Dumpus Maximus

Here is a weather curiosity. We’ve been hearing a lot about snowfall in the northern hemisphere this year. In Oslo, they have given up on trying to pile it up so they have resorted to dumping it in the sea. If this happened in Seattle they’d probably get into a tizzy for polluting Puget Sound with fresh water snow. And it is not just Oslo, the problem seems widespread. Here are some other news stories in London, OT Geneva, Ohio Chardon, OH Wasatch, UT Chicopee, MA and Rochester, NY where they say the piles are making driving dangerous. In Wenatchee, WA they want to spray warm sewage water on the snow to melt it.  I know they could use the USHCN temperature sensor at the sewage treatment plant there to check the temperature to make sure conditions are right. Yeah, that’s the ticket! – Anthony

From Reuters Environment Blog by Alister Doyle

It looks more like an Ice Age than global warming.

There is so much snow in Oslo, where I live, that the city authorities are resorting to dumping truckloads of it in the sea because the usual storage sites on land are full.

That is angering environmentalists who say the snow is far too dirty – scraped up from polluted roads — to be added to the fjord. The story even made it to the front page of the local paper (’Dumpes i sjøen’: ‘Dumped in the sea’).

In many places around the capital there’s about a metre of snow, the most since 2006 when it was last dumped in the sea. Extra snow usually gets trucked to sites on land, where most of the polluted dirt is left after the thaw. Those stores are now full — in some the snow isn’t expected to melt before September.

But are these mountains of snow a sign that global warming isn’t happening?

Unfortunately, more snow might fit projections by the U.N. Climate Panel, which says that northern Europe is likely to get wetter and the south drier as temperatures rise this century.

“By the 2070s, hydropower potential for the whole of Europe is expected to decline by 6 percent, with strong regional variations from a 20 to 50 percent decrease in the Mediterranean region to a 15 to 30 increase in northern and eastern Europe.” it said in a 2007 report (page 60 of this link).

So people in northern Europe may have to buy more snow shovels than parasols to cope with global warming?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Snow, Weather. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Dumpus Maximus

  1. Pamela Gray says:

    But, deserts get cold and dry because they have no atmospheric blanket to keep everything in. Deserts breath at night, which makes them cold. With CO2 induced water vapor about, dryer becomes wetter. Me thinks someone needs to rethink that under warmer conditions, dryer gets dryer and colder gets snowyer. That is ass-backwards. From what I understand about water vapor blankets, colder zones get more rain and less snow. Deserts hold in moisture and get wetter, as well as warmer at night.

  2. Ron de Haan says:

    They could have asked the environmentalists to take it home and stuff it in their refrigerators. Why didn’t they think about that?

  3. Steven Goddard says:

    It was less than one year ago when the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat forecast an “ice free Arctic” for the summer of 2008, based on the weather in Norway.
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

    “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007,the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.

  4. Pat says:

    Haven’t you all seen the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”? I mean, it has to be true, it’s from Hollywood and it’s in colour too!

  5. Claude Harvey says:

    Why don’t we quit just talking about this and put our money where our mouths are? If we pooled our resources now, we could probably corner the market on snow shovels. If “The Goracle” can get fabulously rich on carbon credit marketing, imagine what we could do with snow shovels!

  6. Ron de Haan says:

    The warming is not happening, the AMO is cooling…
    I think we can confidently put the IPCC report aside because Europe will experience
    the weather patterns it was used to before 1980 or colder.

  7. joelseph says:

    Obviously someone paid attention to the idiocy that did occur during one of the worst winters in recent Seattle memory.

    The local government was so ill-prepared for that much snow, the way they dealt with it became a local joke (probably a national joke).

    Anyway, the reference made me laugh.

  8. JimB says:

    Back in the late 90′s, New England received an above average snowfall one winter. Those of us who enjoy winter were ecstatic. There was a major storm pretty much every week, and some weeks would deliver 2 storms to the area.
    In February, they ran out of places to put the snow, so the highway dept, along with Boston Dept of Public Works, began scooping up snow, loading it into dumptrucks, and dumping it in Boston Harbor.
    This resulted in the EPA filing suit for several million dollars, against the Commonwealth of Mass for poluting the harbor. The EPA explained that although it would seem to most that dumping snow into the ocean, which would then melt and turn into water, could not be a pollutant. The EPA explained, on the evening news, that the snow being dumped?…had SALT in it, and therefor would polute the harbor.

    First, how can one government agency sue another?…none of them have any money, except OUR money.

    I found it quite entertaining, but not surprisingly, few fellow residents got it.

    JimB

  9. tc says:

    A snow shovel is like a chocolate poker.

  10. Les Francis says:

    Cheap snow blower for sale. here

  11. swampie says:

    I would be happy to invest in snow shovels but the only large shovels available in my part of Florida are manure shovels.

    I suppose I could buy them and relabel them as “global warming” shovels.

  12. Pamela Gray says:

    CO2ius outgassious

    your turn

  13. CodeTech says:

    Ron de Haan (18:38:39) :

    They could have asked the environmentalists to take it home and stuff it in their refrigerators. Why didn’t they think about that?

    I hereby nominate “post of the day”…

    Wow, it’s a good thing nobody ever dumped anything in the sea before. I mean, EVER… in the history of man. How dare they put something that is, what, 99.99% water into the OCEAN, for crying out loud. The NERVE!

    Why, after 100 years or so, there could be as much as a FOOT of sediment under that dumping area! Horrors!

  14. Roger says:

    So, it get wetter….. and drier, colder…. and warmer…..?????

  15. Fred says:

    Big Deal.

    Montreal & Quebec City have been building huge piles of removed snow on the St. Lawrence river for most of the 20th century.

  16. IF we did that here there would be hemp hats for miles carrying their “fill in the blank” protest signs.

    You know those Norwegians really got a good thing going, they sell oil and gas, buy offsets so they appear green and have a carbon tax to enhance their standing in the EU… plus they dump snow in the sea!

    They are used as an example by every pointy headed eco-economist as a success story! Without hydro-carbon wealth they would not be so … Norwegian.

    BTW I love Norway and the people and resource wealth is nothing to be ashamed of…

    if you got oil and you know it, do not be afraid to show it, if you got oil clap your hands!

  17. Robert Bateman says:

    Did anybody stop to think what happens when that snow melts? It will run down into the sea anyway. What was all that fuss about?
    The big deal is that they have THAT much snow, so did Seatlle, the UK and a lot of other places this year. A whole lot of places got lots of snow.
    Cold. Getting colder.
    What did they think would happen after a Solar Cycle almost 3 years late and passed out? And the AMO and PDO flipping cold?
    Same thing that has always happened when the Sun hits a slick doing 95 on the InterGalactic Highway.
    It takes out a lot of things, and sets off a bunch of climactic dominoes.
    I hate to break it to the AGW alarmists, but the place is going to get a LOT colder before it gets warmer.

  18. Mike McMillan says:

    Where did that sunspot go?

  19. April E. Coggins says:

    Here in Washington state, we are no longer allowed to dump excess snow into the creeks and rivers. Instead, we must pile the excess snow next to the creeks and rivers. Somehow, that difference makes it all better. Oh, and we also a have a stormwater runoff tax. We are being taxed for the rain and snow that falls out the sky on to our property. If we retain the stormwater, we are stealing from the state. If we allow it to runoff, we are polluting. Plus we pay a small fee for the smart people to administer the law.

  20. Alan J says:

    It was 93ºF here in central Texas this afternoon. Global warming must be happening faster than any of us could possibly have imagined.

  21. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    My goodness – what’s the carbon footprint of all those trucks???

  22. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Ron de Haan (18:58:42) :

    The warming is not happening, the AMO is cooling

    Hi Ron, is the AMO moving into a cool phase? Got a link?

    G

  23. Hasse@Norway says:

    Have no fear! This large amonut of snow has already been blamed on global warming. As the mantra is that AGW leads to more extremes. Wilder, wetter, warmer. The three Ws used by Norwegian media.

    Cold temperatures has also it’s explanations; “Even though we’re warming, we’ll still see normal winters from time to time” and “this is just in Norway, the global trend is very clear”. (Using GISS adjusted of course)

  24. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Rhetorical Question: Is there any human activity that does not upset Environmentalists?

    Snow dumped in Ocean… If not dumped in Ocean, snow eventually melts and runs down storm drains, streams, creeks, rivers, etc and… goes into Ocean…

    I really don’t get why this (dumping snow in Ocean) would upset anyone – it’s beyond my ability to comprehend.

    My guess is that the Ocean is actually resting on a big layer of rock, silt, mud etc… so if some dirty snow is added – what would be the impact?

    Are the roads that polluted in Oslo – with what? And in comparison with the Sea water in the Fjord?

    So many questions and no answers.

  25. Bulaman says:

    OT. Tomorrow is the close of submissions on New Zealand’s proposed emissions trading law.
    Anyone want to chip in with commentary about how this is the sub prime of the enviroment movement or other pithy quotes we can plagarise?
    Cheers

  26. Pamela Gray says:

    PDOmus coldimus

  27. ked5 says:

    If this happened in Seattle they’d probably get into a tizzy for polluting Puget Sound with fresh water snow.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Well of course. Puget Sound is “salt water”. Oh, yeah, they had a tizzy in December at the “thought” of putting *salt” on the roads becasue it would add “salt” to Puget Sound.

  28. John H says:

    Objecting to dumping snow in the ocean is like so many other causes of the enviros where they need only produce a theoretical notion that a potential or possible impact may occur and it demands government action, prohibition and government funding to have a bunch of them track it.
    Here in Oregon it seems limitless as to what they will concoct in order to oppose literally everything but preservation.

  29. No, no, you don’t understand. Global warming was when the science was settled. Now the science is really, really settled, and ha-ha, silly us: it’s global cooling! As proof that the science is really, really settled, we’re going to spend $400,000,000.00 of stimulus money on more models. Then the science will be really, really, really, really settled. Don’t pay any attention to those Japanese and Russian scientists. They didn’t invent the car and the Internet.

  30. DJA says:

    JimB (19:00:46)
    Where did the EPA think the salt came from in the first place?

  31. climatebeagle says:

    They should obviously ship the snow to Texas if it’s 93F there, it would just melt. Maybe we could get some of it shipped to California, to fill our reservoirs, not only would it help out with our water shortage it might make Stephen Chu happy.

  32. D. King says:

    That’s not snow!!!….it’s white carbon dummies.

  33. Leon Brozyna says:

    Hmph

    If man does it an environmentalist will protest it because, well because man did it. Anything man does is bad, but I suppose environmentalists are exempt from that judgement because we all know that their intentions are in the right place — the establishment of a pristine environment, all green, quiet, peaceful, and relaxing. Think cemetary.

  34. Ben Lawson says:

    So… weather DOES equal climate. Gosh! But only if it’s getting colder, right?

    Sorry to intrude into the echo chamber “Best Science Blog of 2008″, but has anyone stopped giggling for a moment to actually think about the environmental results of dumping this kind of snow? I mean, in the right circumstances even yummy, yummy, ice cream is harmful to the environment.

    Aside from the possible toxic components, dumping the snow could either locally dilute or over-concentrate seawater, both could an adverse impact on marine life. I don’t know which is more likely or if either would actually be significant, but on this technical point I’d rather “keep my mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open my mouth and confirm it”.

  35. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    ked5 (20:36:07) :

    If this happened in Seattle they’d probably get into a tizzy for polluting Puget Sound with fresh water snow.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Well of course. Puget Sound is “salt water”. Oh, yeah, they had a tizzy in December at the “thought” of putting *salt” on the roads becasue it would add “salt” to Puget Sound.

    It occurs to me that the LAZY “Precautionary Principle” allows any upset to be turned into a protest. Goes like this.

    1. I don’t like what your doing.
    2. (Even though I have no mechanism/math to explain it, and I don’t understand it) What your doing must be dangerous and bad for something.
    3. Therefore you have to stop whatever it is that you are doing.

    The bottom line is control.

  36. Pamela Gray says:

    Hey, the thread is titled “Dumpus Maximus”. I think we are being given a bit of leeway to be light hearted here. As to the above comment that anything a man does is bad, I certainly hope so!

    Badus homosapiusmus!

  37. Ron de Haan says:

    CodeTech (19:27:03) :

    Ron de Haan (18:38:39) :

    ” They could have asked the environmentalists to take it home and stuff it in their refrigerators. Why didn’t they think about that?

    I hereby nominate “post of the day”…

    Wow, it’s a good thing nobody ever dumped anything in the sea before. I mean, EVER… in the history of man. How dare they put something that is, what, 99.99% water into the OCEAN, for crying out loud. The NERVE!

    Why, after 100 years or so, there could be as much as a FOOT of sediment under that dumping area! Horrors!”

    CodeTech,

    I just made the remark because today nothing is possible anymore.
    Every initiative is jumped by regulators or environmentalists.
    It won’t take much time before we live under a regime that comes close to the Deutsche Demokratische Republik when we still had the Iron Curtain.

    When those zealots are finished with regulations there is no room for humans anymore.

  38. Paul says:

    Won’t dumping all that snow in the sea cause the sea levels to rise, thereby drowning Polar Bears up there and Koala’s down here ?

  39. AnonyMoose says:

    If the environmentalists really think that northern Europe will get wetter and southern will get drier, and that this is somehow bad:
    * Northern environmentalists will pay to have their extra snow shipped south so the balance will be restored.
    * Southern environmentalists will pay to have the northern snow delivered.
    * They’ll do it voluntarily. Better yet, in addition to paying they’ll go out and push and pull the shipments themselves.

  40. Steven Goddard says:

    Alan J,

    I don’t know how long you have lived in Texas, but temperatures in the upper 80s and 90s in February are not uncommon in the historical record.
    http://www.accuweather.com/us/tx/college-station/77840/forecast-climo.asp?partner=forecastfox&traveler=1&zipChg=1

  41. Pamela Gray says:

    I’ll wager a guess that it is the oil in the dirty snow that they are worried about, not the salt. It doesn’t take much to put a solid oil sheen on salt water, or any water for that matter, that will then find its way onto a beach. Of course, there are areas along the shore that leak oil anyway. Not from a grounded ship, but from the ground itself. And there is bacteria that have been around for a long time that eat oil. So oil in salt water is nothing new to mother Earth. But still, putting oil into the ocean near shore may not be wise. Ship it further out to sea. Then dump it.

  42. Louis Hissink says:

    Paul,

    Not really, the snow came from the seas in the first place. This must mean that glob al sea levels must have dropped this northern winter?

  43. Ray says:

    Oh My God!!! they are cooling the ocean and they will rise the ocean levels by dumping snow there. Quick, someone must tell Gore to sell his sea-side summer house.

  44. Matti Virtanen says:

    Big deal indeed. Dumping snow on ice is routine in many Finnish cities, although municipalities must get an “environmental permit” for it.

  45. savethesharks says:

    No, not the koalas…they can’t get enough fresh water right now.

    But thanks to Australian firefighters, somebody is making a dent in that problem. (I love this video: The BEST in human nature….helping the CUTEST of wildlife.)

    In regards to Dumpus Maximus…..

    Rather than cause sea level rise….Oslo being so close to the terminus of the GulfStream Current….such an infusion of melting snowmelt…might reversify (GW Bush term) the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulification.

    Understandify?

    In other words….Oslo dumping all of that fresh water in the ocean might plunge Europe into another mini-Ice Age.

    Stop dumping those truckloads of snow into a mass of water that is miles deep and covers 2/3 of the world’s surface!

    Our lives depend on it.

    Join Dr. Hansen March to 2nd in DC to protest Oslo snow dumping!

  46. ian says:

    While I really appreciate the humour and lightheartedness often displayed at WUWT (as opposed to the viciousness often displayed at blogs such as RC and DeSmog) I don’t think that attacks on ‘greenies’ and ‘lefties’ assists those of the aforementioned who are earnestly querying the AGW hypothesis. As a former alarmist turned skeptic and, for want of better phrases, an environmentalist and politically left, I found WUWT an essential source of good information during my ‘transformation’. Whatever our particular ideologies, I feel that keeping their expresion somewhat in check can only benefit those on the search…still admire the humourous irreverance of many posts!

    A ‘greenypinkobleedingheartliberal’

  47. I live in Oslo. It’s not fair to blame the weather/the climate/global warming for the problem of snow disposal. The real problem is city planning. When new homes or apartments get built, noone thinks of the snow. I can’t remember ever to have seen an architect drawing of a home depicting the house in its environment during the winter. So the snow must be piled up in trucks and taken out of the city rather to be piled up locally along the streets.

    The city centre, which usually doesn’t get very much snow, has got more this winter than in several years. A snowdepth of 67 cm at the official met station so far, while the suburbs have around a meter. That is not much really. To put things in perspective, the snow depth record in Oslo is 302 cm, measured 8th April 1951. At a met station 500 meters above sea level, though, but since 1951 even the uphill areas of Oslo have been densily populated. If one meter is a problem now, what if we get a winter like 1951 again with two or three meters?

    There is no denying that the winters in Oslo during the past decades have got warmer and wetter, which gives much bigger changes in snow depths from one winter to the next. More precipitation may give more snow, but higher temperatures may also give more rain instead of snow. So some winters have much rain and less snow than before while others have more snow than before.

    If it turns out to be true that weak solar cycles in the future will cause slightly lower temperatures, Oslo may see some really snowy winters unless there also is a sudden change in precipitation to less. But everyone seems to be planning for near snowless winters. It is predicted that Oslo except uphill areas will have few winters with permanent snow cover due to global warming.

    I recently had a look at snow depths at a met station in Oslo (360 meters above sea level) which has a long record going back to the 19th century. Snow depths, precipitation and snow/rain ratios have changed. Winters during the 30′s and 40′s were somewhat dry and rainy, and rainy since 1990 as well with little snow. It looks like the bottom was reached in the 90′s, but this is just based on statistics and 15 year means, so that observation shouldn’t be given any scientific weight. Here’s what I found: http://voksenlia.net/met/dybder/

  48. VG says:

    Satellite temps now same as last year and going further down it seems
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ lerts see if D Archibald’s prediction (-0.4C) this year is reached)

  49. Policyguy says:

    No permitus – No dumpus your old dirty snow.
    Of course it would take at least a season to get the permit.
    If there is no safe place to move it then let it sit.
    It’ll melt when it thaws and drain into the gutter.
    Then it will run to the sea as water and everything will be back to normal.

  50. savethesharks says:

    No, not the koalas…they can’t get enough fresh water right now.

    But thanks to Australian firefighters, somebody is making a dent in that problem. (I love this video: The BEST in human nature….helping the CUTEST of wildlife.)

    In regards to Dumpus Maximus…..

    Rather than cause sea level rise….Oslo being so close to the terminus of the GulfStream Current….such an infusion of melting snowmelt…might reversify (GW Bush term) the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulification.

    Understandify?

    In other words….Oslo dumping all of that fresh water in the ocean might plunge Europe into another mini-Ice Age.

    Stop dumping those truckloads of snow into a mass of water that is miles deep and covers 2/3 of the world’s surface!

    Our lives depend on it.

    Join Dr. Hansen March to 2nd in DC to protest Oslo snow dumping!

  51. crosspatch says:

    I have a question. If the snow is too dirty to place in the fjord, where does rain and melt water go? To be specific, where does the storm drain system terminate?

    It seems to me that all that dirt might end up in the fjord anyway when snowfall changes to rainfall.

  52. CodeTech says:

    Ron de Haan… it was hilarious… I loved it!

    I can just see the environmentalists… coming home from walking to the store, unloading groceries from their $2 cloth bag, and trying to put their soy-milk ice cream into the freezer… saying “DOH!” because all this snow was in there…

    Maybe eventually they’d run it down the sink after all…

    So, just so I have this straight, NONE of the meltwater (complete with oil and salt) ever washes back to the sea? Is that it? Dumping it into the water is fundamentally different from letting it melt into the water? Sure… yep.

  53. Jeff Alberts says:

    ked5 (20:36:07) :

    Well of course. Puget Sound is “salt water”. Oh, yeah, they had a tizzy in December at the “thought” of putting *salt” on the roads becasue it would add “salt” to Puget Sound.

    No, they had a tizzy because they felt the salt on the roads would be rinsed into the freshwater streams and rivers and disrupt the freshwater species there. There is some merit to the claim, but I’d prefer to see some sort study verifying that it has or can have a measurable effect.

  54. Jeff says:

    Ben Lawson (21:21:53) :
    The snow will eventualy melt and end up in the sea anyway. If it is allowed to melt, it will take with it the oil from the streets. So dumping plowed snow is acctualy better for the sea in the end.

    I guess the rain in the summer will wash the oil into the sea, so it is probably a wash. It is not going to dilute the sea, or the other way around. The volume of water in the sea is much too large. This is why it does not freeze in the winter.

  55. DaveM says:

    We gonna have a whole lot more come sunup! Already 10 inches on the ground here @ -5. Should dip to -8 come morning, and who knows how much more snow. I just uncovered the gardens from the last dump! I am rubbing it in everywhere I go.

  56. J. Peden says:

    Ben Lawson:

    I don’t know which is more likely or if either would actually be significant, but on this technical point I’d rather “keep my mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open my mouth and confirm it”.

    Then why didn’t you follow your own rule instead of trying to diss the whole blog?

  57. Ron de Haan says:

    [snip- please tone this down and then repost it - Anthony]

  58. Johnny Honda says:

    I’m definitly not an environmentalist, but snow from the street can be very dirty. I’ve grown up next to a storage site for snow, there is a lot of dirt in the snow, believe me, sometimes it is almost black. The storage site was on a stream, so the dirt ended up in the stream, but most of it is washed into the streams and rivers anyway, also if you dump it somewhere else. The alternative is not, that someone “cleans” the snow.

  59. AndyW says:

    Rather than looking at the amount of snow ( which tells you far more about the amount of moisture than cold ) you can look at the artic to see how this winter has faired in the northern hemisphere.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Looks an average year to me up to now. It will be interesting to see if next summer does return more to the norm as skeptics wish for or not. I’m not confident it will ….

    Regards

    Andy

  60. Robert Bateman says:

    Mike McMillan (20:16:01) :

    Where did that sunspot go?

    It’s SC24 stage shield failed to detach and it fell back down.
    You see, man isn’t the only one to put a lot of effort into launching and then have a simple thing go wrong. Imagine how bad the Solarians must feel. It was supposed to measure the photosphere for thier Galactic Minimum study.

  61. DQuist says:

    Pamela Gray:

    NobAl Dumpus MaxiGoregus… After all Oslo is the center of whirled peas.

  62. Actually, this winter here in Oslo is now normal, i.e. the way I remember it in the 60s and early 70s. Dumping snow in the Oslo Fjord used to be common, but it was stopped due to local pollution issues. The Oslo fjord has only a small passage to the open sea.

    Here is a picture of why they are dumping snow in the sea. The snow depots are full
    http://www.vg.no/bil-og-motor/artikkel.php?artid=548393

  63. Richard111 says:

    Snow is precipitation by another name? Not so? If those snow storms had been rain storms the water would be in the sea already. So how would anything change?

  64. MikeF says:

    And don’t forget all that yellow snow. You can’t put that in the water without a permit

  65. Peter Hearnden says:

    That report is from London Ontario…So this who piece is based on reports from one area of the N. American continent…

    Here in the UK the weather has been fairly mild in the second half of February and the snow is long gone.

    REPLY: Fixed, thanks

  66. Barry Foster says:

    More rubbish courtesy of the BBC and Dr David Carlson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7906539.stm “We have enough to say the whole ice/ocean/atmosphere system in both hemispheres is changing faster than we thought…the whole Arctic system is in a fundamentally different state than 12 months before.”

  67. Lance says:

    “I’m definitly not an environmentalist, but snow from the street can be very dirty. I’ve grown up next to a storage site for snow, there is a lot of dirt in the snow, believe me, sometimes it is almost black.”

    Snow collects particles/dust/carbon from the atmosphere and outside our atmosphere, just like rain. You can’t stop it, there’s local everyday pollutants and then the natural debris that rains down on us continuously.
    We wouldn’t have rain if not for the dirty nuclei (minerals)/salts, plus carbon, ozone, O3, NO2 are being created in the ionosphere through natural electrochemical process’s from the sun.

    .

  68. EW says:

    There’s a lot of snow in the Alpes as well. In the last years, they were trying to put covers on glaciers in summer, to preserve them for future generations. I think that this winter there is a lot of mass added.

    Also I’ve seen in the news that whole villages in Austrian Alpes have to be evacuated due to menacing snowslides and firemen were called to shovel down the heavy layers of snow from the rooftops to prevent their collapse.

  69. JimB says:

    “DJA (20:58:50) :

    JimB (19:00:46)
    Where did the EPA think the salt came from in the first place?”

    Exactly. Every year, there is a “salt cycle”. Salt gets applied to the roads, scooped up with plows, moved somewhere for “storage” and then eventually, thanks to seasonal warming caused by natural climate variations , it melts, and as pointed out before, it runs into the streams/rivers/oceans, aside from whatever gets absorbed locally.

    Ben,
    “Aside from the possible toxic components, dumping the snow could either locally dilute or over-concentrate seawater, both could an adverse impact on marine life.”

    I’d encourage you to go sit beside the ocean in any of the northern areas that experience this amount of snow. There are a couple of great spots along the Piscatiqua River in Portsmouth, N.H., where we experience 8-11ft tides, twice every 25hrs, with river currents running about 6kts. Then travel upriver to the Great Bay estuary and contemplate the amount of water that gets exchanged twice every 25hrs. The impact on salinity from dumping snow in the water would be miniscule compare to what happens when we get 1 good rain.
    You can taste the difference in the water caused by 1 good rain, but you have to do it quickly, before the next tide comes in and replaces all that water.

    JimB

  70. JimB says:

    “Ray (22:16:18) :

    Oh My God!!! they are cooling the ocean and they will rise the ocean levels by dumping snow there. Quick, someone must tell Gore to sell his sea-side summer house.”

    But this achieves a perfect balance. We’re ADDING volume, but because we’re COOLING the ocean, it contracts ;)

    Noharminus, nofoulimus.

    JimB

  71. Alan Chappell says:

    Bulaman (20:32:40)

    New Zealands entry into the global sweepstakes is top news! Al Gore has gone down on his knees to thank ‘ his god ‘ for doubling his income.
    Seriously, I was under the impression that New Zealand apart from being one of the worlds wonders (perfect climate,) it is I believe 1/3 covered in trees the other 2/3 are a sheep and cattle’s dream come true. Has it not the worlds largest forest planted by man? And I think that when you place the entire population around the coast line they are more than 1 km apart. All the Kiwis that I have been most fortunate to meet in my travels, have always been level headed and sane, what I ask has your immigration policy done to the famous Kiwi ? It seems that what you imply has ‘outside influence’

  72. Denis Hopkins says:

    As cool weather indicates climate change and warm weather indicates climate change, it begs the question,,…. “What would you expect to see if there is no climate change?” I think the AGW people should be made to say what would they expect to see if there was no climate change. Surely any scientist must look at all possibilities. Any theory should have predictions. This situation where warm or cool indicates climate change is a nonsense in terms of predictions. In what sense is that testable? As for the climate modelling… is there no humility and an appreciation that they could be wrong? They just change the data!
    AGW protagonists should say what would be happening if there was no climate change.

  73. JimB says:

    And this just in:
    “The president will also propose, in the 10-year budget he is to release Thursday, to use revenues from the centerpiece of his environmental policy — a plan under which companies must buy permits to exceed pollution emission caps — to pay for an extension of a two-year tax credit that benefits low-wage and middle-income people.”

    “The budget will show the government beginning by 2012 to collect billions of dollars in revenues from selling permits to businesses that emit the polluting gases, assuming the president’s energy initiative becomes law as soon as this year, officials said.”

    Dumpus Maximus Crapus.

    JimB

  74. Allan M says:

    jorgekafkazar (20:38:15) :

    “No, no, you don’t understand. Global warming was when the science was settled. Now the science is really, really settled, and ha-ha, silly us: it’s global cooling! As proof that the science is really, really settled, we’re going to spend $400,000,000.00 of stimulus money on more models. Then the science will be really, really, really, really settled. Don’t pay any attention to those Japanese and Russian scientists. They didn’t invent the car and the Internet.”

    I like the comment, but can we please institute an abbreviation axiom:

    (line 2) we could have “really×2,” and for (line 5) “really×4,” and etc.

    I feel this is long overdue. Some speakers spend hours repeating this word, and others even fall asleep having forgotten their original point.

    And to think that the English language has such a really×10,000 rich vocabulary.

    ian (22:32:46) :

    “While I really appreciate the humour and lightheartedness often displayed at WUWT (as opposed to the viciousness often displayed at blogs such as RC and DeSmog) I don’t think that attacks on ‘greenies’ and ‘lefties’ assists those of the aforementioned who are earnestly querying the AGW hypothesis.”

    But the greenies contradict themselves, chase their own tails, shoot themselves in the foot, etc.

    There’s such a lot of good fun to be had. Which is why the greenie blogs need to get nasty.

    AM (UK ex-leftie) (not a humourless post, I hope!)

  75. BarryW says:

    Think of the salt as an analogy.

    1.) We take oil and coal, which were previously in the atmosphere, and release their carbon dioxide back into atmosphere. Bad!

    2.) We take salt from salt mines (which was previously in the ancient oceans) and put it back into the ocean.

    If 1.) is bad then 2.) must be bad, right? [sarcasm on] Of course! Anything man does is bad and unnatural apriori [sarcasm off]

  76. mercurior says:

    “to collect billions of dollars in revenues”.. thats all you need to know.

  77. MattN says:

    The massive amount of snow this winter is not only consistent with the models, but was also predicted….

  78. AnyMouse says:

    JimB (03:44:06) :
    But this is required by the UCCC’s Kyoto Protocol: Payments to areas affected by climate change with priority given to poverty reduction over climate projects. :-]

  79. Keith W says:

    Last year was the snowiest on record in St Johnsbury, Vermont since records have been kept at the Fairbanks museum in the 1890′s. This year we have experienced a storm a week and surpassed the normal average snowfall for the entire year by the end of January. We had brief thaws at Christmas and in February which took the snow pack down a little. Temperatures in January dropped into the minus 30′s and minus 40′s. This week’s 18″ storm and the possibility of two nor’easter’s next week put us on track to meet or exceed last year’s all time record. The snow is 2-4 feet deep here and snowshoeing is difficult when you suddenly fall into deep spots up to your chest. It is snowing now with rain tomorrow. The winters have been worsening since 2000 and remind me of the late 1970′s but it is Just weather nothing longterm. The snow ends in May for sure, maybe, we hope.

  80. JimB says:

    “AnyMouse (05:15:06) :

    JimB (03:44:06) :
    But this is required by the UCCC’s Kyoto Protocol: Payments to areas affected by climate change with priority given to poverty reduction over climate projects. :-]”

    What was really interesting about the article, which I should have included, was that it went on to say that the administration understands, and expects, that suppliers will pass the cost of the carbon taxes along to it’s consumers, and therefor, tax breaks will be given to the LOWEST INCOME CONSUMERS.

    What an inefficient model THIS is. By their own admission, the carbon taxes/fees will be paid only by upper income, so why not just cut out all the foolishness in the middle and just increase taxes on the upper incomes. Errr…even more. Again.

    Takus Maximus, Sourceus Disappearus.

    JimB

  81. Paul S says:

    MattN (04:47:28) :
    The massive amount of snow this winter is not only consistent with the models, but was also predicted….

    Which one? Got any links?

  82. Ken Hall says:

    Ben Lawson (21:21:53) : “I’d rather “keep my mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open my mouth and confirm it”.”
    ——————————

    I think you just did confirm it!

    What happens to the pristine snow, and the salt contaminated snow when it melts naturally? It flows into the same water that it is being dumped into, and that much snow can melt into the sea very quickly when temperatures raise, combined with heavy rains. There is a huge, natural melting of the snow resulting in the same sort of impact on the coastal waters.

  83. Bruce Cobb says:

    They could just get just get one of these. Airports, and some cities now are using them, including Manchester, NH which has a river, the Merrimack, but they can’t dump snow in the river anymore, of course. They purchased the largest portable model in 2004, which cost about $350k, and which can handle up to 135 tons of snow per hour. It burns about 170 gallons of diesel per hour, but the alternative would be trucking it outside the city since they have lost most of their snow dump locations.
    With Cap and trade and/or carbon taxes looming on the horizon, as well as a likely Dalton-esque period of cooling, we might end up having to go back to this, though.

  84. Tom says:

    In Rochester, NY they always dump the snow in the river, as most of the residential city streets are just too narrow. And today it’s 50F/8C. I love this site, but weather is not climate.

  85. Ken Hall says:

    Some times I am amazed that the people who are most opposed to CO2 and the most alarmist about mankind’s actions and would criticise people dumping snow in water, would even have the gall to ever breathe out ever again.

  86. Roger Sowell says:

    SNOW PURIFIER

    Snowjob Industries is pleased to announce that we have just invented a new machine, similar to a cotton gin. The device is known as a MakeMeRich. International patents and trademarks are in the planning stage.

    The MakeMeRich receives dirty snow at one end, processes it and separates out the dirt, sand, oil, salt, and any other pollutants. Only fresh, pure, white snow comes out the other end. The fresh, pure, white snow is guaranteed to meet all EU, US, and international standards for purity and may be legally dumped into the ocean, sea, bay, gulf, or stream. Assuming any of those are still flowing or not frozen over, of course.

    All the pollutants as described above are captured, separated, and sequestered for proper burial in an EPA-approved site. With perpetual monitoring, of course.

    Tipping fees are modest for the MakeMeRich invention, only $5,000 per ton (that’s a US ton, folks, only 2,000 pounds).

    The number to call, is BR-549.

    [grin]

    Disclaimer: for any non-USA readers, no insult, slander, libel, defamation, ridicule, or otherwise distasteful meaning is intended. Any similarity to existing companies, persons, entities of any kind is purely coincidental.

  87. John Galt says:

    An obvious and omnious sign that global warming is out of control! The crisis is getting worse! If we don’t stop climate change right now, the warming is going to cause another ice age.

    For those who didn’t get it — this is sarcasm

  88. Roger Sowell says:

    The number to call BR-549 is an homage to the wonderful U.S. tv show “Hee Haw,” where the actor Junior Samples played a country hick, always selling something worthless to city slickers. He held up a hand-lettered sign as he spoke the phone number to the camera.

  89. AnonyMoose says:

    We take salt from salt mines (which was previously in the ancient oceans) and put it back into the ocean.

    We’re just helping to restore the natural balance of the Jurrasic. And we’re releasing the salt in a much more diluted fashion than what would have happened when erosion exposed the salt deposit.

  90. Mark Nodine says:

    OT, but the Austin American-Statesman this morning had a front page article on the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet, complete with the obligatory apocalyptic predictions.

    http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/02/26/0226antarctic.html

    Some excerpts:

    Antarctic glaciers are melting faster across a much wider area than previously thought, scientists said Wednesday — a development that could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels.

    A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Previously, most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow peninsula pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year’s steering committee.

    But satellite data and automated weather stations indicate otherwise.

    …The biggest West Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.

    The Smith Glacier, also in West Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said.

    “If the West Antarctica sheet collapses, then we’re looking at a sea level rise of between 3 feet, 4 inches, to nearly 5 feet,” Summerhayes said.

    …The glaciers are slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would normally stop them — usually 650 to 980 feet thick — is melting.

    The International Polar Year researchers found the southern ocean around Antarctica has warmed about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit in the past decade, double the average warming of the rest of the Earth’s oceans over the past 30 years.

    …Once a model is developed that can accurately predict the impact of warming temperatures, scientists can determine how much these ice sheets contribute to rising sea levels.

    Blankenship’s estimates of potential rising sea levels differ from those of the international group. Based on his research, he said changes to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could increase sea levels under the worse case scenario by close to 20 feet.

  91. Peter says:

    My favourite environmental idiot story was a girfriend who excoriated me for peeing in a lake. I reminded her that that is where all the fish poop, she didn’t care.

  92. crosspatch says:

    Every year Cargill opens gates to flood huge evaporation ponds around San Francisco Bay. The water evaporates away during the summer and in fall there is a “salt harvest” with a huge mountain of the stuff visible in Redwood City. This is shipped around the country to be used for, among other things, road salt. The salt then runs into the ocean and the cycle repeats.

    If we had nuclear powered flash desalinization, we could provide huge amounts of fresh water AND natural sea salt for road maintenance at the same time.

    There are entire natural mountains made of salt. How do you think Salzberg (Salt Mountain) got it’s name.

  93. superDBA says:

    There is an obvious solution to this problem. We need to send sail driven ships to all of these places to collect the snow and ship it to Greenland to replace the “disappearing” ice cap. Once there, we use only tofu fed dog teams (to keep them flatus free) to spread the snow over the land. Of course the tofu must be made from organic soybeans that have been grown in hand tilled soil by farmers that are also only tofu fed. The farmers must also wear only breechclouts made of organic hemp, and live in mud huts that are geothermally heated, and so on, and so on, ad nauseum…

    Now that I have that solved, I’ll go jump into my F-150 SuperCrew and ride off into the sunset.

  94. Ron de Haan says:

    Straw Men:
    “Have a look at link: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.2.26.2009.gif with a global sea temperature anomaly map from NOAA. It shows vast ice retreat in the Arctic, at the seasonal peak, with open water and positive anomalous temperatures near the North Pole.
    Of course it is impossible that Hudson Bay, Chukchi Sea, and many other high latitude locations are suddenly ice free in the dead of winter.
    But that is what the map shows. Also, in the southern hemisphere, virtually all ice is gone.

    The map is a liar. Its makers have incorporated data from a notoriously broken satellite sensor. But NOAA has published without caveat, when it should have withdrawn or at least tagged the erroneous map. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it has a purpose. Money and power are at stake: socialists are trying to bamboozle the public into supporting a “green economy.”

    Source: http://www.seablogger.com/?p=12944

  95. Ben Lawson says:

    JimB: “I’d encourage you to go sit beside the ocean”. – You are conflating natural rainfall and estuarine environments with municipal snow dumping. Some ecosystems can handle these environmental fluctuations, some can’t. Surprised?

    Ken Hall: “even have the gall to ever breathe out ever again.” – Then there are those who never pause to take a breath IN. Natural snow is uncontaminated by oils and metals, melts over extremely wide areas and may be initially absorbed by the ground.

    Various: “you just did confirm it” (that my previous comment somehow proves I’m an idiot) – So you’ve dragged the debate all the way to Grade 3′s “I’m rubber, you are glue”? Oh snap!

    However, I don’t really care much one way of the other about the dumping of municipal snow into the ocean. Here in Toronto we have one of those monster snow melters that travels the streets all winter and I’ve long given up passively resisting its route (uh, that’s a joke). I only stuck my nose in here to highlight the frenzied ignorance, knee-jerk responses and adolescent behavior that characterizes this “science blog”. There ARE legitimate points of contention over AGW, but they have to be made honestly and with discipline.

  96. CodeTech says:

    From what I can tell, one of the biggest problems that so many people have is that they cannot grasp, even a little bit, SCALE.

    To me, a ton of salt is a significant number. It’s several times my weight, and won’t fit in my car. Consuming it would be harmful, etc. etc. However, to the planet, a single ton of salt is insignificant. A million tons of salt is insignificant. Dumping all the salt we’ve ever mined in the history of civilization in one place would not make a difference, other than purely local salinity issues.

    This works in other ways: to me, a ton of CO2 is dangerous. I couldn’t enter the vessel it was stored in without protective gear, and such an amount would represent a significant amount of my personal production. However, again, to the planet this gas is insignificant. If you fly, you see how small are the works of man relative to the rest of the air. Out greatest cities are basically specks in the distance from 35,000 feet.

    Oh yeah, just as natural processes maintain ocean salinity to a fairly precise amount, same with atmospheric gases. In both cases, the balance does not need to be fretted about by us, in fact doing so is ridiculous. Both are the way they are BECAUSE of the processes that put them where they are.

  97. Ron de Haan says:

    Ron de Haan (23:16:55) :

    “[snip- please tone this down and then repost it - Anthony]”

    Anthony,
    I am very sorry but the text is not mine.
    I just provided the link:
    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-alarmist-crap_25.html

    Have a look for yourself.

  98. Tom_R says:

    Paul S (06:37:06) :

    MattN (04:47:28) :
    The massive amount of snow this winter is not only consistent with the models, but was also predicted….

    Which one? Got any links?

    For a message board with so many highly intelligent posters, there seems to be a serious deficiency of sarcasm detectors.

  99. Michael says:

    No it’s not true!

    “…Snow and ice continue to decline in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica, affecting sea-level rise and weather patterns, as well as human, animal and plant life.”

    See here http://www.smh.com.au/environment/poles-apart-but-warming-greater-than-thought-20090226-8j9g.html

    The Northern hemisphere must be a sun-bakers haven according to this story by Marian Wilkinson, the Environment Editor of the ever trustworthy SMH in Australia.

    But they move to the SH shortly

    “…Until recently it was only the fragile Antarctic Peninsula that juts up from West Antarctica, which was considered vulnerable to global warming. The peninsula is warming more rapidly than much of the rest of the world with temperatures rising 2.5 degrees in the past 50 years and ice loss increasing 140 per cent in the past decade.”

    I think they have thrown every misrepresentation/exaggeration together that they could find for one story.

  100. Bruce Cobb says:

    Ben Lawson (09:37:56)
    I only stuck my nose in here to highlight the frenzied ignorance, knee-jerk responses and adolescent behavior that characterizes this “science blog”.
    The only thing you’ve highlighted, actually, is your own ignorance and arrogance. It’s classic, typical trollish behavior. Go stick your nose someplace else.

  101. J. Peden says:

    Ben Lawson

    I only stuck my nose in here to highlight the frenzied ignorance, knee-jerk responses and adolescent behavior that characterizes this “science blog”. There ARE legitimate points of contention over AGW, but they have to be made honestly and with discipline.

    Well, then, Ben, why don’t you set about with honesty and discipline to actually prove your stereotyping characterization of “this ‘science blog’”. It’s your contention, so you are the one who should actually prove it. Please show your work and definitions of terms, such as the ones you have used above.

    Otherwise, you might find that you have just fallen prey to your own criticisms, which, btw, so far also sound more emotionally based to me than scientifically based.

  102. Peter says:

    Ben Lawson:

    So… weather DOES equal climate. Gosh! But only if it’s getting colder, right?

    For years, what we’ve had rammed down our throats ad nauseam by the media, greens and government agencies, is that every above-average warm/wet/dry day we have is, “further mounting evidence of catastrophic climate change”.
    Now you guys don’t seem to like it when the boot’s on the other foot.

  103. JimB says:

    Ben:
    “I only stuck my nose in here to highlight the frenzied ignorance, knee-jerk responses and adolescent behavior that characterizes this “science blog”. There ARE legitimate points of contention over AGW, but they have to be made honestly and with discipline.”

    So what you’re saying is you came here with no intention of participating in a debate at all, you came here to “highlight frenzied ignorance…”. So now you can return from whence you came feeling completely justified in your presupposed idea of what WUWT is all about and all’s well. Skepticism shown for it’s true idiocy, eh?

    Before you leap to that conclusion, you may wish to hang around and poke at a few of the posts here and pay attention to some of the real debate that takes place, rather than taking a post that people were obviously having some fun with as your sole-source of opinion of those that linger here.

    JimB

  104. H.R. says:

    @April E. Coggins (20:17:17) :

    “Here in Washington state, we are no longer allowed to dump excess snow into the creeks and rivers. Instead, we must pile the excess snow next to the creeks and rivers. Somehow, that difference makes it all better. Oh, and we also a have a stormwater runoff tax. We are being taxed for the rain and snow that falls out the sky on to our property. If we retain the stormwater, we are stealing from the state. If we allow it to runoff, we are polluting. Plus we pay a small fee for the smart people to administer the law.”

    Sounds like Washington State is close to perfecting a perpetual motion (tax) machine.

    hmmm… a BIG, BIG umbrella over ones property might be a loophole in the laws ;o)

  105. Michael J. Bentley says:

    murcurior,

    “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!”

    I forget who said it, but a great quote.

    Interesting thing about Captain Puget’s body of water (Puget Sound) It gets some good tides going frequently lots of water mixing there. Deep too!

    Mike

  106. E.M.Smith says:

    Ben Lawson (21:21:53) : a moment to actually think about the environmental results of dumping this kind of snow?

    Math challenged? Take size of dump truck. Divide by size of ocean. Count number of digits to the right of the decimal place (feel free to use groups of tens…)

    Aside from the possible[..] could [...] both could [...]. I don’t know [...] or if either would actually be significant [...] I’d rather “keep my mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open my mouth and confirm it”.

    Maybe a bit late for that, I fear…

    A brief lesson in storm drains:

    Storm drains do not go through the water treatment plant (they would wash all the poo out before it had time to ferment). Storm drains drain into the natural drainage.

    Natural drainage takes the storm run off to the ocean.

    When snow melts, it goes into the storm drains and thus, into the ocean.

    All the dumping does is slightly change the time when it happens and reduces the size of the pulse during the spring melt. To the extent some is dumped early, the risk of local peak concentration effects is reduced. (They don’t vacuum the land free of snow to dump it, they only dump the tiny bit from roads that is beyond what they have space to store.)

    Per salt: Salt is put on roads to melt the snow. It creates saline runoff, that goes to the ocean. If the salt was all staying in the snow, then by definition it would not be doing it’s job of melting the snow. Adding the snow that did not melt (and so has a lower salt content) to the saline runoff will result in less salt concentration at ocean, not more. (Assuming the snow is dumped somewhere near the natural drainage point).

    It is simply ludicrous to think that any additional bad thing is going to happen from moving the snow from the storage area to the place where the melt will end up anyway.

  107. E.M.Smith says:

    Bruce Cobb (06:43:22) : They could just get just get one of these. Airports, and some cities now are using them, including Manchester, NH which has a river, the Merrimack, but they can’t dump snow in the river anymore, of course. [...] It burns about 170 gallons of diesel per hour,

    Bruce, you’ve given me an idea! Why not a ‘water heated’ snow melter? Just pump river water (or ocean water) under the snow in a set of pipes. Snow melts and drains ‘away’. River or ocean water returned to point of origin so ‘nothing happened’ to it… Since the ‘heater’ water is isolated from the ‘melt path’ it would be hard to show any bad thing happening… It would take a lot of river volume at 2c to melt snow, though…

    If anyone builds one, all I ask in payment is that it be called “The Smith Natural Snow Melter” ;-)

    Tom (06:46:14) : I love this site, but weather is not climate.

    Oh, but it is! The common definition used in the AGW circles is 30 years of weather is the baseline climate. Now I’m much more in line with Pamela on holding that your climate only changes if you move a mountain range or change your latitude or… So I’ve taken to talking about 30 year weather and 200 year weather rather than using the word ‘climate’. I reserve that for things like “Mediterranean Climate exists in California” where the geographic tie is clear. So while I’d like to think that “weather is not climate” as commonly used, 30 year weather is defined as climate… at least to the modelers.

  108. E.M.Smith says:

    AnonyMoose (07:36:07) :
    We take salt from salt mines (which was previously in the ancient oceans) and put it back into the ocean.

    We’re just helping to restore the natural balance of the Jurrasic. And we’re releasing the salt in a much more diluted fashion than what would have happened when erosion exposed the salt deposit.

    We used to take the salt from the ocean in large evaporation pans in the south end of the San Francisco bay. They were closed down for environmental reasons… (They wanted to ‘restore the wetland’).

    Love this picture:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salt_ponds_SF_Bay_(dro!d).jpg

  109. Steve says:

    Excuse me, But isn’t the ocean ‘salt water”? were is the problem with a little extra salt?
    Is it even measurable? Except maybe at the dumping site? Jeeeesssssss!!!!!!!!!

  110. Pamela Gray says:

    Benmaximus Lawsonus nosius highlightus frenzius ingnoramius.

    I like this new pig latin.

  111. Paddy says:

    Seattle Update:

    The City reversed its decision and announced that it will use salt in the future to facilitate snow removal. This decision is based upon a study that concluded adding salt to Puget Sound waters will offset some of the reduced salinity resulting from massive infusions of fresh water from winter flooding.

  112. Roger Sowell says:

    Salt

    If salt is a bad thing to dump in the ocean, in the form of salty snow, then shouldn’t all the poop-processing-plant (P3) effluent water also be kept out?

    The salt that people eat, and consume in beverages, does not just build up and up and up in our bodies (we would die if it did). It is part of the (gotta be polite here) excreta both liquid and otherwise.

    The P3 does not remove salts from the in-flowing material. The salts pass through the P3 and exit with the treated water. That treated water then flows into the ocean, at least it does in many places in Southern California. For many years, the P3 effluent water from the big Hyperion P3 plant for Los Angeles was pumped through a pipeline about a mile offshore and released near the ocean floor. Apparently, Flipper and Shamu never much noticed…

    Shhhhh….don’t tell the Environmentalists…they might have a hissy over this one….

  113. Roger Sowell says:

    Pamela: you are having WAY too much fun…please share

  114. Tim L says:

    We use to dump city snow in the Boardman river, but the eco-terrorist stopped it!

    http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_057120808.html

    http://www.record-eagle.com/statenews/local_story_057095803.html

    more cold and snow for 09-10, I said so!!!!
    LOL

  115. hotrod says:

    “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!”

    I forget who said it, but a great quote.

    The original source for that quote was from Senator Everett Dirksen From Illinois who was for many years one of the most quotable Senators. He had a deep resonant voice and a wonder style of expression that often capsulized problems in a very usable sound bite as above.

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

    Salt and snow melt issues have led to some interesting ecological/political outcomes. Here in Colorado we used mostly sand on the roads to aid snow melt and traction in cold weather until about the 1970′s. At that time, they noticed that our brown cloud was especially bad a couple days after a snow storm and found that the combination of pulverized road sand and our winter temperature inversions in the Denver Basin resulted in a muddy brown haze that noticeably lowered solar heating in the metro area compared to near by areas, and was a major problem for air quality. They first shifted to lighter sand applications and an aggressive program to use street sweepers after the storm to pickup the sand and recycle it. They also began to increase the salt blended in with the sand to reduce the amount of sand put down.

    Some years later the environmentalists discovered that the road salt was building up on the road shoulders over time and then would be washed into the local streams and lakes in a pulse when the spring thaws and rains came so they encouraged the communities to reduce salt usage. This led to problems when we had cold snaps and icy road accidents jumped. Starting a few years ago again in an effort to reduce environmental impact they shifted to Magnesium Chloride blends which were supposedly more benign to the environment and they sprayed them as a liquid on the roads before the storm came in so the road never iced up in the first place.

    The result if this was everyone’s car was immersed in a salty mist for weeks on end during the snowy months, and we suddenly started to have problems with mufflers and exhaust systems rusting out, and major visibility problems as the low concentration brine formed by the mag chloride and melt water produced a back spray from traffic that would dry to an impenetrable haze on the windshield unless drivers used their windshield washers constantly. In years gone by I could go a whole winter season on a single fill or two of the windshield washer reservoir on my car. After the introduction of Mag Chloride de-icer spraying I have been known to use up 1/2 gallon of windshield washer fluid in a single day of driving in heavy traffic conditions. So now we are dumping thousands of gallons of water/methanol mixture with traces of detergent into the environment every time we have a snow storm.

    Since Methanol is a known skin and lung absorbed poison, I am waiting for some ecological group to point this out and ban methanol based de-icing windshield washing solutions.

    Larry

  116. crosspatch says:

    “We used to take the salt from the ocean in large evaporation pans in the south end of the San Francisco bay. ”

    The salt operations still thrive. Some old ponds that were in sore need of repair were “reclaimed” but I work right next to a large salt operation a little further North on the West side of the bay.

  117. Clive says:

    FYI … “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

    Everett Dirksen American Senator, 1896-1969

    It is great… but soon to be a “trillion here a trillion there…” ☺

    Clive

  118. Lance says:

    There’s already salt in rain water/snow, it has to have it to form and it’s also found in ice core samples and glaciers.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/j4321x78070j3v47/

  119. April E. Coggins says:

    I’m convinced that Washington state has ran out of ways to tax and that is why they are now trying to tax us for the weather.

  120. Pamela Gray says:

    Roger, I just can’t help it. It kinda leaks out. I am a strange contrast of serious and off the wall posts. It must be because of the pioneer stock I come from. Great great great (or something like that – can’t remember how many greats) grandfather fought in the American Revolution. Great great grandfathers and great uncles on both sides fought in the Civil War, on both sides. Great grandfather traveled the Oregon Trail and was one of the pioneers of Wallowa County. Actually bought the land that was the last camp site of the Nez Pierce in Wallowa Valley. Grandparents worked in the entertainment industry (silent movies, vaudeville, etc). And then I came along to try to top that. I am the proud parent of three children, one of whom became a juvenile delinquent! Ergo the contrast.

    Or it could be that I am Irish, having children is a crap shoot, and none of the above matters a tinker’s dam.

  121. April E. Coggins says:

    BTW, I checked out our local weather station. Everything looked like it should. It was the typical vented white box on a pole, faces north, is well away from a government building that is rurally located. No trees or barbecues nearby. The only thing that bothers me is that the data of this station is very spotty and appears to be not included in the overall data. Yet I know that the government employees in charge of that station are collecting their pay every day.

  122. Roger Sowell says:

    Pamela:

    As an Irishman meself, I totally understand. While my ancestry is nothing to match yours, one of my ancestors is a Hero of the Alamo. I can just imagine him standing there, steely-eyed, when Travis drew the line in the sand with his sword and said, “Everyone who is staying with me to fight, step over to this side of the line.” And he stepped over. My family still has two pistols from the Battle of the Alamo.

    On the other hand, another ancestor was hanged for robbing trains in Arizona, in the non-Hollywood version of the Wild West. Go figure.

    And for what it is worth, speaking a version of “pig-latin” actually came in pretty handy for me years ago. A business colleague and I were in Italy, finalizing a deal in a meeting where the Italians spoke very good English, but our Italian was horrible. They had the advantage when they began speaking Italian with each other and we sat there silent. It would have been too rude for us to leave the room to confer privately, but we needed to do something.

    So, I fell back on my roots and began speaking in a slow Southern drawl, complete with home-spun sayings, to my colleague, who was from Louisiana. He got the idea, and we worked out our closing strategy that way, in full view and full earshot of the Italians. They stopped chattering and listened to us, but could not understand a word! We got our way in the deal, too.

    Ballsius Maximus Primus, Ya’ll

  123. Geoff Alder says:

    Putting snow contaminated with SALT into the sea— How mindless! But the real looming disaster everyone is missing is that adding all this water to the sea will inevitably cause ocean levels to rise. Now that is truly unforgiveable.

    Geoff A.

  124. Lance says:

    “Putting snow contaminated with SALT into the sea— How mindless! But the real looming disaster everyone is missing is that adding all this water to the sea will inevitably cause ocean levels to rise. Now that is truly unforgiveable”

    (errm…Is your post being sarcastic?!)

    Snow melts and feeds the streams, lakes and oceans…..aaah?..it’s been doing this for over a few MILLION years.

    Salt going in the ocean could cause problems?!

    It’s where most of said salt comes from…..the salt would make the fresh water/snow more saline at melt and improve mixing. Less fresh water impact on the ocean.

    Cause we all know how fresh rain/snow water can be so poisons to the environment.

    LMAO!

    I feel like I live in bizarro world these days.

  125. David Jones says:

    MattN (04:47:28) :

    The massive amount of snow this winter is not only consistent with the models, but was also predicted….

    But NOT by UK Met which forecast, in Sept. 2008, that this winter would be “warmer and wetter” than average, probably the warmest on recird.

    [I cannot find the link to UK Met's release. If anyone has it to hand parhaps they would be kind enough to post the link.]

  126. David Jones says:

    JimB (06:03:29) :

    “AnyMouse (05:15:06) :

    JimB (03:44:06) :
    But this is required by the UCCC’s Kyoto Protocol: Payments to areas affected by climate change with priority given to poverty reduction over climate projects. :-]”

    What was really interesting about the article, which I should have included, was that it went on to say that the administration understands, and expects, that suppliers will pass the cost of the carbon taxes along to it’s consumers, and therefor, tax breaks will be given to the LOWEST INCOME CONSUMERS.

    What an inefficient model THIS is. By their own admission, the carbon taxes/fees will be paid only by upper income, so why not just cut out all the foolishness in the middle and just increase taxes on the upper incomes. Errr…even more. Again.

    Takus Maximus, Sourceus Disappearus.

    JimB

    As a Brit who has a house in Florida, I told my US friends last October that, if Obama was elected President, USA would soon have a European style high-tax eceonomy. Seems like I may be proved right.

  127. Paul S says:

    Tom_R (10:40:17) :
    For a message board with so many highly intelligent posters, there seems to be a serious deficiency of sarcasm detectors.

    What can I say? I’m not perfect!

  128. DaveE says:

    tc (19:06:50) :

    A snow shovel is like a chocolate poker.

    Post of the year IMHO.

    DaveE.

  129. Ben Lawson says:

    E.M.Smith: Am I “math challenged”, or are you concept challenged? Who, other than the voices in your head, is concerned about the ocean-wide consequences of dumping municipal snow? Any impact, which would be environmental not climatic, is clearly very local as I explicitly noted in the comment you were theoretically responding to. You’re fabricating arguments so you can defeat them. Guess what the term that defines? (Oh, thanks for the “lesson” on storm drains.)

    Pamela Gray: Congratulations on struggling all the way up to the intellectual level of Wily E. Coyote. Please, take a moment to catch your breath. We’ll wait for you.

    JimB: Not my first visit here. My opinion is not formed by reading a single comment thread (the comments in virtually any post here would lead to the same conclusion). My remarks included actual points about the concepts under discussion. Sorry to momentarily rattle on your world-view.

    Other responders: Enjoy your game of “no you’re stupid!”

    Anthony Watts: So “what’s up with” your actual original post? As they say in carpentry; measure twice, cut once. Perhaps this one should have been left on the workbench. Someone who is skeptical about the perspective here could easily draw a couple of unflattering conclusions from it:
    - It was an implicit invocation of short-term cold weather as a counter-proof of AGW without having to defend it.
    - It was an off-topic cheap shot at namby-pamby tree-hugging environmentalists and pandering ineffectual governments, which is essentially a dubious and poorly articulated political statement.

  130. Roger Sowell says:

    Ben Lawson, (07:58:23)

    While Anthony Watts does not need me or anyone else to defend him, I will say this. Mr. Watts has never met me, and has not asked me to write any of this.

    Mildly responding to your above, perhaps Mr. Watts, exercising his cherished First Amendment rights, is simply using his blog — and it is after all HIS blog — to balance in some way the incessant cacophony booming from the AGW crowd that THE END IS NIGH.

    We hear constantly from the AGW crowd that the globe is heating inexorably up and up and up, as CO2 also rises.

    Yet, the globe’s warming, or cooling, is nothing more than the sum of many temperature measurements, accumulated over time. So, when a notable event occurs, such as is covered in this posting, it is quite appropriate for Mr. Watts to give that event column space, if he so chooses. Apparently, and judging by the number of visitors to WUWT, a fair number of people appreciate what Mr. Watts writes.

    If you must bring your heckling and scoffing, then bring it. Just be nice about it, or your words will be snipped, and rightfully so. Bring your arguments and facts that clearly show that rising CO2 is the cause of an increase in measured global temperatures. While you are about that, you must refute the arguments of Dr. Pierre R. Latour. Search around in WUWT or on my blog energyguy’s musings if you are unfamiliar.

    Next, refute, if you are able, Mr. Watts’ showing that the measured temperature record is on shaky ground at best, and full of errors at worst.

    Those two will do for starters.

    I am looking forward to your cogent arguments based on facts. And remember, he who resorts to personal attacks concedes his arguments are worthless.

    Roger E. Sowell

  131. Giles Winterbourne says:

    You mean this Dr. Latour?
    “In summation, Dr. Latour has shown that he does not understand the basics of climate science. He has shown a reliance on unqualified people and has attempted to divert attention from the real issues. Meanwhile, we have yet to hear of a sound alternative to credibly explain away global warming.” http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB

  132. Ellie in Belfast says:

    This thread is getting far too serious. I’m with Pamela on that, but my latin gene has a serious defect.

    E.M.Smith (17:14:12) :
    Pink salt ponds eh? Pink. Snow. Hmm. I know. They need VOOM. “…Why VOOM cleans up anything, as clean as can be…”

    There is no time for debate
    There’s no more room to store it
    So into the sea
    Is where we will pour it

    All that deep, deep, deep snow
    All that snow has to go…

    …And they jumped at the snow with long rakes and shovels
    They put it in trucks and they made high [pink] off-white hills
    [Pink snowmen, pink snowballs and little pink pills...]

    Now don’t ask me what VOOM is
    I never will know
    But boy let me tell you it does clean up snow.

    (with apologies to Dr Seuss) Oh wait, that was only turning pink snow white ;-)

    (I must get to grips with italics, bold and strike though here)

  133. Roger Sowell says:

    Giles Winterbourne (16:56:11) :

    You have the correct journal, but what you linked to was written by Dr. Latour’s critic.

    That critic closed one of his letters with: “We have global warming on earth, caused by man’s activities, and we need to act now.”

    Dr. Latour showed earlier why that closing statement cannot be true.

  134. Ben Lawson says:

    Roger Sowell: Oooh, I was THIS CLOSE to stripping Anthony of his “First Amendment Rights!” Next time, next time… Why assume I’m trying to shut Anthony up? You’re right, he’s free to say whatever he wants. But what he says will naturally be assessed, and hopefully judged, by everyone who reads it. Just like our contributions. The “snow falls! AGW must be a lie!” is a regularly recurring theme here. I will grant you that Anthony has a generally appreciative audience, although I’m not sure how large it is. Large enough to click furiously on a “Best Science Blog” web poll.

    The Dr. Latour reference, a… wait for it… “letter” in Hydrocarbon Processing, a… wait for it… publication with no expertise in environmental sciences of any kind that you refer to in the WUWT post called… wait for it… “Half of the USA is covered in snow” is behind a pay wall now, but I did find some letters to the editor from another chemical engineer hotly disputing it. Latour’s response refers to hoaxes and insults, and his favorite references are discredited denialist fronts. Hey, I just found Latour’s original letter ! Apparently “When people get too warm, they take off sweaters” so there’s nothing to worry about, and capitalism is great. Well that’s settled!

    You know the fundamental problem with his “letter” though, you state it yourself hoping to disarm it: “they will start by saying he knows not whereof he speaks, because refinery control systems have time responses on the order of a few seconds up to a couple of hours, but planetary climate change has a time lag measured in hundreds of years.” Well, duh. Also refineries, fantastic as they are, are very small, very simple and completely CONTROLLED environments. The exact opposite of the earth’s climate about which Latour knows so little.

    But thunder away, by all means.

  135. Giles Winterbourne says:

    No. He attempted to. But failed. Epically. Citing OISM and other uninformed sources, confusing weather with climate, misattributing rise of CO2, and in general didn’t support his contentions with evidence.

    Temple responded with more detail at http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB

    Given the weaknesses of his arguments and lack of expertise, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of. Actually, I’m not even sure why Temple spent that much time in that discussion. Beyond insuring that Latour’s errors were pointed out to a non-expert audience, there really wasn’t a point in it.

  136. Roger Sowell says:

    Ben Lawson, Giles Winterbourne,

    Interesting comments, indeed. Thank you for that.

    Re stripping away First Amendment rights, no, you never came close. Complaining about it is revealing, though. It appears to me that you both miss the point made by Dr. Latour, perhaps deliberately? Let me spell it out for you.

    First, under control theory, of which there is an enormous body of reputable work over many decades, certain characteristics must exist or there is no possibility of exerting control. There are many references provided by Dr. Latour on this.
    And parenthetically, I do not know why you assert that Hydrocarbon Processing’s letters to editor are behind a pay-wall. I have no subscription, yet it is available to me and others.

    Second parenthetical comment, it is also revealing that you disparage the magazine Hydrocarbon Processing, one of the two oldest, most respected, and widely-read industry journals in the world. While HP does not focus on climate matters, it does devote a fair amount of pages to process control matters. And on that subject, it is quite authoritative with some of the best and brightest in the world regularly authoring articles. Their peer-review system is excellent, as the editors there know whereof they speak. Further, like any good technical journal, any errors or inconsistencies are published as letters to the editor in subsequent editions, with the author having an opportunity to respond. I have the honor of being published in HP.

    One last comment on control theory and practice in refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and other processes: this is deadly serious work. Control practitioners do not have the luxury of being wrong. If they are, things explode and people are killed. The control requirements as given by Dr. Latour, and explained below, are based on many decades of experience in many thousands of processes world-wide. Professional control engineers know what they are doing, and Dr. Latour is one of the best, most experienced, and most respected.

    Back to the control theory: The first characteristic for controlling a system is that one must be able to measure the parameter to that is to be controlled. The measurement must provide consistent results. This requirement is not subject to debate. In the case of the earth’s surface temperature, it has been amply demonstrated that this is a serious problem. There is no agreement as to what the temperature is, or was, or how it should be measured, or how it could be measured, or where, when and how. If you don’t know at what speed your car is traveling, how can you possibly know whether to speed up or slow down to achieve a desired rate of travel? Mr. Watts has demonstrated quite satisfactorily that the temperature measurements are completely suspect.

    The second characteristic for controlling a system is that a suitable manipulated variable must be found. The manipulated variable must have several characteristics of its own, in order to be effective. Dr. Latour lists these, and I give a more detailed treatment in my blog. Briefly stated, there must be a consistent, reliable, measurable, and repeatable response by the controlled variable (global temperature) when the manipulated variable (CO2 in the atmosphere) is changed. This, too, is not subject to debate.

    If one asserts that global temperatures increase when CO2 in the atmosphere increases, then the global temperature must increase every time the CO2 increases. Also, the temperature must increase by the same proportion every time. Not just increase some of the time, and not decrease sometimes, and not be unchanged sometimes. Conversely, the global temperature must decrease when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere decreases. Clearly, CO2 and global temperature, however poorly measured, do not have that relationship as required for a control system to function.

    As Dr. Latour concluded, CO2 has nothing to do with the earth’s temperature.

    No amount of data gathering, manipulation, data rejection, changing past data, grid-screening and interpolation, changing measurement techniques, repeated scare-mongering statements by politicians or Nobel-prize winning former future presidents, nor any other drum beating or breast beating will alter those fundamental facts.

    That is why Dr. Latour’s argument is utterly devastating to the entire “CO2 is going to kill us all” position to which AGW proponents adhere.

    Regarding the difference in time-responses in a refinery and climate, that has nothing to do with the problem. But, it is interesting that you seized upon that bit of what I wrote. Time lags are indeed important in control theory and practice, but once again the control response must be consistent and repeatable even after accounting for the time lag. Time lags also must be consistent, and the CO2 – temperature relationship fails that test. Dr. Lansner had something to say about this on WUWT recently. His work shows rather convincingly that at the same levels of CO2, temperatures increased at times, and decreased at times. Again, this is completely devastating to the CO2-causes-warming contention.

    Just to recap, the AGW proponents hold that CO2 concentration increased rather steadily from roughly 280 ppm to 385 ppm, over the time period 1800 to 2008. Perhaps the increase is just a bit more rapid in the past 25 years. Yet, the best estimates of global temperature from the AGW proponents show cooling, then warming, then no meaningful change for nearly three decades, then warming, and finally cooling for the past several years.

    Again, I invite you to refute Dr. Latour’s argument. You have the entire argument laid out here on WUWT, not behind a pay-wall, for the entire internet-world to read, copy, circulate, and refute.

    Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
    Climate Change Attorney
    B.S. Chemical Engineering

  137. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Roger, compliments on a very well written and eloquent comment.

    Ben Lawson (21:47:18) :
    You are right that the atmosphere is so much more complex than a refinery. The oft-argued basis of skepticism on WUWT is that it is SO much more complex that we cannot model it accurately and that we do not measure it accurately in the first place (see Surfacestations.org, and Anthony’s many “How not to measure temperature…” posts). Additionally, many of the results inferred from comparative work and projections do not hold up under quite small changes of method (see yesterday’s post on Steig’s reconstructions).

    Now you might think that worrying about whether there is asphalt or a BBQ close to a temperature sensor is a bit of a joke, but we’re dealing with small changes which are easily engulfed if there is a large margin of error, and unfortunatley most of the errors are biased towards warming. Before any government commits billions to combatting global warming (in my name as a tax payer) I’d like to be a bit more certain that the money would not be better spent on other things.

    My own journey from ignorant believer to informed skeptic began in starting to question and understand the science, some time before encountering WUWT. You too are a scientist (were, I see from your blog). Science is about understanding and explaining what we observe. I have no problem with the suggestion that the observed increase in CO2 from human activity contributes to warming, but I have a real problem with being told it is the only or most important factor and that we have to do something about it – alarmism.

    Do read Dr Lansner’s post on past climate here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/
    It has a simple take-home message than temperature can fall when CO2 is high, and that is why CO2 cannot be the contolling factor in climate teperature.

  138. Giles Winterbourne says:

    Actually, Latour’s letter, while better supported with cites than the average [snip], doesn’t focus on control theory. Rather, he takes a few studies that are essentially outliers to support a contention that simply doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. We can thank Temple for his time, but also we also note that Latour is only writing a letter to an editor and isn’t under the quality constraints necessary for a research paper. Again, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of.

    That is why he can get away with citing OISM, misconstruing conclusions (ala G. Will), mistaking a cherry-picked 8 year dataset for actual climate studies, and saying “There must be room for unsubstantiated informed opinion.” (http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB)

  139. Giles Winterbourne says:

    Actually, Dr. Latour’s Sept. 08 letter to the editor is behind the HPI paywall. We do have Temple’s rebuttal and Latour’s reply available to the public on the HPI site (http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB ).

    Temple has, with permission, posted the Sept letter on his site (http://www.ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/) along with Latour’s reply and his (Temple) further discussion that wasn’t posted in the Letters to the Editor.

    Latour’s 23 points include such inanities as “When people get too warm, they take off sweaters…”, “…system disturbances are not measurable”, and in general makes several comments best described as “…unsubstantiated informed opinion”. There is also “Atmospheric CO 2 lags atmospheric and ocean temperature rather than leading it, according to data published by Al Gore”; I can’t tell if he’s citing (without attribution) Al Gore, or just not editing before hitting send. He only cites himself and Robinson (and possibly Al Gore). Two cites. Neither of which address most of his contentions.

    I notice he thanks the Editors for their ‘accurate’ editorial. I can only surmise his was either the best or the only letter they received in support.

    Thanks for the Control Theory review, but since Latour only mentions it a couple of times, I really don’t know why there should be so much focus on it; especially if doing so gives all those other howlers a pass.

    Again, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of.

  140. Roger Sowell says:

    Ellie in Belfast (07:18:31) :

    “Roger, compliments on a very well written and eloquent comment.”

    Thank you, Ellie in Belfast, from an Irishman in California.

    You write very well and with eloquence, also!

    Roger

  141. Ben Lawson says:

    Roger, that withering look you’re giving me over your reading glasses is creeping me out! :-)

    You’re looking for insult where there is none, and battling arguments of your own creation. I would comfortably rely on Hydrocarbon Processing for matters related to refineries. I would NOT rely on it in any other subject area.

    Dr. Latour has taken his substantial professional achievements and intellectual perspective and applied it holus bolus to a completely unrelated field that has become a personal/political interest of his. The result verges on the unintentionally comical, not the “devastating” high standard that you assign to it. I would however also comfortably rely on his advice if I happened to own a refinery.

    I’ll say it again: control theory is an excellent tool in controlled environments. If only the Earth was a small sealed steel cylinder…

    I’ll leave the final, and undoubtably lengthy, word to you.

    Ellie in Belfast: I view the skeptic’s fundamental position as one of “until we have PERFECT KNOWLEDGE any action is socialist governmental meddling.” Out in the Real World(tm) this controversy is being treated as a risk management issue with the consensus being that the AGM climate threat is likely to be real and worth attempting to mitigate.

    I’d also like to offer some praise. Here’s to you Giles Winterbourne, for YOUR well-written, eloquent, on-topic and frankly quite charming comments. Waiting for my own pat on the head… waiting… waiting… (Just a little joke, I have no objection to the supportive words between Roger and Ellie.)

  142. Ellie in Belfast says:

    Ben: a few years ago, I was all for “we gotta do something now, even though we’re not sure”, but even our best efforts costing billions, are going to be a drop in the ocean.

    There is a risk that if there is catastrophic warming, either CO2 (manmade that is) is not the culprit and it would happen anyway, or we are at fault with man-made CO2, but we are too late to stop the worst changes. The really big risk is that we spend the money and achieve very little, when perhaps the money would be better spent on studying and implementing adaptation strategies.

    As for the fundamental skeptic’s position you lay out, I don’t like that one either. I and most skeptics I know, for very sound reasons, do not believe that warming due to CO2 will be the problem it is made out to be. That being the case, I would rather see the money used on some truely worthy cause by a socialist government, or given back to me through reduced tax to spend on a worthy cause of my choice. Unfortunately the most extreme opinions on both sides seem to be the most vocal.

Comments are closed.