PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Non-science



Starving Steve
02-02-08, 07:09 PM
I am just looking at San Francisco Airport's mean temperature for December 2007 at 49.5F which is exactly normal at 49.5F; and January 2008 at 48.4F, 1.0F below the monthly normal of 49.4F.

Nearly every month's mean temperature since and including the months of 2005 has been below normal. See for yourself at www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr). Then click onto Local Climate and pull-up SF Airport Monthly Means. Or check the other sites around the region: Oakland Airport, San Jose Airport, Moffett Field, etc. and do the same.

Understood that La Nina ( which is the current phase of water temperatures in the Pacific ) tends to bring below normal temperatures in California and that El Nino does the opposite, what is remarkable is how little has changed in the climate of central California--- and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

In other words, the current La Nina chill is nicely cancelling the past El Nino's warmth, and the temperatures at SF Airport prove it.

And we have the global warming alarmists who are now telling you on radio commercials in SF that California is now in drought and that water needs to be rationed. But as of yesterday, California's snow pack was at 120% of normal for this date in the season--- which is remarkable in La Nina because La Nina tends to bring drought.

So, if we are running normal or above normal snow pack in La Nina, just think of how much above normal the snow pack will be in the next El Nino due 2011 or 2012.

Go check my facts at the same web-site above. Pull-up the entire California rainfall table, by location. And all sites are near normal or slightly above normal for this date--- which is remarkable and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

So, if the arctic ice sheet is gone, why is the climate remarkably unchanged, at least in California? And I think the same findings ( little change ) can be had throughout the world, but check for yourself.

Common-sense would dictate that if the sea level is unchanged--- and sea level is stable--- the world's climate is stable. But don't confuse the global warming alarmists (at BBC or CBC or in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club) with some hard facts on sea level and mean temperature.

WDCRob
02-02-08, 07:24 PM
Well, good then. Glad that's resolved. Well done Steve.

btw... smoking doesn't cause cancer. My grandad smoked all his life and never got cancer. So light up!

GRG55
02-02-08, 11:21 PM
I am just looking at San Francisco Airport's mean temperature for December 2007 at 49.5F which is exactly normal at 49.5F; and January 2008 at 48.4F, 1.0F below the monthly normal of 49.4F.

Nearly every month's mean temperature since and including the months of 2005 has been below normal. See for yourself at www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr). Then click onto Local Climate and pull-up SF Airport Monthly Means. Or check the other sites around the region: Oakland Airport, San Jose Airport, Moffett Field, etc. and do the same.

Understood that La Nina ( which is the current phase of water temperatures in the Pacific ) tends to bring below normal temperatures in California and that El Nino does the opposite, what is remarkable is how little has changed in the climate of central California--- and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

In other words, the current La Nina chill is nicely cancelling the past El Nino's warmth, and the temperatures at SF Airport prove it.

And we have the global warming alarmists who are now telling you on radio commercials in SF that California is now in drought and that water needs to be rationed. But as of yesterday, California's snow pack was at 120% of normal for this date in the season--- which is remarkable in La Nina because La Nina tends to bring drought.

So, if we are running normal or above normal snow pack in La Nina, just think of how much above normal the snow pack will be in the next El Nino due 2011 or 2012.

Go check my facts at the same web-site above. Pull-up the entire California rainfall table, by location. And all sites are near normal or slightly above normal for this date--- which is remarkable and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

So, if the arctic ice sheet is gone, why is the climate remarkably unchanged, at least in California? And I think the same findings ( little change ) can be had throughout the world, but check for yourself.

Common-sense would dictate that if the sea level is unchanged--- and sea level is stable--- the world's climate is stable. But don't confuse the global warming alarmists (at BBC or CBC or in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club) with some hard facts on sea level and mean temperature.

Here's a link to the weather near where I am right now. Current temperature 11 deg C (52 F), low last night was 8 C (46 F), second serious cold spell this winter and far colder than the first 5 years I lived here (normal daytime temps about now would be 70+ F).

The adult locals tell me that this winter and the long cold spell we had last winter are like the winters they used to experience when they were kids. No heat in most of the houses here, but I suppose its still better than a palm frond hut, which is what these locations had not that long ago when they were fishing and pearl diving economies.
http://www.accuweather.com/world-forecast.asp?partner=&zipcode=MEA|BH|BA006|BAHRAIN%20INTERNATIONAL|

GRG55
02-02-08, 11:33 PM
No conclusions implied, but this site that shows Arctic ice cover is one I have been using for a while now. Compare Feb 1, 2006 with Feb 1, 2008. If (note I said, IF) we have passed the peak of the melt of the Arctic ice pack (in 2007 when polar bears were reported drowning), will the UN Climate Committee take the credit, or will it go to Al Gore? Just wondering...
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=01&fy=2006&sm=02&sd=01&sy=2008

World Traveler
02-03-08, 03:28 AM
National Geographic is doing a special on Feb 10 called "Six Degrees" that explores, from 1 degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius warming, what the impact on the world would be. They have a short video exerpt on-line for impact of each degree. Well worth watching.

Most interesting to me was a comment that James Hanson made (one of THE world premier climate modellers, head of Goddard Institute).

If the world warms up 1 degree Celsius from where we are today, earth will be hotter than it has been in last 1 million years. Temperatures from 1 million years ago are known based on studies of Antartic ice cores and ocean beds. One way to look at it is, there were no human beings 1 million years ago, so we've never tried to live in that type of climate.

I actually stated out life as a history major (had to switch to computers though to make any money!). I've always been interested in "Deep History", how humans originated in Africa, then some migrated out between 60-80,000 years ago to populate the world. One thing I learned is that climate has had a dramatic impact on where people went and when they went there. As Ice Ages came and went, as deserts bloomed and faded back to dry, people settled and then were forced out again due to climate changes, etc., over span of last 100,000.

Second link I posted below (Bradshaw Foundation, Journey of Mankind) of has a good overview of the history of human migrations that populated the world, what the climate conditions were at the time of each migration, and the impact of these global climate conditions on migration process.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/

Starving Steve
02-03-08, 11:21 AM
Some of the worst climate analysis has come from modelling global climate. And I think the same thing can be said of economics, some of the worst economic analysis has come from economic modelling ( econometric models ).

Conversely, some of the best climate analysis has come from rigourous climate observation, not modelling, not theorizing, and not spinning anything.

As far as modelling of the migrations that early man took, it sounds like spin to me. (Nice theory to grab a headline, a Ph.D, and a grant. )

What is that stupid gorge in Africa where early man is supposed to have originated from? Odivai Gorge?

Doesn't it seem fishy to you that a few bones somewhere dictate an entire theory about the history of early man and human migration?

How about digging everywhere on Earth and seeing what the diggings and the datings say, instead of what the theory says about man coming out of East Africa?

Verrocchio
02-03-08, 07:28 PM
National Geographic is doing a special on Feb 10 called "Six Degrees" that explores, from 1 degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius warming, what the impact on the world would be. They have a short video exerpt on-line for impact of each degree. Well worth watching.

Thanks for the link, WT. It is indeed worth viewing.

One Degree of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_1.html?nav=NGC-sixdegrees-one)

At one degree of warming, the Arctic is ice-free for half the year, the South Atlantic—typically void of hurricanes—experiences coastal hurricanes, and in the western U.S. severe droughts are plaguing residents. "...deserts in the Western US from Texas to the Canadian border."
Two Degrees of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_2.html)

Polar bears struggle to survive as glaciers increasingly melt away. Glaciers in Greenland begin to disappear, while coral reefs are vanishing. "
Three Degrees of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_3.html)

The Amazon rainforest is drying out and El Nio’s intense weather pattern becomes the norm. Europe repeatedly experiences searing summer heat that has rarely happened before. "The arctic is ice-free all summer..." Summer of 2003 may be a harbinger of the near future. Between 2,500 and 3,000 died in Paris the night of August 10th. Deaths topped 30,000 across Europe, with 14,000 dead in France in a few weeks.
Four Degrees of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_4.html)

Oceans could rise, taking over coastal cities. The disappearance of glaciers may deprive many of fresh water. Northern Canada’s agriculture could boom and a Scandinavian beach could be the next tourism hotspot. A part of Antarctica could collapse, causing water to rise even further.
Five Degrees of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_5.html)

Uninhabitable zones could spread, snow pack and aquifers feeding big cities could dry up, and climate refugees could run in the millions. Human civilization could begin to break down with this drastic of changes to the climate. The poor would likely suffer the most.

Six Degrees of Warming (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_6.html)

At six degrees, the oceans could be marine wastelands, the deserts could march across continents, and natural disasters could become common events. The world’s great cities could be flooded and abandoned. This could be “the doomsday scenario.” "nothing less than a global wipeout..."
__________________________________

No man can predict the future, but climate is a fundamental factor that can no longer be considered a constant. How it will vary in the years ahead is perhaps the most complicating and confounding question that we face. It compounds the uncertainty of the economy, currency values, and availability of cheap oil and food, and so on. Despite my limitations in comprehension, the catastrophic nature of the consequences of global warming and the likelihood of positive feedback loops that lead to ever-higher temperatures cannot be ignored.

grapejelly
02-03-08, 08:52 PM
global warming doesn't bother me like mercury and heavy metals does. These are vaporized into the atmosphere when coal is burned. It affects all of us now and it not an abstraction.

Global warming arguments are all abstractions of what may or possibly will happen far in the future.

The mercury and radon and heavy metals problem is a "now" problem.

World Traveler
02-03-08, 09:36 PM
I agree, changes in global climate are a long term problem, and its our descendents who could possibly suffer the gravest impacts in next 100-500 years if not much is done.

Another way to look at it is, the climate we have had for last 11,000 years (since end of last Ice Age) is about as good as it gets on earth, at least for humans. We're in an inter-glacial period (in terms of long-scale history), with fairly regular, predictable (within ranges) climate and weather patterns. Human population has exploded during this wonderful period.

Even without human interference, earth's climate will have changes in future (Ice Ages are caused by shape of earth's rotation around the sun, as it goes from rounder to more elliptical every 100,000 years and by changes in earth's tilt toward sun every 25,000 years). If Mother Nature's delicate balances are disrupted, it could have unpredictable consequences for Earth and life on it.

The greatest mass extinction that EVER happened was 250,000,000 years ago in Permian Era. What happened was that in the Siberian Traps huge eruptions of volcanic calderas occurred and this increased average Earth temperature by 5 DEGREES Celsius. (Die-offs started, on land). 5 degrees Celsius warmed the oceans enough so that the methane hydrates in oceans floor started releasing huge amounts of methane into atmosphere. This methane raised global temperatures an additional 5 degrees Celsius. At then end of all this, 95% of all lifeforms on earth were gone.

From BBC link below:

"When Paul Wignall learned of Dickens' findings, he used his carbon-12 data to estimate how much methane hydrate would have to be released to affect the isotope balance. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and he deduced that unlocking frozen methane hydrate would have caused a temperature rise of 4-5C over time. Not enough to kill off 95% of life on Earth but he realised this was a compounded effect. A rise of about 5C must already have occurred to prompt the frozen methane to melt. The combined temperature rise of 10C is generally accepted as a figure able to cause truly mass extinction.

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdied.shtml

Contemptuous
02-03-08, 11:39 PM
Apparently Japan is "tinkering around" trying to figure out how to "safely" mine some of that yummy methane hydrate off the ocean floor. Lots of yummy BTU's locked away down there.

Given the indomitable Japanese technical ingenuity, it's a fair bet we'll see Mitsubishi or Komatsu heavy industries with some sleek new Methane Hydrates submersible tankers in a generation. ... If a little "un-sequestered methane melt" occurs n the process - well that's just the "cost of doing business". :D

c1ue
02-04-08, 11:13 AM
A previous post



Once again, is it hype or is it scientific reality?

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">A good candidate for the last previous opening of the Northwest Passage was the period 5,000-7,000 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the Passage was probably open during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Temperatures then were 2-3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4-6 meters higher. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There it is again, the sun and the earth's orbital tilt.

Yes, the Northwest Passage is open for the first time European recorded history (Eskimos don't have calendars). But that is best case only 500 years to draw on - a lot of time if human intervention scales are at question, but not a lot of time in solar/earth orbital terms.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...&tstamp=200710 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=826&tstamp=200710)

Lest you think Dr. Masters is a Republican plant:

Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D.

Director of Meteorology
Jeff Masters grew up in suburban Detroit, and attended the University of Michigan, where he received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Meteorology in 1982 and 1983, respectively. While working on his Masters degree, he participated in field programs studying acid rain in the Northeast U.S. and air pollution in the Detroit area.

What Mr. Masters says on his blog directly contradicts what Hanson says.

Of course, Hanson is also a leading light in the global warming panic support group.

Verrocchio
02-04-08, 01:12 PM
Long term problem? According to Hanson (assuming that he has some credibility), Climate models driven by "business-as-usual" GHG scenarios for the 21st century yield a global warming of several degrees that would almost surely have detrimental effects on humans and wildlife (IPCC 1996) (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/).

This makes me less sanguine that global warming is a problem only for our descendants. I don't expect to be here at the end of the century, but hope to be around for a good part of it.

Verrocchio
02-04-08, 01:23 PM
Apparently Japan is "tinkering around" trying to figure out how to "safely" mine some of that yummy methane hydrate off the ocean floor. Lots of yummy BTU's locked away down there.

Given the indomitable Japanese technical ingenuity, it's a fair bet we'll see Mitsubishi or Komatsu heavy industries with some sleek new Methane Hydrates submersible tankers in a generation. ... If a little "un-sequestered methane melt" occurs n the process - well that's just the "cost of doing business". :D

They're after the methane hydrates buried beneath ice layers about 50 clicks from the main island of Japan. Canada has joined with Japan in this project and tests are currently being conducted in the Canadian permafrost. Meanwhile, back in the continental USA, coalbed methane gas has been tapped across the Midwest for a few years now.

Starving Steve
02-04-08, 07:59 PM
[quote=Verrocchio;26598]They're after the methane hydrates buried beneath ice layers about 50 clicks from the main island of Japan. Canada has joined with Japan in this project and tests are currently being conducted in the Canadian permafrost. Meanwhile, back in the continental USA, coalbed methane gas has been tapped across the Midwest for a few years now.

From Starving Steve:

This is my response to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and all those here who would tell the public that the world might come to an end with global warming if mankind begins to tap into under-sea natural gas reserves locked-up in methyl hydride ice, etc:

It is imperative that the world taps into pressurized methane reserves, be those reserves under the sea in methyl hydride ice, in coal veins, or wherever. Similarly, it is imperative that the world switches to nuclear power immediately. Otherwise, we freeze in the dark.

There will be risks in any energy project. But freezing in the dark is not an option.

Unless the world reduces its population, we have to have more energy and fast.

So, the dams have to be built. The atomic power plants have to be built. The methane has to be harvested from the sea floor. The oil has to be taken from the continental shelf. The coal has to be mined, like it or not. ( End of story. )

Here in California, our grandparents built the California water project to provide water for Southern California back in the 1920s. They didn't pee around with environmental impact statements and lawsuits from the Sierra Club. They decided to do what was necessary, AND THEY DID IT.

Go have a look at what our grandparents did: They took water from Northern California, pumped it 500 miles south to L.A. They pumped that water over a 3000 foot wall of mountains, and then dropt it into Southern California.

Oh that pumping job? It was not a trickle of water; it was enough water for THIRTEEN MILLION PEOPLE. That 3000 foot mountain range? It was actually an 8000 foot mountain range, but our grandparents found a cliff 3000 feet tall and pumped the entire fresh water river up over the 3000 feet.

Similarly, our grandparents split atoms. They didn't talk about it. THEY DID IT. They built the Rancho Seco power plant near Sacramento and the Valecitos power plant near San Jose.

Similarly, our grandparents built Grand Coulee Dam and the Hoover Dam, regardless of what the nay-sayers of the time said.

One can see this same CAN-DO spirit to-day in China at the Three Rivers Gorge Dam which will provide enumerable benefit to mankind including some 18,200 megawatts of power from 26 generators, beginning in 2009.

The St. Lawrence Seaway was built after WWII with this same can-do spirit.

Sure we have had some negatives from the Seaway such as some salt-water specie transplant to the Great Lakes, especially the issue of muscles being transplanted into the formerly prestine lakes. But the benefits to mankind have far out-weighed the negatives.

Imagine if the Sierra Club and Greenpeace had been active in the post-war era! There would never have been a Seaway.

Imagine what the Sierra Club and Greenpeace would have said about the California Water Project if they would have been around in the 1920s when the project was being proposed!

Our grandparents began the construction of the first water de-salinization plants in California, and they used electricity generated by atomic energy to do it.

Our grandparents began the world's first project to extract maganesium metal from sea water at Moss Landing, California.

Imagine what the Sierra Club or Greenpeace would say now if this project was just in the proposal stage. Imagine the lawsuits! ( Some rare and poisonous jellyfish would have to be protected from the effluent from the magnesium-extraction plant at Moss Landing. )

Our children deserve a future where energy and resources abound. And the radical environmentalists who would obstruct this future ( with fear-mongering, with lawsuits, and with outrageous delay and cost ) must now be politically challenged and stopped.

GRG55
02-05-08, 01:58 AM
I agree, changes in global climate are a long term problem, and its our descendents who could possibly suffer the gravest impacts in next 100-500 years if not much is done.

Another way to look at it is, the climate we have had for last 11,000 years (since end of last Ice Age) is about as good as it gets on earth, at least for humans. We're in an inter-glacial period (in terms of long-scale history), with fairly regular, predictable (within ranges) climate and weather patterns. Human population has exploded during this wonderful period.

Even without human interference, earth's climate will have changes in future (Ice Ages are caused by shape of earth's rotation around the sun, as it goes from rounder to more elliptical every 100,000 years and by changes in earth's tilt toward sun every 25,000 years). If Mother Nature's delicate balances are disrupted, it could have unpredictable consequences for Earth and life on it.

The greatest mass extinction that EVER happened was 250,000,000 years ago in Permian Era. What happened was that in the Siberian Traps huge eruptions of volcanic calderas occurred and this increased average Earth temperature by 5 DEGREES Celsius. (Die-offs started, on land). 5 degrees Celsius warmed the oceans enough so that the methane hydrates in oceans floor started releasing huge amounts of methane into atmosphere. This methane raised global temperatures an additional 5 degrees Celsius. At then end of all this, 95% of all lifeforms on earth were gone.

From BBC link below:

"When Paul Wignall learned of Dickens' findings, he used his carbon-12 data to estimate how much methane hydrate would have to be released to affect the isotope balance. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and he deduced that unlocking frozen methane hydrate would have caused a temperature rise of 4-5C over time. Not enough to kill off 95% of life on Earth but he realised this was a compounded effect. A rise of about 5C must already have occurred to prompt the frozen methane to melt. The combined temperature rise of 10C is generally accepted as a figure able to cause truly mass extinction.

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdied.shtml

250 Million years ago, eh.

So why is it that we are so arrogant to think that man can "control" the atmosphere? Hell, we can't even forecast the weather very well...

Verrocchio
02-05-08, 12:03 PM
freezing in the dark is not an option.
One can see this same CAN-DO spirit to-day in China at the Three Rivers Gorge Dam which will provide enumerable benefit to mankind including some 18,200 megawatts of power from 26 generators, beginning in 2009.

Sure we have had some negatives from the Seaway such as some salt-water specie transplant to the Great Lakes, especially the issue of muscles being transplanted into the formerly prestine lakes. But the benefits to mankind have far out-weighed the negatives.


Nice rant, Starving Steve! :D

Development of energy resources and transportation infrastructure isn't inevitable, however. Cost-benefit analysis is used to determine project feasibility. Engineers attempt to use current knowledge to design projects that are clearly on the plus side of the ledger. They don't ignore risks; they take them into account and attempt to avoid the negatives.

CAN-DO spirit in the PRC? Take a look at this:
Three Gorges Dam risk to environment, says China

China's showcase hydro-engineering project, the Three Gorges Dam, could become an environmental catastrophe unless remedial action is taken, the state media reported yesterday.In an unusually blunt public assessment, officials warned that landslides and pollution were among the "hidden dangers" facing the world's biggest hydro-electric plant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2177847,00.html

The St. Lawrence Seaway has returned enormous benefits to the US economy by opening up the interior of the Midwest to water transport. If we knew then what we know now, we may have prohibited the release of ballast water from ocean-going freighters.

The zebra mussels that plague the Great Lakes aren't "salt-water specie." They came from the Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, they've been sighted as far west as Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, as far south as Mississippi and Louisiana, and as far east as Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania. Economic impact? Adult zebra mussels colonize all types of living and non-living surfaces including boats, water-intake pipes, buoys, docks, piers, plants, and slow moving animals such as native clams, crayfish, and turtles. They even attach to each other, ultimately forming dense layered colonies up to one foot thick. Mussel densities of over 1 million per square meter have been recorded in parts of Lake Erie. In 1989, the town of Monroe, MI lost its water supply for three days due to massive numbers of zebra mussels clogging the citys water-intake pipeline. Since then, water users such as power companies, steel plants, city water suppliers, and golf courses, have had to retool their water-intake systems or apply chemical treatment to prevent zebra mussel related problems. Swimming areas in Lake Erie have had increased costs associated with removing tons of mussel shell that wash up on beaches during storms. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the potential economic impact to be in the billions of dollars over the next ten years to U.S. and Canadian water users within the Great Lakes region alone. See: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_invasive_zebramussel&title=Invasive%20Invertebrates0&menu=research_invasive_invertebrates

sadsack
02-05-08, 12:55 PM
I always find any discussion of climate/biome somewhat shortsighted. After all, a mindset conditioned on a timespan of less than a century can be shockingly narrow.

In my mind, the "eco-freaks," etc. are guilty of the high crime of narcissism/hubris. I.e., the way the world should be is the way I remember it to be in my subjective, idealized (aka flawed) memory.

For a geological perspective on the good or evil effects from pollution, consider the case of cyanobacteria.

These bacteria were among the first (if not the first) organisms capable of photosynthesis. Over several hundred million years, this adaptation enabled them to conquer the world (photosynthesis conveyed an extraordinary competitive advantage).

However, the byproduct of photosynthesis, free (atmospheric molecular) oxygen, was one of the deadliest poisons to nearly all (hypothesized) lifeforms of the time. The cyanobacteria, through their wanton pollution of the world's environment, killed off nearly all other forms of life save those which could withstand the corrosive effects of an oxygen atmosphere.

An inkling of the scope of the hypothesized near omnicide can be found in the hematite deposits in the ocean crust. Hematite is an iron compound, and iron is essential for cell growth. In the time before free oxygen, vast amounts of iron lay dissolved in the primative oceans, which would hypothetically have supported a lot more bacteria, etc.

After oxygen built up in the atmosphere and dissolved into the oceans, virtually all of the iron precipitated out, conceivably starving out whole kingdoms of creatures.

Today, we can see the advantage of an oxygen-based metabolism, and we can pine for clean air (21% oxygen). Just remember, though, the legion of archaea that had to be exterminated, strangled in the crib of the new earth, so that we could enjoy aerobic metabolisms and blue skies in the present day . . .

Verrocchio
02-05-08, 10:06 PM
Me and my friends the cyanobacterium vs all those anaerobic critters!!!

Funny, sadsack, and beautifully written, too...

sadsack
02-06-08, 12:09 AM
Me and my friends the cyanobacterium vs all those anaerobic critters!!!

Funny, sadsack, and beautifully written, too...

Thanks - glad you enjoyed my ironic confection . . .

Etiological (i.e, are we the disease, or the cure) considerations aside, it comes down to an Archimedian analogy:

Are humans the fulcrum, mass, or the lever in the scheme of life? If we're the mass, then on which side of the lever should we be exerting ourselves?

A la Schumpeter, does the potential creation warrant the destruction?

The thoughtless drive toward survival by the cynobacteria epochally changed the course of life on Earth. Is humanity today a similar agent for a new regime of change?

Flip a coin - your guess is as good as mine . . .

Starving Steve
03-01-08, 11:20 AM
It's March 1, kiddies, and that means the February monthly mean temperature is posted at San Francisco Airport. Go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr) and click the Climate-Local on the left-side of the page. Then open the monthly figures at SF Airport.

And the Feb. mean temperature at SF Airport (SFO) was 51.7 or -0.7 degrees F. below the normal of 52.4, compiled from records dating back to 1927. So February continues the trend of below normal monthly temperature observations in recent years. These negative deviations are nicely cancelling the positive ( above normal ) observations in temperature observed during the El Nino years of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Rainfall at SFO during February was just over 2 inches, about half of the normal of just over 4 inches for the month. So, Februrary was dry, but 2008 being a La Nina year, one would expect below normal rainfall. Again, the more things change in weather, the more the climate seems to be the same: i.e, the same old patterns in the weather keep re-appearing.

A statistician would say that the data keeps reverting to the mean, and this is what the climate data suggests at SFO.

Less talk by BBC and CBC reporters about polar bears drowning in Hudson Bay and more study of the Earth's boring climate data is what is needed, wouldn't you agree?

Andreuccio
03-04-08, 05:28 PM
It's March 1, kiddies, and that means the February monthly mean temperature is posted at San Francisco Airport. Go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr) and click the Climate-Local on the left-side of the page. Then open the monthly figures at SF Airport.

And the Feb. mean temperature at SF Airport (SFO) was 51.7 or -0.7 degrees F. below the normal of 52.4, compiled from records dating back to 1927. So February continues the trend of below normal monthly temperature observations in recent years. These negative deviations are nicely cancelling the positive ( above normal ) observations in temperature observed during the El Nino years of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Rainfall at SFO during February was just over 2 inches, about half of the normal of just over 4 inches for the month. So, Februrary was dry, but 2008 being a La Nina year, one would expect below normal rainfall. Again, the more things change in weather, the more the climate seems to be the same: i.e, the same old patterns in the weather keep re-appearing.

A statistician would say that the data keeps reverting to the mean, and this is what the climate data suggests at SFO.

Less talk by BBC and CBC reporters about polar bears drowning in Hudson Bay and more study of the Earth's boring climate data is what is needed, wouldn't you agree?

Steve, this is hilarious. Are you really suggesting that slightly cooler temperatures during one month at one location (SFO during February, 2008) disproves global warming? Get serious. The discussion is about Global Warming, not SFO warming.

I poked around a bit at the National Weather Service's site you linked to. If you go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.jsp you'll find some charts that might be more informative regarding global warming than just looking at the February 2008 data for San Francisco Airport. The page is labeled "Global Climate at a Glance". I tried the third option, "GHCN Land Surface Data". Set the "Zone Menu" to "Global". If you do just February you'll see that between 1880 and 2007 mean global temperature trended up 0.08 degrees C per decade for Feb. Or set the begining month to January and the end month to December and you can see that mean global temperatures have trended up by 0.06 degrees C per decade overall.

There's also a nice blue trendline on the graphs that you can look at. It clearly shows how temperatures have been trending up, and will give you an inkling just how cold it would have to get, and for how long, before we could consider them to be trending down. It will take a whole lot of cold years before any serious statisticians start saying we've reverted to the mean.

Starving Steve
03-09-08, 05:53 PM
Steve, this is hilarious. Are you really suggesting that slightly cooler temperatures during one month at one location (SFO during February, 2008) disproves global warming? Get serious. The discussion is about Global Warming, not SFO warming.

I poked around a bit at the National Weather Service's site you linked to. If you go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.jsp you'll find some charts that might be more informative regarding global warming than just looking at the February 2008 data for San Francisco Airport. The page is labeled "Global Climate at a Glance". I tried the third option, "GHCN Land Surface Data". Set the "Zone Menu" to "Global". If you do just February you'll see that between 1880 and 2007 mean global temperature trended up 0.08 degrees C per decade for Feb. Or set the begining month to January and the end month to December and you can see that mean global temperatures have trended up by 0.06 degrees C per decade overall.

There's also a nice blue trendline on the graphs that you can look at. It clearly shows how temperatures have been trending up, and will give you an inkling just how cold it would have to get, and for how long, before we could consider them to be trending down. It will take a whole lot of cold years before any serious statisticians start saying we've reverted to the mean.

Thank you for your post and for the opportunity to discuss global warming here:

I picked SFO to study because they have a long record of climate data. Their record goes back to 1927. And the record is reliable because it was collected by the government. Also, I like airports to study climate because there is a lot of open space around airports, so the data is not biased by urbanization effects --- like the reflexion of radiation from buildings, the transmission of heat from buildings, the reduction in vegetation in urban areas, etc.

I suspect that so-called global warming is actually the effect of urbanization around weather stations. Because heat-island effects are purely local effects around cities, data from city stations needs to be discounted from the global warming debate. ( No extrapolation to the global climate can be made from urban stations because buildings and pavements are always changing the micro-climate in urban areas. )

I am quite willing to accept any airport or rural data in this global warming debate. Any data collect at sea would also be acceptable, too. Any water temperature data is biased by ocean currents and depth of measurement, but water temperature data is also interesting to study.

Now, as for the data that you presented, you say that the Earth's temperature warmed by 0.08 degrees C since 1880. I don't dispute that; in fact, I think the figure is higher than that. The figures that I have seen are around 1 full degree C. since 1880.

But I would expect some warming of the Earth since 1880 for several reasons: 1.) The Earth is coming out of the Ice Age; 2.) The Earth is coming out of the Little Ice Age; 3.) The Sun's radiation is not constant, as once thought by climate scientists; and 4.) There is more CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth.

My thesis is that everything on this planet is changing, but the changes in the last century have been remarkably small.

And one last point: If you truly interested in cutting mankind's carbon emissions ( a worthwhile goal ), I hope that you will join me in supporting the construction of nuclear power plants everywhere.

Contemptuous
03-09-08, 06:33 PM
Starving Steve -

With respect - you either inadvertently, or advertently missed the entire point, or decline to reply to it. Your prior post to which Andreuccio replied, was to our amazement attempting an entire refutation of global warming from only one datapoint.

Immaterial whether it's the best or the worst datapoint in the world - anyone here who observes you extrapolating a "theory" regarding global warming from a single annual reading derived from a single geographic datapoint, ( in all apparent seriousness! ), automatically will assume you've got a "small bee in your bonnet" about this topic.

As a self avowed student of climatology, you must doubtless be aware that collecting relevant data to discern trend in any field relies on collecting a large quantity of data points, and even then allowing for a high degree of variability.

Yet here you are posting about a single temp reading at SF Airport and solemnly opining as to the merit of the global warming thesis in general? This implies either your expectation that the readership here is highly ingenuous, or that you yourself are either highly ingenuous or highly disingenuous.

As I'm quite impressed by your acuity on other posts, I surmise "disingenuous" must be the correct descriptor. Interpolating the merits of climate change from the 2007 temp (on a single day!) at SFO is nonsense, because it turns the idea of statistically valid pools of data on it's head. You know it, I know it, Andreuccio knows it. What are you on about? Can't quite discern a logical argument in that.

Starving Steve
03-09-08, 07:56 PM
Starving Steve -

With respect - you either inadvertently, or advertently missed the entire point, or decline to reply to it. Your prior post to which Andreuccio replied, was to our amazement attempting an entire refutation of global warming from only one datapoint.

Immaterial whether it's the best or the worst datapoint in the world - anyone here who observes you extrapolating a "theory" regarding global warming from a single annual reading derived from a single geographic datapoint, ( in all apparent seriousness! ), automatically will assume you've got a "small bee in your bonnet" about this topic.

As a self avowed student of climatology, you must doubtless be aware that collecting relevant data to discern trend in any field relies on collecting a large quantity of data points, and even then allowing for a high degree of variability.

Yet here you are posting about a single temp reading at SF Airport and solemnly opining as to the merit of the global warming thesis in general? This implies either your expectation that the readership here is highly ingenuous, or that you yourself are either highly ingenuous or highly disingenuous.

As I'm quite impressed by your acuity on other posts, I surmise "disingenuous" must be the correct descriptor. Interpolating the merits of climate change from the 2007 temp (on a single day!) at SFO is nonsense, because it turns the idea of statistically valid pools of data on it's head. You know it, I know it, Andreuccio knows it. What are you on about? Can't quite discern a logical argument in that.

Dear Lukester:

Thank you for your post, and I shall now take the opportunity to reply to it:

I am not a believer in global modelling as a valid approach to determine climate change. Rather, I like the rather unsexy and arduous (sp?) approach of taking well chosen data points on Earth and examining the data carefully. This is how some of the best science has been done in all fields--- by careful and well thought-out observation.

I should also digress to say that some of the most absurd work in the field of economics has also come from the modelling. In that field it is called econometric modelling.

Let me get back to climatology: I chose SFO, but I am open to examination of data from any well chosen location. Honolulu Airport would be most interesting, also the Guam Airport, Wake Island, Midway, among others. Or LAX would work, or any airport around the world.

Tropical locations are of more interest than high latitude locations because tropical locations demonstrate resistance to data fluctuation (constancy in climate). Also marine locations resist fluctuation. (Their climate is constant, too. )

Finally, I used mean monthly data at SFO. I picked the first day of the month because NOAA compiles the mean from the prior month on that day. And I agree that annual mean data would be more important to use in climatology than monthly mean data, but I thought that monthly mean data would be more fun to debate with because it is more timely. (You witnessed the month, and I did too, and here is what the data at SFO said.)

By the way, this year the winter has been unusually cold in the Eastern and Central U.S. Eastern Canada has been cold, too. This nicely cancels some of the warming witnessed east of here in the early part of this decade.

Also, the ice sheet is growing back nicely in the Arctic Ocean, or so I am told. But on your side of the debate, the winter has been unusually warm in Finland, or so I am told.

Now, does anyone know if the glaciers are returning to Glacier National Park? And how are the polar bears doing in Hudson Bay? :)

Contemptuous
03-10-08, 01:44 AM
Steve -

I don't agree wth your take on this, nor your method, but I'm certainly not going to get into a lather about it. I appreciate some other excellent posts of yours regardless. Your basic advice to people on what kinds of investments in gold to make I found to be excellent, veteran's advice.

I also much appreciated your insights as to how central bank liquidity shenanigans can work to depress bond yields in an otherwise "bond-adverse" (read inflationary) environment.

Great stuff. However, on the climate change thingy I think you're a dingbat (respectfully). :D

Starving Steve
03-10-08, 01:08 PM
Steve -

I don't agree wth your take on this, nor your method, but I'm certainly not going to get into a lather about it. I appreciate some other excellent posts of yours regardless. Your basic advice to people on what kinds of investments in gold to make I found to be excellent, veteran's advice.

I also much appreciated your insights as to how central bank liquidity shenanigans can work to depress bond yields in an otherwise "bond-adverse" (read inflationary) environment.

Great stuff. However, on the climate change thingy I think you're a dingbat (respectfully). :D

THANK YOU, LUKE. :)

Contemptuous
03-10-08, 10:43 PM
Starving Steve -

BTW,

I understood from a previous post of yours that you are experiencing some significant 'turbulence' on the job front with the cutbacks occurring in California within the school system.

Please therefore accept my full solidarity with you during this stressful time. I hope (and I'm sure everyone here hopes) that these difficulties will be resolved for you with good fortune as the outcome.

Brooks Gracie
06-13-08, 03:46 PM
I cannot understand why there is so much uproar about this issue. It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to run out of fossil fuels before we heat up the earth to the extent that it will cause a real problem. At the end of the fossil fuel era, we either find some alternative energy solutions (nuclear plants powering trains, subways, light rail and streetcars anyone?) or a great die-off begins because of a lack of means to transport our food. Frankly, I think Congress should be funding a huge number of nuclear plants and mandate that automakers make a certain percentage of their vehicles that run on electricity. But of course the Republican Big Oil group would have a few problems with this, and Detroit (if there are any big three companies left at such point), wouldn't be happy.

Starving Steve
06-14-08, 05:38 PM
I cannot understand why there is so much uproar about this issue. It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to run out of fossil fuels before we heat up the earth to the extent that it will cause a real problem. At the end of the fossil fuel era, we either find some alternative energy solutions (nuclear plants powering trains, subways, light rail and streetcars anyone?) or a great die-off begins because of a lack of means to transport our food. Frankly, I think Congress should be funding a huge number of nuclear plants and mandate that automakers make a certain percentage of their vehicles that run on electricity. But of course the Republican Big Oil group would have a few problems with this, and Detroit (if there are any big three companies left at such point), wouldn't be happy.

Thank you for your post. I agree with it.

Somehow we have to get this message to the Obama campaign. In other words, there has to be a Manhattan Project for the development of nuclear power in the U.S, and this has to be done by the President declaring a national emergency because of energy. The solution would be government-supported atomic power plants built en masse, everywhere that space can be found to build them, and this project has to begin immediately, the moment Obama takes office.

Slimprofits
06-15-08, 07:48 AM
If British lefties can come around on Nuclear, than ours (USA) can as well.



The desire to restrict carbon dioxide emissions has also thrown the spotlight back on to an energy source that has long been a hate figure for the environmental protection community: nuclear power. This is the only source of non-renewable energy that causes no emissions of carbon dioxide. "Nuclear energy is one part of the answer to our urgent problems," argues Lady Judge, Chairman of the British Atomic Energy Authority. The Labor politician, who actually demonstrated against nuclear power when she was young, now declares her belief in this "clean energy." And global developments suggest she is not alone: After a barren period in the 1990s, the number of nuclear reactors is now on the rise once again. Nor is it just energy-hungry Asia that is looking to nuclear power. Energy-rich Saudi Arabia also wants to build a nuclear plant. Meanwhile, the first nuclear power station to be built in Europe since the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986 is under construction: Finland is looking to use this new plant as a way to reduce its dependency on Russian energy supplies. Environmental protectionists are not happy about this development. The head of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, calls nuclear power a distraction from the urgent problems faced by the world. But his words cannot stop this moving train.

Steven Klatt, writing for Credit Suisse (http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=219089&lang=EN)