New US military report on global warming raises worry

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

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.

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.

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.

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”.

…(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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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..

“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…

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….

“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.

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

Now they show up …

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 🙂

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.

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

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!”

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.

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?

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.

Lief
Yeah, but it’s still humor……
sort of…..
Mike

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?

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.

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…

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

No, satellite data dropout. Happens now and then.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

“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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ? 😉

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.

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…)

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

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”…

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.

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.

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.

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!… 😉

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.