Legislators hear global warming disputed-[no scientists invited]

[rodeodance]

Source: JCHEVES@HERALD-LEADER

Posted on Thu, Nov. 15, 2007
Legislators hear global warming disputed
Called a myth of Gore, U.N., media
By John Cheves

[email protected]


Global warming is a myth concocted by former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, Hollywood and the news media, Kentucky lawmakers were told yesterday.

The interim joint Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to dispute the idea that the Earth is warming, at least in part because of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere produced by industrial activity.

Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, a longtime ally of the coal industry, said he purposefully did not invite anyone who believes in global warming to testify.

"You can only hear that the sky is falling so many times," said Gooch, whose post makes him the House Democrats' chief environmental strategist. "We hear it every day from the news media, from the colleges, from Hollywood."

Neither of Gooch's invited panelists was a scientist.

James Taylor is a lawyer and fellow with the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank in Chicago partially funded by ExxonMobil. Lord Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is a British journalist and onetime adviser to then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton generated controversy during the 1980s with his recommendation -- which he repeated for lawmakers yesterday -- that people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS be locked up for life.



Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/231346.html

[guruoo]

1. Here's a link to AP coverage

Skeptics of global warming address legislative committee

By JOE BIESK
Associated Press Writer

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- A state legislative committee heard from skeptics Wednesday seeking to debunk the notion that global warming is a looming threat to the planet.

Many people are familiar with the theory that humans are responsible for global warming that "Hollywood and the news media" have put out, said state Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence. Not so much with the opposing view point, he said.

"Is this science or hysteria? Is this an environmental fad or do the scaremongers stand to profit from the millions of dollars that are involved?" said Gooch, who is vice president of a steel company.

snip

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KY_GLOBAL_WARMING_KYOL-?SITE=TNCLA&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[rodeodance]

2. thanks, I added the Ky newspaper one now also.

[rodeodance]

3. Democrat State Representative, District 12

[guruoo]

5. Rep Jim Gooch -contact info, voting record

Contact Your Legislator
The Honorable Jim Gooch, Jr
Term information: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008: Democrat State Representative, District 12
Phone: [phone]
[email protected]

Voting record search here >> http://kentuckyvotes.org/SearchByCategory.aspx

[yellowcanine]

11. Many people are familiar with the theory that HIV causes AIDS.

But that doesn't mean there is value to holding a hearing highlighting the opposing point of view. Idiot.

[CherokeeDem]

4. Gooch is An Idiot

Gooch's family owns a company that makes coal mining machinery ...he's nothing but a shill for the oil and coal industry. I am ashamed that he is a Democrat but no one ever said all Democrats are for the people and not the money.

And don't worry...the Creationist Exhibit in Northern KY is doing such stellar business that they are expanding. We are surrounded by idiots!!!

At least KY elected Steve Beshear - Democrat as Gov. He is an old line liberal...there are still a few of us left.

Here's the link to the Lexington Herald-Leader w/ the article...from there go to the Editorials to see what they said. Hope this link works...never added one to a post before.

http://www.kentucky.com/164/

[guruoo]

7. Hearld-Leader editorial: Shilling for coal

On edit: Thanks for the tip!

Shilling for coal
Legislators' ignorance not bliss for Ky.

What's next from state Rep. Jim Gooch? A committee hearing on whether NASA staged the moon landings in a TV studio? A PowerPoint by the Flat Earth Society?

Gooch and his coal chorus can cheer the questionable calculus of yesterday's guest lecturer, Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and other debunkers of global warming all they want.

The smart money is seeking out the viscount's nemesis, Nobel laureate Al Gore.

Why? Because, as Gore says, "the business sector is ahead of the policy-maker community in recognizing this shift toward a low-carbon economy has to take place."

There are plenty of urgent reasons to slow energy consumption and shift to renewable energy sources, whether global warming is a threat or burning coal and oil has anything to do with it.

snip

http://www.kentucky.com/591/story/231337.html:hi:

[unpossibles]

6. ugh, I am so sick of this anti-science (and anti-liberal/ "hollywood" crap)

on the bright side, check out the poll on the kentucky.com site - 75% of respondents disagree with the gooch.

[Junkdrawer]

8. GW Deniers have give up on "GW is real, but not man-made"...

They've gone back to "GW is a liberal hoax".

Rush, Drudge, and Beck have all switched this week.

No more Mr. Niceguy... :eyes:

[kimmylavin]

9. And next week...

He will be holding a forum in which representatives from Frito-Lay, the Ice Cream Council and Rush Limbaugh will combat all this "morbid obesity is bad for you" stuff.

:eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

10. "a longtime ally of the coal industry"-Gee I wonder if that guy has an agenda other than what is

truly best for his constitutents???

[HuffleClaw]

12. bwahhahahahhaaaaaa

the legislative equivalent of sticking ones fingers in ones ears.

[user name]

13. Divide and conquer

Sorry to burst the bubbles of all the ad homineners, but the story is more accurate than not.

Just because the messengers benefit from the message is not a valid way to discredit the meaning.

Global warming or cooling is measured in 100 year cycles. A rise or fall of 3 degrees in these periods if perpetuated is disasterous. There is no evidence that any global warming advocate has measured the 100 year average. Just a bunch of headless chickens proclaiming that it's warmer now.

Has anyone told you how vast the atmosphere is to compare it with the tonnage of gasses they say are being expelled into it? Have they mentioned that when plant matter decays it releases all of the carbon dioxide that it converted to oxygen while living? The Earth is a stable biosphere that takes care of itself. When ice melts it becomes cold water that gets distributed throughout the world via ocean currents, it may take 20 years to have a noticeable effect, but it will have an effect. The Earth has taken billons of years to get to this point, we're not going to alter it significantly in the infinitesimal period of time that we have been industrialized.

How many years have you been hearing how the rape of the planet leads to global warming, 30-35? I've known for 20 that it is bunk. Before I learned the science, I was a believer too.

Pollution is another matter. Rampant and unchecked, it has severe consequences. Pollution should be the target of you ire, not this CO2 distraction.

You've learned from the Republicans that their base is easily diverted from the serious issues, like a sound energy policy that would have averted a war, a war of terrorism on the people of Iraq and our Constitution. There's not a lot of substanitive discussion about polution now that a common component of our atmosphere is headlining in the battle against pollution.

Divide and conquer. We're fighting a phantom menace and the polluters are flanking us.

[jpak]

14. The published peer reviewed science says you are *completely* and *totally* wrong

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

Ever hear of the Seuss Effect????

probably not - it's classic textbook geochemistry..

In the 1950's, geochemists measured a decline in the 14C content of atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800's. It was due to the measurable dilution of atmospheric CO2 (which has a relatively constant 14C content) by CO2 derived from the combustion of fossil fuels (which has no 14C due to radioactive decay).

Geochemists later established the same trend with 13CO2 - which was caused by dilution of the 13C content of atmospheric CO2 by fossil fuel derived CO2 (fossil fuel carbon has a lower 13C content relative to atmospheric CO2 due to discrimination against 13CO2 during photosynthesis).

Humans ARE altering the chemistry, radiative balance and temperature of the Earth - any claims to the contrary are bullshit.

[user name]

15. Speak English

In the fifties scientists said the ingredients in "Chimney Sweeping Logs" will reduce the amount of creosote in your flue. What they didn't say was that the temperature required to burn those ingredients will also keep your chimney clean.

If you want to say something, say it, but all that scientific looking talk and citations don't say anything.

[jpak]

16. LOL!!!1111

Yup- all that sciency talky talk and booklarnin' ain't worth a fart in church.

The Flat Earth Society has spoken...

:rofl:

[hatrack]

17. Man, I'm feeling more stupid just for having READ our new friend's post!

It's like a methamphetamized brain-eating amoeba, or mad cow in hyperdrive.

Amazing.

[Q3JR4]

18. I agree.

If I don't understand it, it can't be true. Those scientists with their peer reviewed journals know nothing about what they're talking about. They've always been wrong.

The atom bomb? Figments of a deranged imagination.
Modern medicine? Can't be trusted.

After all, those people who spend their lives studying something can't possibly know more than you or I, user name, do about that subject.

I'll take someone with an arm chair medical degree (i.e. someone who watches E.R., House, and reads non-peer reviewed medical journals) over someone who has spent years in med school. Oh yeah, sign me up for one of those operations.

:sarcasm:

[user name]

19. Q3JR4

I suppose you know the meaning of ad hominem and it's invalidity in a debate.

Did you check out any of the citations? Did you check the foundation or the conclusion of the few paragraphs of scienticic jargon or did you just swallow the whole thing, hook, line and sinker because it looked credible?

I looked into Seuss and found it to be concerened with carbon dating. I also found that 14C comprises a barely measureable quantity of carbon, while 13C is 1% of all of the carbon on Earth. So we are to believe that an almost imperceptable amount of carbon is going to cause a radical change in something that has evolved over 4.5 bilion years if your conclusions to the citations and out of context paragraphs are correct.

Just like I told the original citation poster, show some proof, not giberish. Save your sarcasm and establish your position.

[jpak]

29. You don't understand at all

Fossil fuel carbon has no 14C - it has all decayed away.

When emitted into the atmosphere, it measurably dilutes the 14C content of the atmosphere - it is a clear and unequivocal indication that human activity is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere - same for 13C.

Tree rings and ocean dissolved inorganic carbon depth profiles give an unambiguous record of the 14CO2 and 13C content of the atmosphere through time and space.

This tells us we have been significantly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations for over a century.

Economic data (fossil fuel consumption) and the Mauna Loa time series clearly indicate that humans are pumping 7 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year and 3 billion tonnes accumulate there each year.

Atmospheric physicists and chemists have measured the radiative balance of the earth through time - these studies clearly indicate that human activity is trapping more and more solar energy in the Earth's climate system.

Global mean temperatures have risen in accordance to the amount of solar energy trapped by man-made green house gases.

The at Lady has sung

Game over...

[user name]

66. !

And yet with all that dilution of an imperceptible amount of 14C (which is actually created by cosmic radiation) I'm underwhelmed.

I believe that the correct amount of 14C is being produced for the circumstances.

Is also believe that the greenhouse effect has another cause which is explained by the proximaty of the Earth to the Sun. That therory is posted in another response in this thread, if you have any interest in competing theorums.

[jpak]

70. !!

There are no competing "theororys" of global warming and especially none that have to do with the "proximaty" of the Earth to the Sun.

Not in the real world of real science anyway...

:evilgrin:

Furthermore, it takes billions of tonnes of 14C-free fossil fuel CO2 to dilute naturally occurring 14CO2 in the atmosphere. That is why the discovery of the Seuss Effect was so important to our understanding of the impact of human activity on the global carbon cycle....

[WindRavenX]

23. "scientific looking talk and citations"

:rofl:

You trolls don't even *try* anymore, do you? LOL

Damn you citations! Damn you to hell!

[user name]

24. That's right

Because everyone knows citations are correct, the person posting them unbiasedly vouches for them.

I've got your troll and I ain't giving him back. You'll have to find another one.

[WindRavenX]

25. Mmmhmm

The burden of proof is on you to prove the contrary--which, by the way, will require quite a lot of extraordinary evidence given the absolute mountain of data that says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

on edit:

You claims of climate "cycles" is particularly hilarious because that the negative feedback mechanism that regulates climate on this planet--the carbon cycle--is essentially being destroyed by excess carbon dioxide.

[user name]

26. Oh?

I've made my argument. If you want to discuss it you can attempt to prove yours or disprove mine, but simply saying it's popular opinion to disbelieve my claim is pretty lame. I challenge you to find a single "expert" who has based his global warming claim on a 100 year average.

[WindRavenX]

27. You can't "prove" these things.

That's your biggest problem right there. Science is not about proving a given hypothesis, but rather trying to reject all other possibilities and building up a set of evidence to support your claim--but it can never be proven absolutely, which is what the IPCC report had to clarify because too many people think you can prove something as an absolute.

And as for your experts--read the IPCC report, which I doubt you have read. The data that is accumulated has data that is from all disciplines of science and spans literally tens of thousands of years. In other words, it's a lot of data backed up by actual evidence, which you simply have not.

The ball is in your court. The evidence for human caused climate change is becoming extremely hard to refute or even provide contrary evidence for.

[user name]

28. find one

Again I challenge you to find one "expert" who bases his claims of global warming on a 100 year average.

Did you read the IPCC report? Just the reports about it I'll wager. If you did read it, did you happen to notice how many conditional phrases were used (could happen if...). This is a common theme among these sources of proof.

I once read a widely cited report about something else. The most inflamitory parts were the most commonly quoted, in the middle of the report the numbers changed and it stated that there was no survey conducted to verify the harsh conclusions being quoted, only for the reduced numbers. It went further citing conditions that had changed ten years earlier as a basis for the need to change things today.

I'm not saying that all reports are biased with misinformation, but there is an agenda to make people believe that CO2 is pollution and I happen to disagree.

BTW CO2 comprises 0.0038% of our atmosphere, how much of that is excess? How much is safe? Safe for what; safe to prevent a change in the amount or safe to sustain life on the planet?

Refute what credible evidence? More citations, more theories? Show the proof.

My proof is historical, yours is speculative.

[jpak]

32. Here's your 100 year temperature anomaly data - read it and weep

[MarkR1717]

35. Strangely US was just as warm in the 30's, according to...

NASA

And there are very serious question marks about the quality of the data from the rest of the world.

[jpak]

39. Strangely enough (not)- that's nonsense...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_tempanom.html

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

[MarkR1717]

42. Can you see the Graph, above right, from NASA???

The one labeled US temperature.?
Can you read a graph?
The little red crosses in the Thirties were as high or higher than the little red crosses in the Nineties and the Noughties.
That means it was as warm or warmer in the Thirties in the USA, according to NASA.

[jpak]

45. I can read a graph - you obviously cannot

All those little red boxy thingies indicate that the US has warmed significantly since 1901.

Again - nice try

[user name]

60. No

I can't see the graph, above right, from NASA.

[user name]

44. TY

This chart apparently averages the temperatures between 1961 and 1990 and uses that as a base.

If you slide your base over a bit in either direction the conclusion changes.

How about we use real science and consider a base that averages the temperature over the past 1000 years or 10,000 years? Instead of a base that is a subset of our target period of 100 years.

Thank you for trying, at least you didn't resort to name calling, we all now how much science is in that.

[jpak]

47. Here's yer 1000 year temperature data - read it and weep...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v376/n6536/abs/376156a0.html

Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a 1,000-year temperature record from Siberia

Keith R. Briffa, Philip D. Jones, Fritz H. Schweingruber, Stepan G. Shiyatov & Edward R. Cook

Abstract

In the current debate on the magnitude of modern-day climate change, there is a growing appreciation of the importance of long, high-resolution proxies of past climate1–3. Such records provide an indication of natural (pre-anthropogenic) climate variability, either singly at specific geographical locations or in combination on continental and perhaps even hemispheric scales4. There are, however, relatively few records that are well dated, of high resolution and of verifiable fidelity in terms of climate response, and conspicuously few that extend over a thousand years or more5. Here we report a tree-ring-based reconstruction of mean summer temperatures over the northern Urals since AD 914. This record shows that the mean temperature of the twentieth century (1901–90) is higher than during any similar period since AD 914.

<end>

Thomas J. Crowley (2000) Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science, 289: 270-277.

Abstract:

Recent reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the last 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparison of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

<more>

Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004) "Climate Over Past Millennia." Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 2, RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004

This collection of Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions is from a variety of studies, all based on high-resolution proxy data. The reconstructions are derived from different but in some cases, not entirely independent data sets. Some are based solely on extra-tropical continental data from tree rings, while others are based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals, historical documents, and long instrumental records. Several are reconstructions of warm season temperatures and others are of annual temperatures. However, trends in low-frequency warm season temperatures have been shown to be very comparable to those in annual temperature. The reconstructions have been generated using a variety of statistical methods for treating the biological growth trends (standardization) in the tree-ring data to preserve the low-frequency variance, and calibrating proxy data with instrumental data to generate reconstruction models.

All five series are annually-resolved reconstructions of temperature change. They have been scaled against the smoothed instrumental records based on the period 1856-1980, except Briffa et al. 2001 (scaled to 1856-1940), and smoothed with a 40-year low pass filter (Jones and Mann 2004). While there are differences between the reconstructions due to the factors mentioned above, all, even the least similar, are in agreement in showing the strong increase in temperatures since early 19th century, with the highest temperatures in the past 1000 years occurring at the end of the 20th century. The robustness of this result is clearly supported by the range of data and methods used to generate these reconstructions. Since only one of these reconstructions extends back to the early part of the previous millennia, results are more tentative, but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years.



<end>

any other questions???

[MarkR1717]

50. So according to NASA temperatures in the late 20th century were not unprecedented in the US, even in

the 20th Century.

If you want to find out how twisted and wrong the 1000 year spaghetti graphs you've changed the subject to. Go to Climate Audit.

[jpak]

52. That is absolutely wrong - and peer reviewed science trumps RW ignorance every time

http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/fact_sheets/Fact_Sheet_4_Climate_Change.pdf

Steven McIntyre is a global warming denier that runs a fucking global warming denier website...he is not a climatologist.

Nice try though...

[Nihil]

53. Just a quiet comment ...

:applause: :toast:

Now remember to wash your hands after feeding, petting or mucking out
animals of any kind ...

:hi:

[jpak]

54. LOL!!!1111

:rofl:

[user name]

55. One or two questions

In the graph, why does the base period of 1856 to 1980 show as -0.4 to a high of 0 degrees in relation to itself? The base should average a 0% variation in relationship to itself. Fatal flaw or just funny math?

It is interesting to note that the graph depicts only one degree C which is aproximately 3 degrees F and in the entire graph no period has exceeded this 3 degree F barrier, and we are nowhere near it now.

"This record shows that the mean temperature of the twentieth century (1901–90) is higher than during any similar period since AD 914."
First; means are different than averages. Some period has to the highest. How much higher than how many periods is helpful.

"Comparison of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41-64%..." or as little as ????. If I wanted to write a paper proving my point, I'd find simulations that said "as little as" instead of saying "all reasonable simulations indicate a variation of".

Here's a plausible theory that involves stuff like gravity, proximity to the sun, Earth's axis, you know, stuff not subject to much interpretation:

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/theory.htm

The Milankovitch Theory


The Milankovitch theory is an explanation of long term climate change. Milankovitch built his theory from previous work done by J.A. Adhemar and James Croll. In 1842 Adhemar explained glacial climate using only precession (Davis, 2002). In 1864 Croll wrote about orbital change and the ice of the Ice Ages using both the eccentricity cycle and the precession cycle. Later in 1875 he took into account obliquity (tilt of the axis) cycle (Davis, 2002).
Milankovitch, being a mathematician, took Croll's work and set out to develop a mathematical theory of climate change. His theory states "that as the Earth travels through space around the sun cyclical variations in three elements of Earth-sun geometry combine to produce variations in the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth (Kaufman, 2002). These three elements that have cyclic variations are eccentricity, obliquity, and precession.
Eccentricity is a term used to describe the shape of Earth's orbit around the sun. The variation of Earth's orbit around the sun ranges from an almost exact circle (eccentricity = 0.0005) to a slightly elongated shape (eccentricity = 0.0607) (Thomas, 2002). The time frame for the cycle is approximately 98,000 years (Davis, 2002). The impact of the variation is a change in the amount of solar energy from perihelion (around January 3) to aphelion (around July 4). Currently the Earth's eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in insolation from July to January (Berger, 2001). Thomas (2002) states,
"The eccentricity influences seasonal differences: when the Earth is closest to the
sun, it gets more solar radiation. If the occurs during the winter, the winter is less
severe. If a hemisphere has its summer while closest to the sun, summers are
relatively warm."



There is evidence to validate this theory here: http://www.geologytimes.com/Research/Strong_Evidence_Points_to_Earths_Proximity_to_Sun_as_Ice_Age_Trigger.asp

[jpak]

56. "means are different than averages" - you have got to be kidding

If global temperature anomalies were plotted against mean temperature from *any* decade, the trend would still be same.

Ugh

[user name]

58. Hmmm

Is that all you've got?

[AZCat]

59. This doesn't seem right.

You posted

It is interesting to note that the graph depicts only one degree C which is aproximately 3 degrees F

Where I live, one degree Celsius is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, not three.

1.8 !~ 3.0

[user name]

61. My bad

You are obviously correct. 1.8 degrees.

That narrows the spectrum on the graph and shows how minute the changes really are. It even furthers our distance from impending disaster.

The graph depicts less than a 2 degree shift in temperatures either up or down thoughout it's timeframe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Wow, you're invoking Milankovitch?

So you're admitting the world is over 6,000 years old?

[LanternWaste]

43. I believe that...

I believe that it's the responsibility of the critic to disprove the citations provided is called into question...

[user name]

46. ok

So you believe the citations if you want. Just tell me one fact other than the name or author that you gleaned from those citations.

I made a claim that global warming should be based on 100 year averages. Find a citation that disproves that. Or better yet a real passage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Let me get this straight - *you* pull a "100 year average" claim out of thin air

and then it's up to someone else to find a citation that disproves this random number you thought of? That's quite the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, in relation to climate change. Have you the faintest idea of how science, logic, or even just normal discussions work?

[LanternWaste]

36. that's merely another way of saying...

"If you want to say something, say it, but all that scientific looking talk and citations don't say anything."

Seems to me, that's merely another way of saying, "let's talk about science, but without any mention of science...". :shrug:

[user name]

49. Like the title said

It was a way of saying, say things that can be understood.

A list of citations garnered from a global warming advocate is simply a list. To some it may appear to be overwhelming, probably because no one wants to read the contents of the list, but to me it's just a list. A list of citations isn't science, unless it's library science. Suess Theory is about carbon dating. Show me the science you are supporting when you say "let's talk about science, but without any mention of science...".

[jpak]

62. There is no such thing as the "Suess Theory". It is the measured and published Suess Effect

It's empirical - not theoretical

Definition: The relative change in the 14C or 13C ratio of any carbon pool or reservoir caused by the addition of fossil-fuel CO2 to the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are devoid of 14C because of the radioactive decay of 14C to 14N during long underground storage and are depleted in 13C because of isotopic fractionation long ago during photosynthesis by the plants that were the precursors of the fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels is thus virtually free of 14C and depleted in 13C. The term "Suess Effect" originally referred to the dilution of the 14C/C ratio in atmospheric CO2 but the definition has been extended to both the 14C and 13C ratios in any pool or reservoir of the carbon cycle resulting from human disturbances (Keeling 1979).

Revelle, Roger, and Hans E. Suess (1957). "Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades." Tellus 9: 18-27.

C. D. Keeling (1979) The Suess Effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon Interrelations, Environment International, 2, 229-300

C. D. Keeling, R. B. Bacastow, and P. P. Tans (1980) Predicted Shift in the 13C/12C Ratio of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Geophysical Research Letters, 7, 505-508

Stewart J. Fallon, Thomas P. Guilderson, Ken Caldeira (2003) Carbon isotope constraints on vertical mixing and air-sea CO2 exchange. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 24, 2289, doi:10.1029/2003GL018049, 2003

Samuel S. Butcher, Robert J. Charlson et al. (eds), Global Biogeochemical Cycles. San Diego, CA, Academic Press 1992

[user name]

63. Fine

It's real.

Is it relevent?

99% of the carbon on Earth is 12C. 1%13C. Leaving that impercepible amount of 14C to debate about.

[jpak]

67. It's absolutely relevant - it was why the Mauna Loa CO2 Time Series was established

that actually measured increases in atmospheric CO2.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

It allowed geochemists the establish a mass balance of carbon in the atmosphere that *without a doubt* led them to conclude that human activities were responsible for the *measured* rise in CO2 since the mid-nineteenth century.

[LeftyMom]

65. We're big on book larnin' here.

Well, except in Health and the 9-11 forum, but I digress.

If you're going to fly in the face of all scientific understanding you'll need 1. sound evidence and 2. good reasoning to be taken seriously. Until then, you're going to fail like Bush taking a geography test.

[MarkR1717]

30. Sorry but the Hockey Stick has been discredited.........

From the transcript of the Barton Commottee:

At the Congressional Hearing, Schakowsky is denying that the Gore book graphic is based on Mann et al., and they say Gore personally confirmed that to them. In the text, the Democrats admit, that Mann et al is discredited:

MS. SCHAKOWSKY….it says “But as Dr. Thompson’s thermometer show,” and so it is not based on Dr. Mann. This is a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore. I just want to make…..that point…..your question wanted to reinforce the notion that this was based on this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study….and it is not.

The Hearing had accepted that the Mann et al Hockey Stick was discredited. Gore mislead the Committee Staff about what his graph was, and they mislead Members of the Committee, and the House. This is about a Trillion Dollar policy decision. I think the record should be corrected so the decision is based on correct information.

The Dems in the House know there are big problems with AGW. They have got the Party on the wrong side of a losing argument.

Read the transcript.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2379#comment-161765

[jpak]

31. The "Barton Committee"?? Barton is a Texas Repuke in bed with Big Oil and Cliff Stearns R- FL?????

another republic dumbass.

The "Hockey Stick" has been "discredited" only by asshole anti-science republics - not by climate scientists...

nice try though

[MarkR1717]

33. MS. SCHAKOWSKY said it, and she is a Democrat...

...So now what do you say?

[jpak]

34. Did you even read that transcript??

<snip>

To rebut Stearns, Rep Schakowsky stepped in and stated that “ says “But as Dr. Thompson’s thermometer show,” and so it is not based on Dr. Mann. This is a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore.”

<snip>

Democrat Schakowsky called dumbass republic Stearn's bluff and handed him his ignorant GOP ass...

nice try though

[MarkR1717]

37. I read all the transcript.. Schakowsky was mislead about the ......

...Hockey Stick in the AIT book, by Al Gore:

"This is a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore."

The laugh is that the Graph in the AIT book was indeed the Mann Hockey Stick, and not the Thompson Ice Core.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335#comment-161344

[jpak]

38. No - the Thompson ice core data VERIFIED the Mann Hockey Stick data...

That's what she was saying...

reading comprehension

[MarkR1717]

41. That's what she had been told, but she was wrong.....

...follow the link in my previous post and you find:

Is it the case that Manns Hockey stick blade was grafted onto the Thomson shaft in the book version of the graphic from AIT?

Steve: It’s Mann’s stick (plus Jones instrumental) entirely - shaft and blade.

They were trying to claim that Manns Hockey Stick was verified by Thompsons graph, but what they showed was the Mann Hockey Stick again. Manns Hockey Stick verified by...Manns Hockey Stick.

[jpak]

48. Enjoy your republic fantasies!

:hi:

[daleo]

21. And smoking doesn't cause cancer

In the long run, the lungs of the human race will evolve to tolerate tobacco smoke.

[user name]

22. Smoking does cause lung cancer

Cancer is not the topic, but leeches cure cancer, and electro-shock cures insanity.

:sarcasm:

[daleo]

69. People used to deny the smoking-cancer link

Just like they now deny the greenhouse gas-global warming link.

Many people have noted the historical similarities, mainly entrenched corporate interests that obfuscate and deny science for the sake of maintaining their profitable business practices. There are other similarities, such as people denying science to reduce their cognitive dissonance (smokers who don't want to quit, so they won't face facts vs energy intensive consumers who don't want to drive smaller cars or live in smaller houses and thus deny the global warming link).

That doesn't exhaust the possibilities. I think some people just like to be contrarian and others have religious biases that get in the way of understanding the science.

[EST]

40. You have totally missed the point.

Sure the amount of garbage we can throw into the air is small, and the change it makes is small and will have little effect over the long term.

The problem is that the small change it does make is predictably larger than human existence can accommodate. The earth doesn't care what we make of the place and the entire of human history does not qualify as "long term" in earth-the planet-terms.

It takes very little to upset the apple cart and we have done that. Whether or not we humans, with our strict requirements for viability, will survive will not depend on our ability to stop pushing it any further and our cleverness in reversing the current damage.

[user name]

57. I disagree

I believe it takes a lot to upset the apple cart, because after all, it's an enormous apple cart that can withstand little pushes here and there.

This period of using fossil fuels will end before significant damage is done to the biosphere.

[daleo]

20. People listening to what they wished was true

This is the purpose of religion, not science.

[Didereaux]

51. Names 'Gooch', state is Kentucky...whatdya expect? n/t