    Well, dream on, folks – the AGW-tribe is a lot bigger than yours and they already have all the power they need to get what they’re after.

    Cheers,

    The Lazy Finn

    Ps. ever cared to check out what the UN’s “Agenda-21″ is all about? Oh well, I guess you’re busy enough as it is…

  174. Bruce Cobb says:

    For Freezing Finn – from the mission statement of the Flat Earth Society:

    “For over five hundred years humanity has believed the “round Earth” teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet’s true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.

    But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.”

    Well, I’m convinced. Now, excuse me while I go stock up on tinfoil.

  175. sky says:

    Dr. Svalgaard:

    Pointing to marginal, virtually land-locked, seas doesn’t alter the fact that for well over 95% of the oceans, the salinity is within 34.3-35.1 parts per thousand. Even in the marginal seas, the thermodynamic properties of sea water are scarcely affected by much more drastic salinity variations.

    Notwithstanding the highly speculative claim that the release of glaciai freshwater lakes altered the oceanic circulation–thus climate–I remain mystified by your seeking explanations of climate variations in terms of factors of little significance, insofar as global average temperatures are concerned. The significant (sigma ~1/4K) year-to-year variability of those averages was the point of my question. Surely, as a physicist, you recognize that oceanic circulation can merely redistribute the globally absorbed heat, rather than change its average value. By contrast, cloud albedo, which can reduce the thermalized insolation by up to 100 w/sq.m locally, affects the heat content itself.

  176. sky says:

    Ric Werme:

    You are correct in stating that seawater density, rather than just salinity, is the governing factor in thermohaline circulation. But, notwithstanding efforts by the Gore School of Oceanography to elevate it to overarching significance, THC constitutes merely a minor, sluggish, sub-surface adjustment to the wind-driven anti-cyclonic circulation that transports heat poleward (e.g., Gulf Stream, the Kuroisho, Brazil, and Agulhas Currents) and returns cool water to temperate latitudes (e.g., Benguella, Peru, California Currents). The wind-driven circulation is orders of magnitude more important. And the whole point of my discussion is the global heat content and its variability, not just the mechanics of oceanic transport.

  177. George E. Smith says:

    “”” The Younger Dryas stadial, named after the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, and also referred to as the Big Freeze,[1] was a brief (approximately 1,300 ± 70 years) cold climate period following the Bölling/Allerød interstadial at the end of the Pleistocene between approximately 12,800 to 11,500 years Before Present,[2] and preceding the Preboreal of the early Holocene. In Ireland, the period has been known as the Nahanagan Stadial, while in the UK it has been called the Loch Lomond Stadial and most recently Greenland Stadial 1 (GS1).[3]

    The Younger Dryas (GS1) is also a Blytt-Sernander climate period detected from layers in north European bog peat. It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 BP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 BP uncalibrated. An Older Dryas stadial had preceded the Allerød, approximately 1,000 years before the Younger Dryas; it lasted 300 years.[4] “””

    I can’t say I have read so many gobbledegook buzzwords in such a small space before; courtesy of Wicked peedya. No wonder the general public glazes over when encountering science articles.

    The above is more convoluted than the family histories of “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, and “Quiet Flows the Don” all rolled into one book.

    As for the “Thermohaline Circulation” I believe that stopping it involves a certain operation called “Stopping the Planetary Rotation”.

    I always wanted to reverse the planetary rotation, so we could have a warm gulf stream, and tropical pelagic fishes along the California Coast, and you all Easterners could have your Atlantic Salmon back.

    I’ll let you know before I apply the brakes !

  178. Freezing Finn says:

    Bruce Cobb – thanks for yet another ad-hom-style straw man.

    The Flat-Earth-Society “argument” straight out of the AGW-crowd’s handbook – and seems like it fits anything these days, eh?

    Now, guess who wrote this in a reply to someone else:

    “[X] not only seems to think his is the only valid viewpoint, but goes out of his way to belittle the views of others.”

    Answer: you did – and in case you “forgot” all about it already.

    But ok – now I’m outta here – I promise!… ;)

  179. Bruce Cobb says:

    Freezing Finn: But, I said I believed, didn’t I? I also believe in Sylphs, which are “elementals” in the form of clouds. When you see a cloud that resembles a dragon or angel or bearded god, that’s essentially what it really is. It is a spirit embodied by clouds. These Sylphs do various supernatural things as the jet stream pushes them along, but most importantly for us, they destroy and/or consume CHEMTRAILS!!!
    So, there’s no need to worry – the Sylphs will save us!

  180. H.R. says:

    @Ed Scott (20:13:53) :

    You wrote in part:
    “H.R.
    Reflecting on the general population and noting the number of citizens who are willing to mind your business as well as their own, there should be no shortage of volunteers for the monitoring ass-ignments. I am curious about the job description and the name for the agents. I am sure the EPA can come up with a catchy acronym.”

    I think they might form the Fetid Air Recovery Team whose job it would be to capture and quantify exhaust from the human tailpipe for the purpose of determining the appropriate tax rate to charge the emmiter.

    (Scary. I’m not sure whether I wrote a wee bit of humor or a glimpse of the future.)

  181. Dave C. says:

    How dare the military be allowed to think independently?

  182. jack smith says:

    What useful idiots the press make. There is no global warming. It might be nice if there was but. Real science seems to indicate we are headed for an ice age.

Comments are closed.