Free Forum Friday February 4 Edition

Snow at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas (Image via WISH-TV)

Unrest in the Middle East, blizzard in the middle US, and the upcoming battle between Green Bay and Pittsburgh in Arlington. What’s on your mind?

Free Forum Fridays are an open discussion where commenters are invited to bring up topics that may not have been covered in the previous week. Got something on your mind? Throw your opinion out there.


About Michael Weiss

Michael is now located at http://www.logarchism.com, along with Monotreme, filistro, and dcpetterson. Please make note of the new location.
This entry was posted in Free Forum Friday. Bookmark the permalink.

261 Responses to Free Forum Friday February 4 Edition

  1. Bart DePalma says:

    Job growth was an awful 36,000 in January. What is worse is that the unemployment rate free fell to 9.0%, which means several hundred thousand more unemployed have given up looking for work.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/41423003

    CNBC is blaming it on global cooling.

  2. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    And the Dow is over 12000.

    And the S&P is over 1300.

    Biz profits are WAY up.

    And the right is going to blame it on . . .

    Jeez, ANYBODY but Obama!

  3. Bart DePalma says:

    600,000 more unemployed have given up looking for work.

  4. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    Profits and stock prices were up sharply by 1935 as well.

  5. mclever says:

    Bart,

    I would suggest that is part of Max’s point. Businesses are recovering quite nicely in terms of their bottom lines, revenues, stock prices, etc.

    But, without the corresponding uptick in employment, any recovery could turn into a hollow one, because the economic consumer base isn’t yet reestablished to pre-recession levels.

    So, Congress better get busy on JOBS!!!

    Right?

  6. Bartbuster says:

    I would suggest that is part of Max’s point. Businesses are recovering quite nicely in terms of their bottom lines, revenues, stock prices, etc.

    But, without the corresponding uptick in employment, any recovery could turn into a hollow one, because the economic consumer base isn’t yet reestablished to pre-recession levels.

    In other words, Supply Side economics is a complete load of crap.

  7. shortchain says:

    I have great faith in the ability of corporations to extract profits. It’s their raison d’etre, after all. They’ve shown in the past that they can get those profits from the consumer with advertising campaigns (AAPL still manages this), from their workers by holding down wages (Taft-Hartley, woo-hoo!), then by moving the jobs where the labor is cheaper (NAFTA, hooray!), from their pensioners by investing their pension money in their own stock and letting it sink, from the government (but only if they’re too big to fail), and from the small investors and their IRA’s (“growth stocks” which go down and down and down).

    The only places they’ve never managed to extract profits from are the company officers and the big stockholders. Hey corporate America! There’s an untapped source of profits there. (Why do I suspect this is going to fall on deaf ears?)

    No, I suspect another round of “suck more money out of the employees” is coming.

  8. Bart DePalma says:

    Mclever:

    We are in a similar situation to the Great Depression where government policies were increasing labor costs above what the economy can bear and businesses are on a capital strike from investing in growth.

    If Congress wants to restore some confidence, enact a bill prohibiting the bureaucracy from enacting any new regulations without congressional enactment and require the Bureaucracy to eliminate all regulations which cost the economy $100 million or more and submit them to the Congress for reconsideration as legislation. There are approximately 150,000 fine print pages of regulations, several times as long as the enormous US Code enacted by Congress. No one can say with a straight face that nearly that many are necessary and not hobbling the economy.

    Next, simplify the the tax code similar to what the Deficit Commission suggested. Billions more in tax compliance costs gone.

    Finally, streamline foreclosures so they clear the system and we can start the housing recovery.

  9. Bartbuster says:

    If Congress wants to restore some confidence, enact a bill prohibiting the bureaucracy from enacting any new regulations without congressional enactment and require the Bureaucracy to eliminate all regulations which cost the economy $100 million or more and submit them to the Congress for reconsideration as legislation.

    Blankshot, if we could figure out a way to dump all the resulting pollution from that policy change on your property, I be all for it.

  10. mclever says:

    Bart,

    I’m game for streamlining the tax code, but I categorically dismiss your assertion that labor costs are unsupportable by the market. From almost any perspective I can conceive, when adjusted for inflation, labor is currently being paid the least it’s ever been paid in my lifetime in relation to corporate profits, executive pay, GDP, total wealth, etc. Wages have been flat or declining in relation to inflation.

    If wages stay flat in the face of inflation, then consumers consume less. The workers are the primary consumer base, so they must be paid enough to consume the products in order to generate sales and corporate revenues that make their wages sustainable. When workers are paid a reasonable, living wage, it creates a more stable economic base for the rest of the economy to be built upon. Henry Ford understood this…

    Perhaps, part of the reason our economy is teetering is because it’s become so top-heavy.

  11. mclever says:

    One more thing, Bart, I almost missed your sentence on foreclosures at the end of your comment.

    Part of the problem they’re having with foreclosures right now is the “robo-foreclosures” that are too streamlined. So, how would further streamlining this so that each foreclosure is given even less consideration and analysis fix that problem? It seems to me like your suggestion would just exacerbate the problems that currently exist with the foreclosure process, which is why current efforts have mostly been to slow it down.

    One might think you want to take people’s houses from them!

  12. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    mclever,

    Henry Ford? THAT old reactionary?

    Isn’t he the one who, instead of paying market value wages to his employes, actually paid TWICE market value, paying $5 for an 8, instead of 9, hour day?

    Wasn’t he called a fool and immoral for doing so? That crap just didn’t work, now did it?

    Wait . . . He believed that retaining more employees would both lower costs and lead to greater productivity. His beliefs proved his critics false, as the company’s profits doubled from $30 million to $60 million between 1914 and 1916. “The payment of five dollars a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made,” Ford said.

    Well, now, don’t THAT just cook your shorts!!!

  13. GROG says:

    Max said: Henry Ford? THAT old reactionary?

    Isn’t he the one who, instead of paying market value wages to his employes, actually paid TWICE market value, paying $5 for an 8, instead of 9, hour day?

    Henry Ford also paid about a 10% corporate tax rate compared to the 40% that corportations in the US pay today.

  14. mclever says:

    Max,

    Henry had it right.

    From my past work in the HR field, I’ve seen analysis that suggests that in high-turnover positions, the replacement cost of bringing in a new employee is roughly the equivalent of the first year’s salary for that employee. That’s if you include the recruiting costs, training costs, and productivity costs while the new employee gets ramped up, plus the impact of the stress on team morale which affects the entire team’s productivity. In such an environment, the company could get a 25% reduction in labor costs just by having employees who would stick around for 18 months instead of 12. A slight salary boost coupled with employee-friendly benefits more than paid for itself in the first year.

  15. shortchain says:

    Barted: “CNBC is blaming it on global cooling.”

    No, actually they said “severe weather” — the increasing frequency of which is symptomatic of global warming.

  16. mclever says:

    Another misconception about labor is that more hours equals more productivity. A typical employee working 40 hours a week is productive about 75% of the time. (It just is. We’re human, not machines.) In other words, in an eight-hour day, an employer should expect about 6 hours of quality productive time from employees, or 30 hours per week.

    So, what if we increase to a 60-hour week, then we should get 45 hours of productive time, right? Not so fast. While boosting hours will generate a temporary boost in productivity, it isn’t sustainable. An employee can be hyperproductive for about two weeks at most, and then productivity will decline until around the 5th or 6th week where the employee will only be productive about half the time (50% of 60 hours, or 30 hours per week). After such overworking, if total hours are reduced back to 40 per week, it takes at least two weeks for the employee to recover back to previous 75% productivity levels.

    Wait a minute, that 30 hours sounds familiar… It should. It seems to be a maximum level of productivity that’s actually long-term sustainable for people. They see the same thing if employees work 45 or 50 hours per week. There will be an initial boost in productivity for a while, but it usually declines back to the ~30 hours per week of productive time regardless of actual hours on the job.

    So, why not just make everyone’s work week 30 hours and be done with it? There’s also a relative maximum of about 85% productivity overall. (In other words, cutting hours below about 35 or 36 per week will produce less than the 30 hours of productive work per week.)

    If anyone’s really interested, I can try to dig up the workplace studies that support my assertions, but I don’t have them handy. It’s been a while since I presented this data to a management group to build my case that their insistence on 60-hour weeks was counter-productive…

  17. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    And he didn’t give a damn when his profits doubled!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides, looks like you are including state corporate taxes, else Fed rat is maxed at 35%. Average effective fed rate is around 22%.

    Let’s see: $30M @ 10%, pocket $27M, $60M – pocket $54M

    Today, $30M @ 22%, pocket $23.4M, $60M, pocket $46.8M.

    Yeah, I’m getting all pissy because I only pocketed $47M, instead of $54M!

    But, GROG, THAT’S not the point here. The point is: because Ford paid his workers MORE, they could BUY MORE, including them Model-T’s!!!!!!!

    Too effing bad that’s just the OPPOSITE of “trickle down! We have proof from the past 30 years that “trickle down HASN’T worked, and proof form Ford that demand side DOES!

    Sorry, son.

  18. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    mc,

    That’s why companies such as Google and SAS are so successful and PROFITABLE.

    One of my metrics at my annual revue was turnover. Our numbers were about the same, 2x annual comp, allowing for recruitment, training and getting up to speed of former worker.

    If my turnover was above a certain number, I better be able to show that it was because of advancement within the company!

  19. mclever says:

    Absolutely, Max! 🙂

  20. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    mc,

    The rest of your post also follows what I did in practice. In training new frontline supervisors, I let them know that I would NOT be impressed if they were spending 50+ hours/wk. The job could be done in around 35-37 hours, so if they were spending much more than that (after acclimation period) I had made a mistake in advancing them. Besides that, on further advancement, all other things being equal, did I want the person who spent 50 hours doing the same job that another was doing in 35?

  21. Jean says:

    Here’s an interesting new poll.

    Religion and the Tea Party in the 2010 Election: An analysis of the Third Biennial American Values Survey:

    – The survey confirmed several attributes of the Tea Party movement. Compared to the general population, they are more likely to be non-Hispanic white, are more supportive of small government, are overwhelmingly supportive of Sarah Palin, and report that Fox News is their most trusted source of news about politics and current events.

    – Nearly half (47%) also say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement. Among the more than 8-in-10 (81%) who identify as Christian within the Tea Party movement, 57% also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

    – They make up just 11% of the adult population—half the size of the conservative Christian movement (22%).

    – They are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and less than 1-in-5 (18%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

    – They are largely Republican partisans. More than three-quarters say they identify with (48%) or lean towards (28%) the Republican Party. More than 8-in-10 (83%) say they are voting for or leaning towards Republican candidates in their districts, and nearly three-quarters (74%) of this group report usually supporting Republican candidates.

    http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386

  22. GROG says:

    Max,

    Why do you get so angry and distraught whenever someone on the other side tries to have a civil discussion with you?

  23. mclever says:

    Max,

    Almost everything I said in my two posts is considered “common knowledge” among HR professionals. Sometimes, managers even listen to what HR says about overworking employees!

    The thing is, when you take the costs of replacing employees together with the counterproductive results from overworking employees, then those companies that use layoffs as a cost-cutting technique may be shooting themselves in the foot. If they think they can just ask the remaining workers to work extra hours to pick up the slack, that’ll only work for a couple of weeks at most, until diminishing returns on extended hours begin to take their toll on productivity. Then, the company will find it needs new employees to keep things going. At that point, the company will be digging deep into its pockets and paying twice the cost it would have been to just keep the original folks around. If the downturn is less than a year, then the long-term costs of layoffs can easily be greater than keeping a large chunk of the workforce on the books but idle.

    Unfortunately, Wall Street and the dividend-obsessed rarely seem to understand this…

  24. GROG says:

    @ Max,

    Yeah, I’m getting all pissy because I only pocketed $47M, instead of $54M!

    That’s $7M you could have used to pay your employees.

    Average effective fed rate is around 22%.

    Can you tell me how you figured that?

    I was mistaken about the 40%. I meant 35%.

    0 to 50,000 15%
    50,000 to 75,000 $7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
    75,000 to 100,000 $13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
    100,000 to 335,000 $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
    335,000 to 10,000,000 $113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
    10,000,000 to 15,000,000 $3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
    15,000,000 to 18,333,333 $5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
    18,333,333 and up 35%

  25. mclever says:

    @Jean

    Great survey!

    So, if 11% of the population is in the Tea Party, and half of those are Christian Conservatives, then ~5.5% of the population are Tea Party Christian Conservatives.

    We also know that 22% of the population are Christian Conservatives. 5.5%/22% means that 1 in 4 Christian Conservatives are Tea Partiers. That’s pretty heavy representation in an organization that only makes up 1 in 9 of the total population. A Christian Conservative is more than twice as likely as anyone else of being a Tea Partier.

  26. Brian says:

    On both the Wall St topic and the Super Bowl topic, the Green Bay Packers are owned by the denizens of Green Bay, making them the only non-profit community owned sports team in the US. Personally, I think that’s pretty awesome. What do you guys think about that?

  27. mclever says:

    I think Green Bay and Pittsburgh should both handle the weather in Arlington just fine.

    What’s the forecast for Sunday?

  28. GROG says:

    Max said: That’s why companies such as Google and SAS are so successful and PROFITABLE.

    Interesting that you mentioned Google as we were discussing corporate tax rates.

    Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

    “Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.”

  29. mclever,
    They’re keeping the roof closed, so the weather definitely won’t be much of a factor in the game play. 🙂

  30. mclever says:

    Michael,

    Keeping the roof closed? Wussies.

    😉

  31. Brian,
    I wish other municipalities could choose to own a professional football team. It would probably be more cost-effective than the deals they have now.

  32. Monotreme says:

    GROG,

    Excellent point, and one that was made by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address:

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes

  33. Brian says:

    Michael,

    I’m sure it would be, but the NFL explicitly prohibits it. The owners of the Padres once tried that in baseball, giving or selling it to the city of San Diego, but that was blocked by the owners. I would love to own a piece of the NY Yankees or Giants, but I’ll have to settle for being a fan instead.

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,
    so angry and distraught” Now THAT’S funny. You are as mistaken about my attitude as you were about corporate tax rates.

    What DOES make me angry is when intelligent people reduce themselves to partisan or ideological talking points instead of using that fine brain that God gave them! Not like that ever happens around here.

    Eg: “That’s $7M you could have used to pay your employees.” No, young grasshopper, that $7M was taxed on PROFITS. PROFITS is what you have AFTER you have already PAID your workers! Please!

    Quit trying to divert from the ACTUAL lesson to be learned from Ford’s actions. Besides:

    Eg #2: “Average effective fed rate is around 22%.”
    Can you tell me how you figured that?

    Well, we’ll use YOUR Google example. It should be obvious that, once Google exploited (quite legally) the various loopholes, that they DIDN’T pay 35%. In fact, by your own example they only paid 2+%. Happens ALL the time. In fact, a number companies, again quite legally, end up with a negative effective tax rate. Look it up. In the 2001-2003 period, a number of companies including Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), did so. So what do you think happens to the average effective tax rate. Clue: It sure don’t stay at 35%!!!

    Do the homework yourself. Quit cherrypicking your data just from winger blogs so it suits your preconceived notions.

    I LOVE it!

  35. NotImpressed says:

    DePalma:
    “CNBC is blaming it on global cooling.”

    No, they’re talking about the WEATHER. Do you not know the difference between climate and weather?

    Many conservative economists are also talking about the effect of weather on last months numbers. January was particularly bad. I heard a conservative economist on the radio this morning saying that, adjusted for the terrible January weather, the gains would have been around 120,000.

    By the way, in case you didn’t know, the severe storms we had in January are predicted by the global warming climate change models. If you heat the air and the oceans, then more water evaporates into the atmosphere. Plus, warmer air can hold more moisture. This means storms, including winter storms, will tend to be more severe. The bad winter weather we’ve had is a result of global warming.

    In a typical form of conservative misrepresentation, you claimed “CNBC is blaming it on global cooling.” They did not once mention “global cooling.” You made that up, didn’t you?

  36. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    Let’s say I’m a small business that’s incorporated. Y’all LOVE talking about small businesses!

    My revenues are, say, $650K/yr. My profits, EBIT, are 12% of revenue = $75k.
    Now by your tax tables above, my taxes are $7500 + 25% of $75K-50K, or $25K = 6250 for a total tax of $13,750. $13,753/$75K= an effective tax rate of only 18.

    Wow! THAT’S HALF of 35%. Bringing down the average effective tax rate again.

    Beginning to see the meaning of average effective tax rate?

  37. Brian,
    I know about the prohibition. I just think it’s wrong.

  38. dcpetterson says:

    @mclever
    The thing is, when you take the costs of replacing employees together with the counterproductive results from overworking employees, then those companies that use layoffs as a cost-cutting technique may be shooting themselves in the foot.

    Long term, the effects are even worse.

    America has been offshoring many jobs for years. The idea, of course, is to go for cheap overseas labor. But as those nations develop their economies, the labor costs there steadily increase. Soon, it isn’t so much cheaper any more. And the difficulties of having some of your most vital workforce on the other side of the planet raises costs still more. (There are other difficulties here — I’m skating over the worst of it.)

    But now, you’ve had years — maybe decades — of not hiring American workers for those jobs, some of which are highly skilled positions. There are no American workers America looses a generation of skill. When the companies try to move the jobs back,. there’s no one here to hire.

    The corporate obsession with cutting labor costs is going to kill America’s ability to compete in the world market.

  39. GROG says:

    Max,

    You need a hug.

    What DOES make me angry is when intelligent people reduce themselves to partisan or ideological talking points instead of using that fine brain that God gave them! Not like that ever happens around here.

    What “partisan or ideological talking point” are you referring to? I didn’t realize that pointing out Henry Ford’s corp tax rate was a talking point.

    No, young grasshopper, that $7M was taxed on PROFITS. PROFITS is what you have AFTER you have already PAID your workers! Please!

    Companies project to make certain after tax profits. Let’s take your example from above using your 22% effective rate:

    $60M @ 22% pocket $46.8M

    Now let’s say the company used $7M more to pay higher wages or hire more workers because the corp tax rate is 10% like Henry Ford paid. Their profit goes down to $53M but:

    $53M @ 10% pocket $47.7M

    So what do you think happens to the average effective tax rate. Clue: It sure don’t stay at 35%!!!

    That’s why I asked you the question. Why do you think US companies are so agressively trying to find loopholes? Do you think maybe it’s because we have one the highest corp tax rates in the world?

  40. GROG says:

    Max,

    Small businesses obviously don’t pay the 35% rate. We were talking about Ford Motor Company. They’re not a small business. That’s another reason I asked how you came up with the 22% effective rate.

  41. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Actually, y’all I had hoped to provoke GROG to do some of that research I was talking about. Twice. Once when I shot out all the numbers and once again when I gigged him about not knowing about corporate tax rates.

    He just refuses to use that brain God gave him:

    In 1910 the corporate tax rate was NOT 10%.

    It was only 1%.

    Poor GROG just can’t get them numbers right.

    source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

  42. dcpetterson says:

    GROG
    Why do you think US companies are so agressively trying to find loopholes? Do you think maybe it’s because we have one the highest corp tax rates in the world?

    I think it’s probably because they can. It has nothing to do with the tax rate. I suspect they’d be just as dedicated about finding loopholes regardless of what the tax rate was. Do you really think modern American corporations would avoid ways to lower their taxes, regardless of what the rate was?

    Anyway, Max’s point seems to be that the tax rate doesn’t prevent corporations from paying employees more. It doesn’t take any money away from the pool available to pay employees, because the tax is assessed after labor expenses are already paid. (This is also true about other business-related expenses, such as equipment purchases or other investments.) What the tax rate mostly affects is after-tax profits, not the availability of funds for investment or operating purposes.

    Today, corporations are making record profits, and are sitting on a couple trillion in cash. This means the current corporate tax rates are certainly not adversely affecting profits, and have in no way adversely impacted corporations’ ability to raise worker salaries.

    Businesses are not investing, and are not hiring workers, because consumers have no additional money to spend to increase demand. Any additional production would go unpurchased, and would generate no additional income. We need more jobs. We need a massive jobs program.

    Mr. Boehnor, it has been a month now since the Republicans took over the House. The election was all about employment. Where are the jobs?

  43. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    You REALLY need to follow Lincoln’s advice about silence.

    ” Why do you think US companies are so agressively trying to find loopholes? Do you think maybe it’s because we have one the highest corp tax rates in the world?

    No. It’s because as I do and any other intelligent person, or corporation, does, which is to pay the lowest taxes legally due. One does that by utilizing the entire tax code as written to take all the deductions and credits that apply. When one simply looks at the tax tables in the back of the book, they are NOT getting the whole story.

    Might I suggest you try this site to help you out.

    (The rest of y’all DON”T LOOK. It’s for GROG’s benefit)

  44. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    To add to what DC said, perhaps you should consider that, if a company makes a billion dollars, and can reduce its tax rate by .01 percent, that’s a million dollars — which would pay the salaries of what, 10 people like you for a year, all working diligently to find a way to avoid the taxes. Now figure it for a 1 percent reduction. You could have an entire division devoted to the task.

    For companies, in other words, the game of tax avoidance is definitely worth the candle. Especially since they are almost never put in jail for it.

  45. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart

    You should check out your email addy. I just got a couple of spams that originated from that aol address.

  46. GROG says:

    Max said: In 1910 the corporate tax rate was NOT 10%.

    It was only 1%.

    Poor GROG just can’t get them numbers right.

    You were talking about the years 1914-1916. The rate in 1916 was 2%.
    In 1917 it was 6%.
    In 1918 it was 12%. (Not sure where you came up with the year 1910)

    So yes Max, you got me. Congrats. I was off by a couple of years.

    You obviously are not interested in having a civil discussion with me. You’re dragging this site down. I’ll leave it at that.

  47. GROG says:

    DC said: Anyway, Max’s point seems to be that the tax rate doesn’t prevent corporations from paying employees more.

    I disagree. I’ll repost my example from above:

    Companies project to make certain after tax profits. Let’s take your example from above using your 22% effective rate:

    $60M @ 22% pocket $46.8M

    Now let’s say the company used $7M more to pay higher wages or hire more workers because the corp tax rate is 10% like Henry Ford paid. Their profit goes down to $53M but:

    $53M @ 10% pocket $47.7M

    Lower tax rates absolutely do have an effect on how much businesses are able to pay and hire.

  48. Mr. Universe says:

    @Bart

    I think someone has hijacked your e-mail account. I just got spammed from there along with half dozen names from your addy list.

    Not joking.

  49. mclever says:

    @dcpetterson

    Regarding the long-term effects of the corporate obsession with cutting labor costs…

    I’m right there with you on that. With the current stock market obsession on quarterly profit forecasts, the culture of instant gratification has invaded corporate boardrooms. Few seem to be thinking even two or three years down the road. A business that’s responsible and responsive to the community should be planning ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road, ensuring long-term profitability and growth. Value investors sometimes seem to get that, but the growth investors just want what’s hot right now.

    Some industries have a more ingrained culture for longer term planning. I remember when I moved from the dot-com industry to natural resources, how impressed I was with the long-term horizons on oil-n-gas ventures. When it takes 5-10 years to find, drill, and develop a well (maybe more if it’s in a difficult area), then another 5 years or so to recoup the development costs and have that well as a net producer on the balance sheets, then those executives were quite accustomed to thinking on a 20-year business cycle (compared to 20 weeks with most dot-coms). They worried about peak oil and what efficiency gains they’d need to maintain long-term profitability. Proposals didn’t have to result in an immediate cost-benefit, if you could show a substantial improvement a few years down the road, and they were much more willing to make the investment in things that would produce longer term reliable gains.

    That’s why I’m not surprised to see former oil executive Pickens out promoting wind energy, for example. He’s thinking about more than just beating next quarter’s Wall Street projections.

  50. Number Seven says:

    Maybe the question should be what helps a company more? Lower taxes or higher demand.

    My bet is on higher demand.

  51. Number Seven says:

    Speaking of T Boone Pickens, I lost a lot of respect for him when he was on the Jon Stewart show last week. He out and out lied about the damage gas fracking can do to the water table.

  52. Bart DePalma says:

    mclever says: I categorically dismiss your assertion that labor costs are unsupportable by the market. From almost any perspective I can conceive, when adjusted for inflation, labor is currently being paid the least it’s ever been paid in my lifetime in relation to corporate profits, executive pay, GDP, total wealth, etc. Wages have been flat or declining in relation to inflation.

    Look not just at wages, but instead the entire compensation package plus the external costs of employing a worker.

    Part of the problem they’re having with foreclosures right now is the “robo-foreclosures” that are too streamlined. So, how would further streamlining this so that each foreclosure is given even less consideration and analysis fix that problem? It seems to me like your suggestion would just exacerbate the problems that currently exist with the foreclosure process, which is why current efforts have mostly been to slow it down.

    Banks attempted to accelerate foreclosures, but this came to a screeching halt under rules requiring an attorney to review and sign off on each individual foreclosure. Now, it appears this will take another 18-24 months to complete. The Obama program to restructure mortgages has been a raging failure because the defaulting people were either never creditworthy (subprime loans) or are now under or unemployed and cannot pay the mortgage. The Obama restructured mortgages have a predictably high re-default rate. We have to clear out the backlog before the housing sector can recover.

    One might think you want to take people’s houses from them!

    A defaulting borrower does not own the house, the mortgage holder does.

  53. Bart DePalma says:

    Jean says: Religion and the Tea Party in the 2010 Election: An analysis of the Third Biennial American Values Survey

    This “poll” was taken by some interest group called the Public Religion Research Institute a month prior to the 2010 election.

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2010/1005_religion_survey/1005_religion_survey_jones.pdf

    This “poll” finding that the “Tea Party” is only 11% of the population with nearly all TP respondents saying they are GOP and/or religious right is contrary to nearly every other pre-election poll and completely different from the Edison exit and Rasmussen 2010 post election polling of actual voters.

    The “poll’s” final findings show that this is a manufactured population of respondents:

    A majority (54%) of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported health care reform.

    Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans favor a policy that provides a future path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for several years.

    Yup, that sure looked like the 2010 electorate.

  54. mclever says:

    Number Seven, I missed that episode of Jon Stewart’s show… I’m probably glad I did.

    I have a lot of respect for Mr. Pickens’ business acumen, but not so much for his awareness of environmental science. He’s not pushing wind for environmental reasons, but because he understands the long-term issues with relying on declining oil reserves. Yes, they keep getting more oil out of Midland/Odessa, but each barrel is 10X as expensive to extract today as it was when all they had to do was drill a hole and watch it gush. Now you’ve got injection wells and other chemical technologies to extract every last drop. Eventually, even those methods won’t work, or they’ll become too cost prohibitive relative to the miniscule amount of oil or gas retrieved.

    At that point, we’ll either be importing even more oil from the volatile middle east, or we’ll need an alternate source of energy.

  55. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG: You obviously are not interested in having a civil discussion with me. You’re dragging this site down. I’ll leave it at that.

    Wrong again. I am MORE than glad to have a civil discussion with you. I WANT to have a civil discussion with you.

    But when you spout opinion as though it were fact, when you hop about (as you did with the spread on presidential FY’s) like a flea in a frying pan, when you are so sloppy in your use of data and then REFUSE to admit your error (and thank you for the above, I also mistyped, meant to say 1914, NOT 1910), all as a matter of course, I WILL NOT treat you gently.

    You repeated again your assertion about lower taxes and hiring, but concluded with your OPINION. If you could cite independently verifiable data showing empirically your conclusion, ceteris parabus, it would worth FAR more and give value to that conclusion. Without that, it’s just opinion.

    Ford’s statement I quoted above, given the data and the fact that the tax rate remained the same the first 3 years(’13, ’14 & ’15) and DOUBLED (’16) to 25, EMPIRICALLY demonstrates that tax rate had NOTHING to do with a SUBSTANTIAL increase in “cost cutting”, demand increase and resultant profit increase. It KILLS your assertion.

    Respectfully yours

  56. Number Seven says:

    “Look not just at wages, but instead the entire compensation package plus the external costs of employing a worker.”

    Let’s look. Bart, are you calling for Medicare for all, since a large part of the expense of employing a worker is paying for the health care? 😉

  57. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oops!

    to 25 = to 2%

  58. Bart DePalma says:

    NotImpressed says: Many conservative economists are also talking about the effect of weather on last months numbers. January was particularly bad. I heard a conservative economist on the radio this morning saying that, adjusted for the terrible January weather, the gains would have been around 120,000.

    Does this “conservative economist” have a name?

    600,000 people do not tell the government they have stopped looking for work because of a couple snow storms.

    Companies who are hiring permanent workers (as opposed to day labor) do not decline to do so because of a couple snow storms.

    The BLS also reported today that they overstated the number of additional jobs last year by nearly 10%.

    By the way, in case you didn’t know, the severe storms we had in January are predicted by the global warming climate change models. If you heat the air and the oceans, then more water evaporates into the atmosphere. Plus, warmer air can hold more moisture. This means storms, including winter storms, will tend to be more severe. The bad winter weather we’ve had is a result of global warming.

    Did you get that from algore’s latest post?

    OK, let’s disregard CRU’s own admission that (even under their discredited adjusted temperature database) there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995 and assume for the sake of discussion that the Earth is warmer and more water evaporated into the atmosphere. This means that we should be seeing warmer winters with above average precipitation in the form of rain. Instead, the world has been experiencing a series of very cold winters with snow. I am unaware of any evidence that precipitation is up, just that we are getting snow rather than rain because it is s damn cold.

  59. Mr. Universe says:

    @#7

    RE: Fracking. Yeah, my jaw hit the floor when he said that and Stewart didn’t call him on it. I think he must be looking through the mountaintop removal lenses. So wrong

  60. dcpetterson says:

    GROG,
    I disagree. I’ll repost my example from above:

    And I disagree with you. I’d read your example. You are correct that businesses aim toward a particular dollar amount of after-tax profit. however:

    A) they can adjust their goals if they want to.

    and

    B) they are currently making record profits.

    Point A) means that the decision to not pay workers is their choice, not an economic necessity. Point B) means that, currently, the tax rates we have (which are at record lows) are certainly not getting in the way. Which rather argues against the whole supply-side idea.

  61. Bartbuster says:

    Instead, the world has been experiencing a series of very cold winters with snow

    Blankshot, 2010 was tied with 2005 for the warmest years on record, so your unsupported claim that out recent winters have been very cold is almost certainly a complete load of crap.

  62. Number Seven says:

    The real factor of the tax issue is the percentage of taxes collected by companies vs individuals. I am not even going to bother to post a site showing that as a percentage, the taxes comming from corporations are at an all time low. That would be too easy. Instead, I will challenge anyone here to prove me wrong, lol.

  63. Number Seven says:

    @Mr. U. and the real thing that bugged me about that was the fact that Stewart had the director of ‘Gasland’ on his show. Who can forget that scene of lighting the water comming out of the faucet on fire. A Brita water filter wont fix that, lol.

  64. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma
    “Companies who are hiring permanent workers (as opposed to day labor) do not decline to do so because of a couple snow storms.”

    Companies that deal with tourism, however, are very much impacted by a month of terrible weather. And, coming out of a recession, the timing of permanent hiring is very much impacted by existing conditions. Companies do not invest in new growth unless there is demand. When demand is affected by factors such as weather, investment is postponed. This is basic economics. Class dismissed.

    “OK, let’s disregard CRU’s own admission that (even under their discredited adjusted temperature database) there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995 and assume for the sake of discussion that the Earth is warmer and more water evaporated into the atmosphere. This means that we should be seeing warmer winters with above average precipitation in the form of rain. Instead, the world has been experiencing a series of very cold winters with snow. I am unaware of any evidence that precipitation is up, just that we are getting snow rather than rain because it is s damn cold.”

    Unfortunately, every sentence in this paragraph is either false, or exhibits a lack of knowledge of climate science.

    The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is not the only source of climate data. Nor was its database “discredited.” In fact, it has been verified and found proper by at least three independent analyses. You have been told this before. You may consult the NASA website for more data.

    Your statement about no “statistically significant warming since 1995” applies only to the continental United States. The average world temperature has been increasing nearly every year, and 2010 was the hottest year on record. You have been told this before. You may consult the NASA website for more data.

    Your statement “This means that we should be seeing warmer winters” certainly is true on a worldwide level. Not all parts of the globe warm equally. There is a difference between global climate, local climate, and current weather. You have been told this before. You may consult the NASA website for more data.

    Saying that winters should see “above average precipitation in the form of rain” would only be true if the temperature of the region you’re talking about is above freezing at the time the precipitation fell. In winter, the temperature in the United States is still often below freezing. Your statement here is irrational.

    You say, “the world has been experiencing a series of very cold winters with snow.” Worldwide, as I said, 2010 was the warmest year on record. You are simply misinformed. You may consult the NASA website for more data.

    The snow is a result, as I said, of the fact that precipitation is falling in winter. No one has claimed that average worldwide temperatures in winter are now above the freezing point. You are inventing strawmen.

    You say: “I am unaware of any evidence that precipitation is up, just that we are getting snow rather than rain because it is s damn cold.” Thank you for admitting ignorance on this. You can obtain a great deal of information here. The maps and charts at that site should answer your questions and demonstrate that your errors in understanding are due mostly to being uninformed.

    I hope this helps, but I suspect it won’t. Though most of your statements have already been disproven, and the rest are illogical, you have seemed unable to avoid making statements you know to be untrue.

  65. NotImpressed says:

    And by the way, Mr. DePalma, I note that you passed over, without comment, that you were called on your misstatement about CNBC and “global cooling.” You may apologize for your misstatement if you wish, since they did not use that phrase, nor did they at any point imply that the world is cooling.

    Are you in the habit of misrepresenting the people whom you reference? If so, can we not expect your book to be a work of imaginative fiction?

  66. Bartbuster says:

    If so, can we not expect your book to be a work of imaginative fiction?

    I think we all know the answer to that question.

  67. GROG says:

    DC,

    We live in unique economic times. I don’t think you can ascertain that because companies are holding on to cash at this particular time in history, that there is no correlation between hiring and tax rates.

    In other news, it looks like Obama’s post holiday, post Giffords, post SOTU bump is now gone. 46% approval on Rasmussen and Gallup.

  68. GROG says:

    Actually, he had no SOTU bump. Sorry.

  69. mclever says:

    Bart,

    Companies who are hiring permanent workers (as opposed to day labor) do not decline to do so because of a couple snow storms.

    You say this, and you live in Colorado?! I’m shocked!

    I think it’s pretty self-evident that if an entire city is shut-down for a couple of days due to weather that it would have an impact on the recruiting and hiring of new employees even if businesses were actively interested in hiring during that time.

  70. Just Sayin' says:

    If Mr. T Boone Pickins’ is fer it, I’m agin’ it! What, after monopolizing more than one source of energy he is ready to control the wind, most likely for his posterity. He has spent a lifetime of dodging any kind of environmental responsibility.

  71. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Companies who are hiring permanent workers (as opposed to day labor) do not decline to do so because of a couple snow storms.”

    NI: Companies that deal with tourism, however, are very much impacted by a month of terrible weather.

    90,000 new tourism jobs were not about to be created in January and then eliminated. Tourism is not a major new job driver on a month to month basis.

    NI: And, coming out of a recession, the timing of permanent hiring is very much impacted by existing conditions. Companies do not invest in new growth unless there is demand. When demand is affected by factors such as weather, investment is postponed. This is basic economics. Class dismissed.

    Companies hiring permanent employees are looking a year down the road and are not put off by a couple snowstorms. Otherwise, the states along the Canadian border would be wastelands of unemployment.

    BD: “OK, let’s disregard CRU’s own admission that (even under their discredited adjusted temperature database) there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995 and assume for the sake of discussion that the Earth is warmer and more water evaporated into the atmosphere. This means that we should be seeing warmer winters with above average precipitation in the form of rain. Instead, the world has been experiencing a series of very cold winters with snow. I am unaware of any evidence that precipitation is up, just that we are getting snow rather than rain because it is s damn cold.”

    NU: The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is not the only source of climate data.

    It is relied upon by the UN IPCC and nearly all the climate models used by the IPCC. However,

    NI: Nor was its database “discredited.” In fact, it has been verified and found proper by at least three independent analyses.

    You are confusing the whitewash “investigations” which “cleared” Jones and CRU of “wrongdoing” with actual reviews of the CRU “adjusted temperature” database, which were not performed. East Anglia is currently reviewing and rebuilding the database, a tacit admission that the original work was unrelaible to say the least. Revealingly, the UK government who “cleared” Jones and CRU are protesting East Anglia’s review because the Brit press reports that the government is afraid the findings will give critics more ammunition.

    NI: You may consult the NASA website for more data.

    If you like NASA, they have admitted that their US temperature data shows no statistically significant warming or cooling over the 20th Century. For worldwide data, they rely upon others.

    BD: Your statement about no “statistically significant warming since 1995″ applies only to the continental United States.

    No, Jones was referring to his adjusted global temps.

    The average world temperature has been increasing nearly every year, and 2010 was the hottest year on record.

    No, satellite readings have shown a cooling trend since around the millennium in conformance with a reduction of solar activity. Even many AGW religionists have admitted this trend. The ONLY data showing any statistically significant global warming over the past century are “adjusted data” created using unreleased assumptions by CRU and two other organization. The raw temp data does not show this. This is why CRU threw away their raw data.

    NI: Your statement “This means that we should be seeing warmer winters” certainly is true on a worldwide level. Not all parts of the globe warm equally.

    Agreed. Most of the world has been experiencing record cold winters from Yemen, China, South Africa, Russia, the EU and Cancun (including during their last climate conferences), and of course the US.

    NI: Saying that winters should see “above average precipitation in the form of rain” would only be true if the temperature of the region you’re talking about is above freezing at the time the precipitation fell. In winter, the temperature in the United States is still often below freezing. Your statement here is irrational.

    Precipitation during winter in most of the US is a mixture of rain or snow depending upon the temperature. If our average temperature is higher during winter, then we would on average receive a greater proportion of our precipitation as rain. If there was more precipitation overall during these warm winters, rain would proportionally rise.

    In reality, we are experiencing colder winters, setting historical records across the country. Because we are experiencing colder winters, we appear to be receiving a greater proportion of our precipitation as snow rather than rain. I am unaware of any evidence that overall precipitation during the last few winters has increased.

    THUS, there is no evidence to back up Professor Algore’s theory.

  72. shortchain says:

    I notice the prominent lack of citations in Bart’s BS. C’mon, Bart, give us the sources of your information — or are you afraid that, like the last time you did, we’ll find out that it’s from a complete whacko with no credibility?

  73. dcpetterson says:

    @GROG
    We live in unique economic times.

    To some extent, that’s true. But then, if we assume the current times are unique, we can draw no conclusions from history whatever. This means we have to rely completely on guesswork and pre-existing ideology for deciding on any future course. I don’t think any of us are willing to do that. In fact, I suspect humans in general are ill-equipped for that. We’re pattern-making animals, and we look to what we’ve learned from the past to make future decisions.

    We’ve heard the advice about what people who don’t learn from the past are doomed to do. I tend to agree with that sentiment, while at the same time making allowances for new situations. As someone said, the past doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. I think there are valuable lessons, provided we don’t make ourselves slaves to this or that interpretation of the past.

    There is, I think, a balance to be struck between drawing lessons from the past, and assuming the present is unprecedented. And, of course, therein lies one important difference between the various suggested remedies for current challenges. And therein lies the whole reason for dialogue between those of us with different viewpoints. 🙂

  74. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma
    “a tacit admission that the original work was unrelaible to say the least. ”

    You don’t actually understand how scientific research works, do you? That explains the rest of your comments. Thanks for the conversation. I’m not qualified to teach you basic scientific method, since I don’t have a teaching degree. So I apologize for bowing out of further conversation on this topic. I do recommend that you take some science courses, and stop relying on others who also don’t understand how science works. Thanks again.

  75. Bartbuster says:

    If you like NASA, they have admitted that their US temperature data shows no statistically significant warming or cooling over the 20th Century. For worldwide data, they rely upon others.

    This is a pretty blatant lie. All you have to do is go to the NASA website and look at the “Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States” graph. The increase is obvious.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

  76. NotImpressed says:

    Thanks for posting that, Bartbuster. Yes, it is pretty obvious, isn’t it?

    Of course, Mr. DePalma thinks all the data is suspect anyway. Which means he has no data whatever supporting his position.

  77. Whatevs says:

    Man, normally I could pass Bart’s posts off as spinning. But today he is just outright, willfully lying. And not even doing a good job of it. Just bald-faced lying.

    Dude, how do you sleep at night? Oh wait, I hear you’re an attorney.

    Seriously, not misinterpretation or misunderstanding; just lying. Lying with a straight face. Just plain, unadulterated lying.

    Amazing.

  78. shortchain says:

    It’s difficult to express how stupid the following statement is:

    “Precipitation during winter in most of the US is a mixture of rain or snow depending upon the temperature. If our average temperature is higher during winter, then we would on average receive a greater proportion of our precipitation as rain. If there was more precipitation overall during these warm winters, rain would proportionally rise.”

    — especially since I write this from a geographic location above the storm that just pasted a lot of the country. We’re on the cold side of the storm, which means we got nothing — in fact, it’s about 32 degrees F outside, thanks to the sun-angle and clear skies. Everybody who lives in an extreme cold climates knows that you get the heaviest snows just below the critical temperature band (which is the band dividing all snow from all rain). It’s the amount of water in the air that matters — not the temperature — that determines how much snow (or rain) you get.

    On this topic Bart is nothing but a “cut and paste troll”. Sad.

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    NI/BB:

    Graphs are not evidence or data, but rather are supposed to be fair representations of actual evidence or data. The NASA graph is not.

    NASA created the graph from “adjusted temperature data” from the GISS, NCDC and the CRU. This is not raw temperature data from around the world. Look at the citations on Hanson’s papers at the NASA site. The CRU data is being revised by East Anglia because it is manipulated crap. GISS and the NCDC have not released their adjustment assumptions for public review and testing as is normal under the scientific method. Thus, their claims cannot be considered to be verified scientific fact. To the GISS and NCDC adjusted data correspond to CRU’s manipulated data, their results as suspect as well.

    Assuming the data was correct, Hansen’s graph is still incredibly misleading in its formatting. Hansen compacts over a century along the X axis while spreading out the temperature on the Y axis over tenths of a degree to create the false impression of soaring temperatures. If the Y axis instead covered a span of say the 60 degrees of temperature variation during an average year in my town, there would be no discernible temperature increase over time on the graph.

    Such techniques are how fools and the unwary are manipulated.

  80. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Since a rise of temperature of 6 degrees C in a centuray would be globally catastrophic, Hansen has the right methodology.

    You, on the other hand, are a fool.

  81. Bart DePalma says:

    SC:

    Which part did you miss of my distinction between the level of overall precipitation and the proportions of that overall precipitation which comes down as snow or rain?

    The amount of moisture in the air will affect the level of overall precipitation.

    Winter precipitation in the United States ranges from snow to rain.

    The temperature determines whether that precipitation forms as rain or snow.

    The warmer the winter in the United States, the greater proportion of its precipitation forms as rain.

    The colder the winter in the United States, the greater proportion of its precipitation forms as snow.

    If Prof Algore was right, the United States would have increased overall precipitation and warmer winters, which means a greater proportion of the increased overall precipitation would form as rain. In sum, warmer and rainier winters.

    Instead, the United States shows no substantial increase in overall precipitation and has been experiencing colder winters, which means a greater proportion of the same overall precipitation is coming down as snow. In sum, colder and snowier winters. Precipitation which normally falls as rain in places like TX and GA is coming down as snow.

    If you do not want to appear even more petty and foolish, drop the name calling and offer proof to support Prof. Algore’s thesis.

  82. Whatevs says:

    OMG you are so full of shit! Bart? How much evidence do you need? Why?

  83. mclever says:

    shortchain,

    Here in Iowa, we have an expression: “Too cold to snow”

    Of course, it’s never literally too cold to snow, but when temperatures dip into single digits or below, most of the snow we get (if any) is just little spitting flakes that blow away. The heaviest snowfalls are almost always when the temperature is in the mid-to-upper twenties. That’s when we get dense, packed-in snow that can’t be cleared for several days because it breaks the snow plows…

    http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-City-Snow-Removal-Will-Take-Days-115141444.html

  84. Number Seven says:

    That’s rich. Someone calling for the end of name calling while using the, obviously meant to be degrogatory, term of Prof. Algore.

  85. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG: “Companies project to make certain after tax profits”

    Let’s see: EBIT, EBITDA

    These terms I am very familiar with and used them a good bit. It’s been 3o years since I took an accounting course, so perhaps I am a bit behind in that area. I know we always had an EBIT or EBITDA goal, and that goal took care of the final number of net aftertax profit, because we pretty well knew what the tax rate was. I mean, we set budgets a year in advance.

    But the EBIT goal was driven by revenues and cost control which are controllable (to some extent) so as to be reached. If we could generate MORE revenue and/or keep costs (COGS, labor, operations) down, we could exceed the EBIT goal.

    My question: Does anyone know of companies that simply look at an aftertax profit number as though that was a controllable number?

    Thanks

  86. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Not only do you not understand the difference between weather and climate, you don’t even appear to understand the difference between mean and variance. The variance can increase dramatically with only a tiny difference in the average. Simple statistics — which you do not appear to understand.

    Pretending that an ignoramus like you could teach anyone about science is hilarious.

  87. Bartbuster says:

    This is not raw temperature data from around the world.

    Blankshot, it’s not data from around the world because the graph I was referring to was for US data, you lying chucklehead. You said that NASA “have admitted that their US temperature data shows no statistically significant warming or cooling over the 20th Century”. The graphs on the NASA website expose you as a lying sack of shit.

  88. shortchain says:

    mclever,

    The amount of water that the air will carry is highly dependent on the temperature. So when it gets extremely cold (down to 20 below), although it may snow, it won’t be more than flurries. Storms that drop a lot of snow (or rain) up here always follow the same pattern: first we have a south wind that carries a lot of (relatively) warm, moist air from the Gulf. Then the low comes through, dropping the air temperature dramatically, forcing the moisture out.

    If the temperature (at the proper height) is below the critical temperature, we get snow. If it’s above that, we get rain. The worst is when it’s warm aloft and cold at the surface. Then we get freezing rain. But it’s quite clearly a sharp division, not a gradual one, like Bart seems to believe.

    All easily predictable — and completely contrary to Bart’s inane theory of how things work. I frankly cannot fathom the foolishness that allows him to spew such stupid, contra-factual BS in a public forum.

    By the way, enjoy the calm while it lasts. It’s a throw of the dice when the storm track, which follows the jet stream, tracks back north of us. If that happens at the same time as a big storm from the Pacific, we get a monster storm. Usually in early March. If that happens, you folks in Iowa had better head for high ground, because we’re up to our elbows in snow this year, and the ground was already soaked from fall rains.

  89. Bartbuster says:

    Hansen compacts over a century along the X axis while spreading out the temperature on the Y axis over tenths of a degree to create the false impression of soaring temperatures.

    It’s doing nothing of the sort, the graph is designed to show the trends, which it does quite clearly.

    If the Y axis instead covered a span of say the 60 degrees of temperature variation during an average year in my town, there would be no discernible temperature increase over time on the graph.

    Indeed, you could use a graph designed to make the trend difficult to see, but it would still be there.

    Such techniques are how fools and the unwary are manipulated.

    I have a degree in mathematical sciences, you’re a shyster. Enough said…

  90. mclever says:

    @shortchain

    Right now, I’ve got drifts above the windows on the lower floor of my house… Not looking forward to the additional snows that are predicted over the next few days.

    It’s one of those times when I’m actually hoping it stays too cold to snow!

  91. Bartbuster says:

    If the Y axis instead covered a span of say the 60 degrees of temperature variation

    By the way, a graph covering a span of 60F is moronic when changes of 2F-3F are significant.

  92. Mr. Universe says:

    Ah, I see our resident climate denier is making new friends. Well, at least your absurdity drives traffic to the site.

    I am honestly puzzled by your acceptance of the climate denier mantra. Tell me, what does Al Gore have to gain from it politically? I’ll grant you, he sold a few books (not unlike Sa…that half term governor of Alaska) but he didn’t need to since he inherited the family farm in Carthage, TN. And what troves of riches do climate scientists stand to gain from their discoveries that humankind is having a deleterious effect upon the climate? What does government stand to gain from imposing regulations upon large corporations?

    Does that sound like a logical argument to you? I can think of better ways to game the system than to whip everyone into a ‘we’re killing the planet’ frenzy.

  93. Mr. Universe says:

    Also, can you give one compelling reason to dismiss the findings of PhD.s, Nobel prize winners, NASA, NOAA, and other experts in physics over the opinion of an ambulance chaser?

    Yeah….you got nothing

  94. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    I’m still waiting for a link to the source of your information. Why the delay? Surely, if you have a reputable source, or even a complete source that wasn’t entirely disreputable, you could give it, right?

    Of course, it could be something embarrassing, like the strata-sphere, written by a person who doesn’t understand much more statistics than Bart does (his “explanation” of the Law of Large Numbers is nothing short of hilarious).

    That would be sad. And a clear example where, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man with astigmatism is king.

  95. NotImpressed says:

    @Mr. Universe
    Tell me, what does Al Gore have to gain from it politically? … And what troves of riches do climate scientists stand to gain from their discoveries that humankind is having a deleterious effect upon the climate? What does government stand to gain from imposing regulations upon large corporations?

    Of course, this is exactly backwards. What’s happening is that powerful and wealthy interests want us to ignore global climate change. Oil companies, polluters, fossil fuel interests, all stand to lose a lot of money if they have to change the way way do business. So do the investment firms who rely on them. So does the anti-environment lobby.

    One part of the Republican political base is wrapped around opposing general environmental interests. Opposing the reality of climate change, just on general principle, is part of what they do, and part of how they bit business interests against those who are concerned for the planet.

    This whole accusation of a “conspiracy” to convince us of global warming is a way of distracting us from the people who stand to lose a lot of money — and a lot of political influence — if we accept that science makes sense.

    Don’t like the deniers put us on the defensive. Accuse them back. Reveal the greed and short-sighted naked political ambition that drives this denial of reason.

    It’s bad enough they’re changing the climate. The human misery it will cause is beyond imagining. It’s worse that they’re doing it for short-term greed.

  96. Armchair Warlord says:

    I am continually embarrassed for AGW deniers.

    I think it’s time for America’s conservatives to take a collective deep breath and reflect on the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, who would roll in his grave at the direction his party has taken in the modern day.

  97. Armchair,
    What I find remarkable is that it has become such a partisan issue. So many topics that otherwise should have no reason to break along party lines now do. In many respects, I find that really sad. It means less critical thought and more group identification.

  98. GROG says:

    Michael,

    I think the party identification thing has to do with personal freedoms. What greater way to control human behavior on a worldwide scale then the threat of global destruction? The right is leery of it while the left embraces it.

  99. shortchain says:

    The only personal freedom the right really wants (statistically speaking) is the personal freedom to indulge their force their religious tenets on others, their greed, their misogyny, and their bigotry.

  100. NotImpressed says:

    GROG, it’s sad that you are suspicious of scientific evidence.

  101. Grog,
    The only way for that argument to hold water is to assume that liberals view controlling others as an end in itself. That’s a rather sad, misanthropic perspective.

  102. NotImpressed says:

    “I think the party identification thing has to do with personal freedoms. ”

    I have to say something more about this strange idea.
    I will avoid the urge to blame “conservatives” in general, and I will instead say “some conservatives.”

    Why do some conservatives feel that scientific truth is an infringement on “personal freedom?” I mean this as an honest question. Do they feel there is some contradiction between believing whateverthehell nonsense absurdity you want, and instead accepting actual fact and evidence? Is that the problem?

    I admit, GROG, I’m lost here. Why is accepting the best data that is available somehow in conflict with “personal freedom?” Is it that if you accepted this truth, it would mean you’d have a responsibility to something more than your own self? Is the problem that you don’t want to be part of something larger than your own selfish interests? Help me out here, I truly want to understand.

    Is this related to the creationist thing? Do creationists tend to also be climate change deniers? Is there a general rejection of science involved, or is it specific to this one issue? Are the same people generally also opposed to stem cell research? Do they also tend to oppose NASA planetary probes and funding for physics research? Is it an overall syndrome? I’m curious here.

  103. Gator says:

    The question isn’t whether there is global warming… there is. The question is – Is it anthropogenic? And to believe that we MUST be causing this and that we can fix this strikes me as mankinds incredible hubris. The earth has been heating and cooling for billions of years before our arrival and will continue to do so for billions after we are gone.

    AARI Predicts Arctic Cooling/Ice Recovery To Continue
    By Joseph D’Aleo (h/t to Dr. Gary Sharp)
    Arctic ice extent bottomed out in 2007, and has recovered the last two years as shown by this graph from the University of Illinois Cryosphere. (see chart at link)

    It has returned to very near the 1979-2000 year average (NSIDC). Had NSIDC used the entire period of record as their base period (1979-2008), we would be at or above the average. (see chart at link)

    The most competent polar scientific organization, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg, Russia published recently 3 books summarizing scientific results of climate changes in the Arctic region for the last century. One of them dedicated to Arctic climate. Based on the results obtained they forecast coming temperature and sea ice cover area changes in the Polar seas for the next 10-20 years. (see chart at link)

    The authors showed that Arctic climate change is natural in origin and several orders of magnitude greater than the level of anthropogenic impact on the climate. Estimates of possible changes of Arctic air temperature and ice cover propagation area for the 21st century are given on a basis of the revealed stable cyclic oscillations of 10, 20 and 50 to 60 years.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AARI_PREDICTS_ARCTIC_COOLING.pdf

    ***********************************************************************************

    Earth’s Climatic History
    Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth’s past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth’s history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.
    The period from 2,000,000 – 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 – 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.
    The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 – 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.
    From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 – 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.
    The period from 750 BC – 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC – 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
    The period 900 – 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.
    From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.
    The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 2006. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 2006 most of the anomolies were between 0.20 to 0.63 degrees Celsius higher than the normal period (1951-1980) average.

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

    ************************************************************************************

    Water Vapor Rules
    the Greenhouse System

    Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

    It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

    This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

    Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

    Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

    Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.

    For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

    Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

    1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

    2. Converting concentrations to contribution

    3. Factoring in water vapor

    4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

    5. Putting it all together

    Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

    Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

    Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — both man-made and natural– is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect.

    Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

    Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!

    Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

    Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

    Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
    (see charts and math at link)

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

  104. Wa7th says:

    On a different topic:

    This week while I was surfing the web looking for some decent coverage of the happenings in Cairo, I was struck by the the realization that only eight short years ago I felt paranoid to be browsing Al-Jazeera for war news, as though the feds would be noting it in my “permanent record” that’s been follwing me around since 1st grade. Skip to this week, and A-J appears as though it’s one of maybe three large news organizations in the world that isn’t fueled entirely by propaganda, puerile titillation, and product placement stories, and none of the others is based in the USA. Not that A-J is any more credible than it was then, but this week few others would know what the word “credibility” means.

    Oh, and while I’m ranting about about infomercialtainment conglomerates masquerading as news organizations, does anyone here think NBC Comcast is a less horrible idea than NBC General Electric was?

    Sleep well, o’ me droogs

  105. dcpetterson says:

    Gator, thanks for those thoughts.

    You ask, “The question is – Is it anthropogenic?”

    The answer is, “Yes.”

    We know that additional carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere traps heat. Sunlight penetrates the air, and heats the ground. Carbon dioxide prevents the heat from escaping to space. This is fundamental physics.

    Humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere beyond any level in nearly a hundred millions years. Simple physics dictates the result.

    Of course, the ecosystem is complex. For instance, excess CO2 encourages growth of plantlife, which absorbs CO2. But we are also deforesting the earth at a phenomenal rate. There are other considerations as well. I suggest you read some of the technical papers, which are widely available on the Internet.

    The short version is, Yes. We make a difference. It is arrogant to presume that our ideological beliefs about this trump the scientific data and the realities of physics.

  106. Gator says:

    Hey DC (Shrinkers – I had no idea). How have you been? Wrong as you are on so many things, you know I am quite fond of you and I’ve missed giving you grief. And in this you are wrong as well. Thanks for your opinions, but they did nothing to counter the actual facts and citations I showed. Find something that contradicts what I’ve posted.. the FACTS that I posted and we can debate. Until then it’s really great to ‘see’ you again.

  107. Bartbuster says:

    I think the party identification thing has to do with personal freedoms

    Yes, wingnuts want the freedom to rape and pillage the Earth, liberals would rather not.

    BTW, freedom has nothing to do with things like Evolution, which wingnuts regularly deny.

    For wingnuts ideology trumps evidence. It’s that simple.

  108. dcpetterson says:

    Hi, Gator! I like you as well. Though we often disagree, we do so politely and with mutual respect.

    I don’t have much time at the moment. The basic problem with the argument you quote is the assumption that absolute amounts are more important than critical increments. In other words (I’m making up the following example) suppose human CO2 production accounts to “only” 0.1% of the total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. One could argue that this would be too small to matter. But if the critical tipping point that kills the ecology is 0.005%, then the human contribution would certainly be enough to do it.

    What matters is not the absolute amount, or even the percentage. What matters is where the tipping point is, and whether we have pushed beyond it. 100% of the peer-reviewed articles in the scientific journals say we have. And the evidence of what the Earth has been doing since the Industrial Revolution confirms this.

    Let me also say, reduction of CO2 and other pollutants is a Good Idea for many other reasons, including health. Reducing CO2 emissions would necessarily require reducing dependence on nonrenewable and limited fossil fuels, which also has positive economic and security benefits. There is no long term downside to addressing this issue.

    Sorry I can’t answer your cut-and-paste in more detail now. I’m sure someone else can. The short version is, the people you quote are simply wrong. The actual evidence disputes their conclusions.

  109. Gator says:

    DC

    If suppositions were horses, you’d have a herd. Unfortunately for your argument, suppositions are without value when compared to facts. Find contradictory data and we’ll debate. BTW, notice that when the temps were 1-2 degrees higher than today, the Climatic Optimum, was the incubation (hah) of several great civilizations.

    “By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.”

    But now if temps go up we’re all gonna’ die!!! Really?

  110. Gator says:

    DC

    BTW, I have to laugh at the ‘cut and paste’ line. You guys bust Barts balls because he posts inanities with no facts or data or citations, but when I post facts with citations you make a snarky comment. So which is it that you want… pure opinion or opinion with data to back it up and citations to check that data and those facts?

    Because I thought you made your point when you had facts from various sources supporting your position, not when you simply state your opinion.

  111. Number Seven says:

    Trying to get caught up on this thread… if someone has not already pointed this out.

    “I think the party identification thing has to do with personal freedoms. What greater way to control human behavior on a worldwide scale then the threat of global destruction? The right is leery of it while the left embraces it.”

    GROG, you mean the way the right wing tries to make a small group of religious extremists who maybe, can get their hands on one nuke, and somehow, get it to work, without any real knowledge, and blow up one city, at best, the excuse to torture indiscrimenently (sorry for the spelling, lol), invade, overthrow, etc.?

    The right wing is hardly leery of this, in fact, they embrace it and make it policy also.

  112. Gator says:

    DC

    OMG it just dawned on me. I see your sinister ulterior motive in stopping Global Warming… you don’t want Africa to be lush and verdant again. You are in fact sir, a RACIST!

    LMAO! Just the sort of silly extrapolation that makes politics today so ridiculous.

  113. Number Seven says:

    Hey, at least Gator provides valid links that don’t contradict his arguments.

    I will say this though. Humans have unlocked carbon that has been sequestured naturally over millions of years in a span of less then 200. To deny the impact of that seems to smack of ignorance on the difference between cycles over tens of thousands of years and those over a mere hundred or so.

    But again, at least Gator gets down to the crux of the buscuit: Are humans causing this or is nature?

  114. Bartbuster says:

    Gator, there are 2 problems with your “facts and citations”.

    1. They don’t refute the “tipping point” theory.
    2. They don’t explain the warming.

    Until you find a more compelling theory than AGW, you’re not going to be taken seriously.

  115. Gator,
    You say that global warming itself has been settled. Yet an awful lot of your party peers seem to disagree on this fundamental point. What do you know that other conservatives on this site do not know? What do you know that the leading spokespeople in the tea party do not know?

  116. Mr. Universe says:

    I go to a party with friends and you guys get started on my favourite topic? Will talk later.

  117. Mr. Universe says:

    Quickly though (I hate texting from my Droid), a thought to Gator’s argument against anthropogenic warming…What if you’re wrong?

  118. dcpetterson says:

    Gator,

    I have a little more time now.

    On your first segment = “AARI Predicts Arctic Cooling/Ice Recovery To Continue” — the first chart does not depict a “recovery”, but a statistical variation. The trend is clearly for decreasing arctic ice. The “Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” (AARI) is being misrepresented in the article you link.

    The second link, dealing with work by Michael Pidwirny & Scott Jones (University of British Columbia Okanagan) dealt with some historical variations in climate. This does not in any way prove or disprove any contribution made to the current warming trend by human-induced factors. Indeed, as you quoted, “The period 1850 to present is one of general warming.” This is a statement of fact, not of causality. Other studies link this change to the Industrial Revolution and its unprecedented production of greenhouse gasses.

    Your third link is authored by Fred Singer. He is known as a skeptic (read: “denier”) on global climate change. He is certainly not objective, and has no peer-reviewed articles on the topic.

    I’m not impressed by the arguments. I tend to trust the people who are are in the field, and not partisans who have an agenda. I personally have no dog in this race other than the lives of my grandchildren. I’m sorry, but I don’t find your links convincing. You are free to disagree, of course.

    As I see no downside to finding a way around the limited and dirty fossil fuels, and quite a lot of upside to doing so, I don’t agree with the idea of being opposed to finding substitutes.

  119. dcpetterson says:

    Gator,

    By the way, it is interesting that the first study you linked implied there is a cooling trend (“Arctic Cooling”) whereas the second tried to explain away the actual observed warming trend as being no more than “normal” variation. Apparently, the deniers cannot reach a consensus as to whether there is a cooling trend happening, or a warning trend which can safely be ignored as part of expected terrestrial cycles. Both of these contradictory thoughts are outside of the mainstream of scientific thought. In contrast, the actual academic community is united in seeing a warming trend, and in seeing it being influenced by human activity.

  120. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma, I’m still waiting for you to apologize for that misquote on the MSNBC “global cooling” thing. Are you willing to admit your error?

  121. Armchair Warlord says:

    The AGW consensus among reputable scientists is absolutely ironclad.

    Anyone claiming that global warming is non-anthropogenic is lying. Anyone claiming that global warming does not exist is deluded.

    And the sad thing is – this is a partisan issue. Somehow the Right has gone from the fine old conservative tradition of respect for nature and the environment to cheering on the active defilement of the same. This is insanity.

  122. Gator says:

    @ MW

    I’m neither a Republican nor a conservative. I’m an actual libertarian. I am for gay marriage rights, for the repeal of marijuana laws, thought DADT was a stupid policy, hate abortions but am pro-choice, etc. etc.

    @ Bartbuster

    I will not engage with someone whose nom de plume and raison d’ etre are to stalk someone on the web.

    @ DC
    Thanks for more opinion. You claim that those facts are incorrect and yet fail to post anything that refutes them. As has everyone else so far. Much opinion, absolutely no facts or citations (other that mine, of course).

    You guys have been arguing with Bart for too long. You’ve all lost your edge.

  123. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    That is your take on the NASA data that Bart dismisses?

    Thanks

  124. Bartbuster says:

    I will not engage with someone whose nom de plume and raison d’ etre are to stalk someone on the web.

    In other words, you have no response for the 2 points I posted.

  125. Gator says:

    @ Max

    Question for you. Do you hit ’em straight in Texas? Because I believe we’ve spoken before in another time and another place.

    As for your question. I believe that surface temp readings are at best extremely suspect. Location, location, location. I think sat info is far more reliable and sat data shows minimal temp change over the last 10-15 years.

    Now I have a question. No one has posted anything to refute the data and facts that I posted. Given that those numbers are correct, please explain how the temps were as much as 2 degrees higher between 5000 BC and 3000 BC with ABSOLUTELY NO ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE? And given that, how can you possibly be ‘absolutely certain’ that this GW is in any way anthropogenic? Absolute logic fail.

  126. Bartbuster says:

    Given that those numbers are correct, please explain how the temps were as much as 2 degrees higher between 5000 BC and 3000 BC with ABSOLUTELY NO ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE? And given that, how can you possibly be ‘absolutely certain’ that this GW is in any way anthropogenic? Absolute logic fail.

    Gator, the fact that we can’t explain a warming period almost 7,000-9,000 years ago (assuming that is true), does not mean that we can’t explain the cause for warming right now. Your “logic” is not nearly as “absolute” as you seem to think it is.

  127. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael:

    BLS appears to be adjusting the underlying polling assumptions without explanation.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/04/unemployment-rate-goes-to/

  128. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, don’t you think you should admit that your claim about NASA not seeing any temp rise in the US was a lie?

  129. GROG says:

    Warlord said:
    The AGW consensus among reputable scientists is absolutely ironclad.

    Anyone claiming that global warming is non-anthropogenic is lying. Anyone claiming that global warming does not exist is deluded.

    I remember DC Petterson saying a while back that any good scientist welcomes and seeks out those who disagree with them. And any scientist who dismisses criticism is not worthy of being called a scientist. He said critique is what drives scientists to perfect their theories.

    But according to many here, if you question AGW you’re a automatically a denier, a lier, and are delusional. That kind of rhetoric does nothing foster the AGW discussion.

    And it’s not a crazy, extreme far right, whacky, delusional belief to question the cause of global warming.

    “In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

  130. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    @ shortchain

    I believe it was you yesterday that mentioned “too cold to snow” and the usual weather pattern, south wind, passage of a low, that brought the most snow to your area.

    A couple of things to show the reason for that.

    Relative humidity: A reason they call it “relative”. The amount of moisture that a parcel of air can hold is dependent on the temperature. Minus 15 degree Celsius (0F) air can only hold about 5% of the moisture of 20 degree Celsius (80F) air. So, though the relative humidity of both parcels may be 100%, the warmer parcel has LOTS more water vapor.

    Fronts and low pressure centers: That low passing was the reason you experienced first a southerly wind, then a northerly one with a temperature drop. Most likely the low is riding along a frontal line. A cold front, so named because it brings cooler temps after passage, is the dividing line on the surface. (A pilot will move through the front behind the line on the ground) It is usually the case that the wind is 180 degrees opposite on either side of the line. The low adds to that effect. Winds around a low (in the northern hemisphere) are counter-clockwise. (Think hurricane) So in front of the low passing west to east (southwest to northeast) is pulling up MORE southerly air, as you point out, warmer and moister, in ACTUAL water vapor content. As the front passes through and the low passes by, the wind will shift to out of the north with both the actions bringing in colder air. The warmer air is rising over the frontal boundary, into the colder air aloft with the snow, in winter, the result.

    Y’all go take a pilot ground school and you’ll learn more about the weather than you’ll EVER hear on TV.

  131. GROG says:

    above: meant “liar”…..not “lier”

  132. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    I believe we have, my friend.

    I believe that surface temp readings are at best extremely suspect. Location, location, location. I think sat info is far more reliable and sat data shows minimal temp change over the last 10-15 years.

    Now I have a question. No one has posted anything to refute the data and facts that I posted. Given that those numbers are correct, please explain how the temps were as much as 2 degrees higher between 5000 BC and 3000 BC with ABSOLUTELY NO ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE? And given that, how can you possibly be ‘absolutely certain’ that this GW is in any way anthropogenic? Absolute logic fail.

    “believe” is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. That opinion may be informed, but still opinion.

    I believe that surface temp readings are at best extremely suspect. ” followed by “ temps were as much as 2 degrees higher between 5000 BC and 3000 BC . . . sat info is far more reliable WHEN THERE WERE NO satellites, while giving BOTH equal weight in forming your opinion is a logical inconsistency. Besides, just of what do you think satellites are taking readings if not the surface of the planet?

    I don’t think that MOST climate scientists will state “with absolute certainty” that AGW is, in fact, anthropogenic. Most tend to follow the graphical data showing the coincidence between AGW and the industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels as tending TOWARDS that conclusion. But the fact that they continue to intensely study the data and trends demonstrates that they have a ways to go before being “absolutely certain”.

  133. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    First: On Fred Singer: He’s got a long history in the manufactured uncertainty business, dating from when the tobacco companies paid him to obscure the relationship between tobacco use and disease (citation — by the company he keeps, shall ye know him). See here also. If you want to know what kind of person Singer is, look here.

    In recent years he’s written quite a lot, but his scientific writings are only “scientific” on the surface. Dig down into them and you discover a careless disregard for the truth. If you were to, for example, look for reviews of Singer’s book(s), or citations to his books, you would discover that his books are universally held in low esteem (this is science-speak for “full of crap”) by the scientific community as being filled with errors, misstatements of fact, and, in general, designed to obscure, not to reveal, the truth. You would find no citations in scientific papers except as bad examples.

    As far as your argument that global warming caused by human contributions to CO2 being “insignificant” — Have you ever seen the video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse? Brief summary: the wind blowing across the bridge caused it to develop an oscillation which, in the end, tore the bridge to pieces. Just how much force do you imagine that the wind blowing across a steel plate exerts?

    The point here is that, in a system in chaotic equilibrium, a tiny force acting over a long period can destroy that equilibrium. So anthropomorphic CO2 pushes the global temperature up. That melts permafrost, which releases more CO2 and methane, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas, which raises the temperature still more, which puts more water vapor into the air, and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. See where this is going?

    You may believe with all your heart and soul that the tiny amount of CO2 that has been released “can’t cause a problem” — but the fact is that the Earth is warming, just as AGW theory predicted. Weather events are becoming more violent, just as AGW theory predicts. There is a growing uncertainty in the onset of seasonal change (heavy fall rains, late frosts), just as AGW theory predicts. There is a growing imbalance in the geographic deposition of precipitation (drought in the southeast, floods in the midwest, perhaps you’ve heard of this) — just as AGW theory predicts. I can tell you from personal observation that farmers up here in the upper midwest are changing the way they plant in response. This is not theoretical, but has practical impacts.

    We value scientific theories by the success of their predictive value. By that measure, AGW is turning out to be a valuable one.

    Here’s the thing: are you really comfortable “rolling the dice” on this experiment, to see just how far the AGW might go? You do understand that, in a system in chaotic equilibrium, it isn’t like pushing a ball up a hill, or compressing a spring — instead, you may end up with a runaway situation (see “permafrost” above), a mass extinction, and a climate that won’t support the current population of the world.

    Personally, given the risk, I think it is prudent to avoid the experiment.

  134. Gator says:

    Max

    Thought so. Great to see you again.

    You asked for my opinion and that was what I gave. Having looked at the location data for the surface monitoring stations, having seen the encroachment of heat islands created by growth, having seen the very odd selection choices for the de-commissioning of reporting stations, I find that data to be unreliable.
    Satellites measure temps in the troposphere as well and show almost no changes in the troposphere temps, a much more reliable indicator of warming than mere surface temps.

  135. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator: “the troposphere temps, a much more reliable indicator of warming than mere surface temps.”

    And why are temps 10 miles above the surface more reliable? By what data do you draw that conclusion? How did troposphere temps effect surface temps 5-8k years ago? What is your take on my last paragraph in my previous comment?

  136. shortchain says:

    If you try and give a whole bunch of citations to refute Gator’s citations to purveyors of manufactured doubt, you end up with a comment “awaiting moderation”.

    Sadly, a person with a careless disregard for the truth can make it up faster than a person with scruples and an analytical mind can debunk it. There’s an entire industry funded by the likes of Exxon, the Koch brothers, and before them the tobacco companies, that thrives on the millions upon millions showered on them to produce the material for people who are simply looking for reasons to doubt.

    There’s a reason why scientists, to an overwhelming degree, believe in AGW while the public doesn’t. The public has been told by the deniers that to combat AGW would impact the public’s life, and they don’t like that. Scientists, on the other hand, are on a quest for truth. (And funding, sure — but they can get funding from Exxon, too. And, if they have a proposal which will debunk AGW through an honest scientific study, they could get funding for that as well.)

  137. Gator says:

    Max

    You are still a wily debater. I think I’ll resisit your admirable effort to change the argument and run quickly from the inconvenient facts that I showed. How about this. Someone on here finds facts that refute the facts that I posted. That way you’ll actually have a basis for your arguments other than … “Because I say so.”

    Because so far that is all any of you have had. Got to run, but I’ll check back in search of an actual fact.

  138. dcpetterson says:

    shortchain, I freed your comment from spamfilter limbo. It was worth doing.

    Gator, the mass of evidence and fact supporting global climate change is truly enormous. Yes, there is an industry dedicated to confusing the issue. You are welcome to show us the peer-reviewed papers that have been published in reputable journals that support the writers you present to us. Until then, I’m content to rely on the data and rationale of people actually trained in the field, rather than attempt to refute people engaged in fringe science and propaganda missions.

  139. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    My good friend Gator,

    I have NOT “run” from the data you presented. In fact, I’ve shown a willingness to ACCEPT that data, albeit conditionally.

    MY QUESTION had to do with the interpretation of the data and a demonstration as to why I should change my acceptance from a conditional. Because the gist is that YOU HAVE NOT PROVED, nor has YOUR DATA ELIMINATED, the contribution of man and the extent of that contribution, to the CURRENT AGW.

    Which is essentially the entire debate!

    I’m NOT changing the argument. YOU, my friend, are the one introducing the efficacy of tropospheric temps. YOU thus should be the one to prove your assertion and “belief”. YOU should freely cite the reasons for your choice of data. Else, by dodging the question as you have done, the reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that YOU are cherrypicking your data, and that that data may be suspect.

    If you can reasonably justify that choice, then YOU add credibility to your opinion. Without that you will get the same scorn and sarcasm that attaches to my friend GROG and my friend Bart when they behave the same.

  140. Gator says:

    Ad Hominem attacks on Fred Singer notwithstanding, I don’t care what you think about his veracity. Your opinion of him means nothing. Refute the data. Not one of you has posted anything to refute his data.

    Again, I will check back in search of a fact refuting what I posted.

    And BTW, saying ‘everybody knows’ or ‘the mass of evidence’ is ridiculous. I am challenging you to find SPECIFIC DATA not group opinions.

  141. Bart DePalma says:

    These questions are what are known as high hanging softballs.

    Mr. Universe says: Tell me, what does Al Gore have to gain from it politically? I’ll grant you, he sold a few books (not unlike Sa…that half term governor of Alaska) but he didn’t need to since he inherited the family farm in Carthage, TN.

    Fame and fortune on the form of an undeserved Nobel, a joke of an Oscar and millions of dollars in speaking fees and selling dispensations in the form of carbon credits. Algore reminds me of a far less charismatic version of the Burt Lancaster Rainmaker character.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

    And what troves of riches do climate scientists stand to gain from their discoveries that humankind is having a deleterious effect upon the climate?

    In the United States alone, $4 billion a year from our government.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/28/the-black-hole-of-global-warming-spending/

    Climate science used to be a forgotten scientific backwater. Now it is a multi billion business where the media asks for your opinion – IF you produce a politically correct product. That is an enormous incentive to create junk science.

    What does government stand to gain from imposing regulations upon large corporations?

    Power to direct the entire economy and redistribute income on a massive scale. This has been a socialist wet dream for over three decades. Go read socialist, green party and blue green alliance writings. I have an entire chapter in my book detailing this foundation of Obama policy in this area including the various self admitted marxists and socialists he appointed to implement it.

  142. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator: “You are still a wily debater.

    To quote you as lead character in the 1973 movie, “You know why I’m here, don’t you?”

  143. dcpetterson says:

    Gator you noted: I remember DC Petterson saying a while back that any good scientist welcomes and seeks out those who disagree with them. And any scientist who dismisses criticism is not worthy of being called a scientist. He said critique is what drives scientists to perfect their theories.

    Absolutely so. And when someone has reliable data and solid logic that contradicts existing theory, that person can almost always go to the peer-reviewed journals, get a paper published, and can often change the world. That the likes of Fred Singer cannot get a paper published indicates either his data is shaky, or is logic is skewed, or both.

    I’m not a climate scientist. I suspect you’re not, either. You can find some refutation of Singer here. I can’t find any reputable scientists who respect Singer’s work. I can’t see much reason to spend any more time on it than I do on Velikovsky.

  144. Gator says:

    Max

    OK, the tropospheric measurements are better because ‘everyone knows that’. They are more accurate because ‘most scientists believe they are more accurate’. They are better because that ground measure silliness is ‘old technology’ and obviously high tech ‘must be better’. That is as much proof for my position as any of you have offered for yours. So that settles that.

    And my assertion must be taken as valid unless you can prove it false. Why is it incumbent on me to enlighten others. Believe what you will.

    And again I await anything that contradicts the data that I posted and still nothing.

    But you know what…why not. See for yourself re: sat accuracy

    ************************************************************************************

    The State of Climate Measurement Science

    October 2, 1997

    Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.

    Why is it important?

    The question is very important, as these temperature measurements from satellites in space are one of our most important windows into measuring and understanding the phenomenon of Global Warming.

    Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth’s surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many – especially the early – computer-based global climate models (GCM’s) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made “Greenhouse Effect”. Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth’s lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced. (Get the latest on the Earth’s Temperature from Space by clicking on the diagram!!)

    What is the “Controversy”?

    Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

    How do we know the Satellite Data are Correct?

    In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

  145. Bart DePalma says:

    I am a little tired of continually being asked to prove negatives concerning AGW and then when I have done so previously so with dozens of links, having regular posters here disingenuously claim I never post sources.

    Time to turn the tables.

    Anyone who supports the hypothesis of AGW, prove it. Here is what you have to prove at minimum:

    1) That scientists are able to offer a statistically reliable average global temperature based upon surface temperature readings despite the facts that enormous tracts of lans and sea are not measured, the coverage of many areas is irregular over time and readings for different areas are taken at different times with different proximities to human heat sinks.

    If you wish to cite to adjusted or harmonized datasets claiming to have adjusted for these enormous problems with the raw temperature database, then you must produce the assumptions underlying the adjustments and justify each addition, omission or adjustment of a weather station reading.

    Good luck with that. The adjusted databases are not open to inspection by other scientists. The leaked CRU data showed CRU arbitrarily duplicated stations showing warming, deleted stations showing cooling and substantially changed the data in stations showing cooling to make them show warming – often creating changes of 6 to 7 degrees. The CRU data notes show that there were no underlying normalization rules.

    2) If you can get past the first hurdle of coming up with a statistically reliable average global temperature over time, you now have to prove correlation. Even under the adjusted temperature databases, while human GHG emissions have grown exponentially over the past century with no pauses or drops, the average adjusted global temperature went up less than half a degree before 1940, dropped less than half a degree between 1940 and 1979, rose less than half a degree between 1980 and 1998 and then plateuaed or dropped depending upon which database you consult between 1999 and 2010 – a period when CO2 emissions went through the roof with the industrialization of China and India. Where is the correlation between the exponential rise in CO2 emissions and the bouncing unverified adjusted temperatures?

    3) If you can navigate the first two hurdles, now you have to prove CO2 emissions cause the so far absent correlation between CO2 emissions and the so far absent statistically reliable average adjusted global temperature. The only evidence of correlation offered to date are a couple dozen climate computer models. In fact, these models are merely hypotheses based upon dozens of assumptions of how the elements of climate interact and how CO2 affects that interaction. Such a hypothesis must be tested against the actual climate. Find me a climate model which has predicted future and explained past temperatures to within a 0.2 degrees Celsius so you can use it to discern the claimed past multi-decade trends of o.3 to .04 degrees. Good luck with this as well as such models do not exist.

    If you cannot accomplish all three steps, man up and admit that AGW remains an unproven hypothesis at best.

  146. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    Sorry but you are simply wrong on argument and debate.

    An unchallenged assertion MAY stand as fact.

    Once challenged, an assertion must be proved by the one making the assertion.

    This prevents the “affirming the consequent” trap.

  147. Gator says:

    Max

    I know. I was being a little snarky, thus the ‘enlighten’ comment. As far as substantiation: see the NASA article. Yet more facts that substantiate what I’ve said and nary a fact in sight from you guys. NASA says the sats are far more accurate. NASA says the troposhphere temps are actually trending down. You got a problem with NASA’s data?

  148. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    Thank you for your citation. Acceptable. But we ARE talking about a difference of “0.03 degrees C” which is an order of magnitude more discriminating that the usual published data of only 0.1 degree C.

    Now, though, with that as a given, please answer the inconsistency between what you cite as “reliable” data from 5-8K years ago without satellites vs “unreliable” current temperatures or even with satellite data.

    Thank you.

  149. Bartbuster says:

    AGW remains an unproven hypothesis at best

    As is ALL science, you dimwit. We don’t even fully understand gravity. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

  150. Bartbuster says:

    And my assertion must be taken as valid unless you can prove it false.

    When are you planning to prove that AGW is false?

  151. shortchain says:

    On the subject of the “1500 year periodicity” that Singer proposes:

    While the Law of Large Numbers says that, given a large enough sample from a distribution, the average will tend to the mean, there is no theorem that says that the probability of being able to select, from a white noise process, a roughly periodic signal of some period is low. In fact, I’ll propose the theorem: the probability of being able to extract such a periodic signal approaches 1 if one is allowed to choose one end of the period over which the selection is to be made. (Hint: don’t bet against this — it’s mathematically provable.)

    Therefore, Singer’s entire premise is revealed as nothing but an effort to obfuscate.

    Fact: The Earth’s temperature, averaged using the best methodologies available, over the period from 1880 to the present, shows an inexorable trend upward — and the trend is turning up. This is no longer arguable, as it’s been accepted by the vast preponderance of scientists with the ability to understand and criticize it.

    We note also that, as all informed people know, the Earth’s average temperature is affected by many factors:
    a) The tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation (not the number of pomegranate seeds eaten by Persephone…) Also by the precession of this tilt.
    b) Wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, which is not precisely circular. (Causes ice ages, according to current theory.) According to this, we should be in a period of ice ages, interspersed with warm spells — and we should be coming to the end of a warm spell.
    c) The output of the Sun.
    d) Volcanic eruptions.
    e) Measurement methodologies.

    All of these and more have been proposed — and demolished — as affecting the observed behavior. We are therefore left with only AGW still standing as the best theory to explain the observations.

    Does this mean that everything is perfectly predictable? Hardly. Theorem: Given any system in chaotic equilibrium, there will be localized (either in space or in time) phenomena which cannot be explained. (For a proof, see the definition of “Chaotic equilibrium”.)

    Bart, I accept your challenge, subject to the proviso that it isn’t you that needs to be convinced, but rather the aggregate of climate scientists. Oh, wait, that means your challenge has already been met and blown past years ago. If you persist, consider: As you have repeatedly shown, if we have to first have to educate you to the point where you can understand the science (which, given that you’ve already been “educated” once, and it failed to take, apparently), we’ll not get anywhere. Then, after we have successfully educated you to understand the science (assuming that’s possible), we’d have to break through your inability to observe those things which disagree with your biases.

  152. Gator says:

    Max

    Core sample use has been used for decades and is considered highly accurate. It is also much less subject to ‘noise’. With ground temp measurements, considering the various issues I noted above, one must assume GIGO.

    14 hours and not one refutation of the data I posted by anyone.

  153. GROG,

    “In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”

    And, of course, public opinion will determine whether AGW is real or not. If all of us just believe, as hard as we can, that it’s not being caused by humans, then everything will be OK.

    Polls are useful in determining two things. First is as a gauge in determining what policy should be. Second is as a means of establishing how well or poorly informed the public is on a topic. Polls are useless in determining factual circumstances.

    So, what you’ve provided there is evidence that the public is poorly informed on the topic. That’s hardly a surprise.

  154. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    You do know that the page you linked to is from 1997? And that the current satellite measurements do show a “marked increase” in temperature as measured from space? (See wikipedia as a start).

    Science tends to move on, you know, especially in a subject which is actively being researched…

  155. Bart DePalma says:

    Grog: “In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”

    Michael Weiss says: Polls are useful in determining two things. First is as a gauge in determining what policy should be. Second is as a means of establishing how well or poorly informed the public is on a topic. Polls are useless in determining factual circumstances. So, what you’ve provided there is evidence that the public is poorly informed on the topic. That’s hardly a surprise.

    Polls are also useful in determining whether proponents of a claim or the claim itself is gaining or losing credibility with the public.

    Grog is offering evidence that proponents of AGW and/or GGW itself is losing credibility with the public.

    It is unlikely that the public has become substantially less knowledgeable about the subject of AGW over a period of only a few years. That would require a sudden mass dementia or die off of those with knowledge.

    Rather, the flood of news – especially overseas where the press is less self censoring about AGW – concerning the series of debunked claims by the IPCC and Climategate has degraded both the credibility of the proponents of AGW and the AGW theory itself. I do not believe that the AGW theory any longer enjoys majority belief in any country.

  156. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    I’m willing to bet a large amount of money that AGW theory enjoys majority public support in Bangladesh (especially in the low-lying portion) and in Tuvalu.

    It’s likely going to take longer to convince folks living at 6000 feet. Probably because of oxygen deprivation.

  157. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    No need to rebut your data, as there are TWO sets: surface and tropospheric. While the data conclusively shows surface warming trend, the tropospheric is stable over the same period.

    You do not dispute this.

    You wish to give greater importance to the tropospheric data than the surface data. That data confirms your opinion.

    Seems the vast bulk of us give more importance to surface data. This confirms that opinion.

    As NONE if us live, work play or have any other activity other than the occasional flight at very high altitude, as because there is insufficient oxygen for humans to exist for more than a few seconds above 10 miles altitude, I hope you will allow that, for me and most, the surface data is more germane.

    Thanks.

  158. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    If the claim is that GHG is causing the atmosphere to retain more solar heat, what atmospheric reason would cause the surface to heat more than the troposphere?

  159. Gator says:

    Shortchain

    So what. I stated in my original post that global warming is happening when related to a time period of 1000 years or over the 18000 years since the end of the ice age. I don’t dispute the trend upward, merely the relationship between mankind and that trend. And the recent sat data shows an upward trend, but one that is less by roughly 25%. – “The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

    My contention is that it is highly doubtful that it is anthropogenic in nature. And no one has posted anything that contradicts the percentages of human produced greenhouse gases that I posted. Or for that matter anything else I posted.

    Much opinion – no facts.

  160. Gator says:

    Max

    The troposphere is not the air at 50,000 feet, it is the band of air extending from the earths surface up to 50,000 feet, so we mostly ALL live within the troposphere.

    “trop·o·sphere   /ˈtrɒpəˌsfɪər, ˈtroʊpə-/ Show Spelled
    [trop-uh-sfeer, troh-puh-] Show IPA

    –noun Meteorology .
    the lowest layer of the atmosphere, 6 miles (10 km) high in some areas and as much as 12 miles (20 km) high in others, within which there is a steady drop in temperature with increasing altitude and within which nearly all cloud formations occur and weather conditions manifest themselves. “

  161. Bartbuster says:

    14 hours and not one refutation of the data I posted by anyone.

    Actually, the info you posted has been refuted repeatedly.

  162. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart,

    Your premise is incorrect. The Earth does NOT get 100% of it’s “warmth” from the Sun in the form of solar radiation.

    Keeping in mind the the approximate average surface temp, the “standard” temp for pilots and scientists is 19 degrees C or about 60 degrees F.

    From UC San Diego on the Radiation Balance:

    “If we were to measure the temperature of the Earth from space, the Earth’s “surface” would show a temperature appropriate for this requirement of energy balance: a measurement of roughly -18 degrees Celsius (about 0 °F). At this temperature, our planet radiates a quantity of heat into space that is equivalent to the amount of energy received from the Sun.

    At this point you may be asking how we can speak of “global warming” when we have just stated that the Earth (as seen from space) MUST stay at the same temperature? And how is it that the temperature of the Earth’s surface is only a chilly 0°F? The key to understanding this apparent contradiction is to remember that we live at the bottom of the atmosphere. As far as the radiation balance is concerned, the lower atmosphere and the surface of Earth form part of a “warm interior” of the planet.

    This is due largely to the radioactive interior of the planet and the heat generated thereby. We have a 7000 degree K furnace 4000 miles under our feet. Molten rock on the order of 1000 degrees C is within 60 miles of out feet.

    Which also is why I disagree with Gator’s choice of data.

  163. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Why should your “contention” — which, I observe, is not bolstered by any of those “fact” things you seem to like — should be given any weight beyond that some random person holds it. Besides, you seem to have missed my comment above, where I pointed out that, in a chaotic system, small forcing functions can produce a large result over time. I decline to discuss a dead issue just because someone doesn’t know it’s dead.

    You like to focus on particular “facts” which you claim are not explained. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, there is no theory about a chaotic system that will explain everything. Focus on whatever details you like. The person who misses the forest because he is obsessed with the tree rings is likely to be eaten by a bear.

    You are unconvinced of AGW. Fine. What you fail to give is an alternate theory. Lacking a credible alternate theory, we are forced to accept, as a working hypothesis, AGW.

    Whether you are convinced is not important. Whether the American public is convinced (at present) is a looming catastrophe for the world. But I can do nothing in the face of the many millions of dollars spent by the denial machine, as exemplified by the funding given to S. Fred Singer by Exxon and others, beyond pointing out that you are mistaken. And to do my best to educate people so that they have the means to analyze such situations.

    Please note: it is not “ad hominem” to point out that S. Fred Singer is a lying weasel who has taken the money of the tobacco industry, Exxon, etc, and has produced nothing but manufactured doubt. It would be “ad hominem” if I were to say that he beats his wife, and therefore should not be believed. I did link to a demonstration of his personal ethics — but only as I said, to illustrate what kind of person he is. Does it not concern you that he is, apparently, profoundly dishonest?

  164. Gator says:

    Off to a street art show. The beauty of living in FL. It is 70 degrees as we speak. A welcome relief from the record breaking December cold that caused my county to be a deemed a disaster area.

    And before anyone asks… the crew of the ISS do not live and work in the troposphere.

    Been fun. See you all on another thread.

  165. Gator says:

    Shortchain are you by any chance an educator? Because I keep hearing “Wah wah, wahwahwahwaaah”. LOL. Sorry I couldn’t resist.

    OK an alternate theory. Hmmmm? OK, how about whatever caused the spike in the Climatic Optimum. Which cause we can’t identify. Ergo we cannot rule out the same forces being at work now. Definitively show the causation for that spike. Definitively eliminate that causation as being in effect this time and then we can talk.

    Until and unless you can do that, you got nothing. Now I really have to run.

  166. dcpetterson says:

    Gator

    The first place you linked to, discussing arctic sea ice, showed clear trends of sea ice decreasing from 1979 – 2009. As in any set of year-to-year data, there are variations, but the trend is indisputably downward, The charts also showed temperatures increasing from 1900-2009. Temps seemed to be subject apparently to something of a periodic wave, but the crest and trough of the more recent wave are clearly higher than the crest and trough of the previous wave. The authors speculate that future waves will reverse and trend lower, but there is no mechanism provided in the article to support that projection. In general, this first link shows sea ice decreasing, and arctic temperatures rising.

    The second place you linked was a history of climate, going back about 2 million years. I’m not sure what that was intended to prove, other than that the earth’s climate changes over time. It may perhaps show that terrestrial climate is fairly fragile, and that small changes can have large effects. At any rate, I don’t see how that article is relevant to the current discussion.

    You may be wanting that second article to imply that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle, since it ends with a statement that the earth’s climate has been warming around 1800. Note that this is in contradiction to your first article, which wanted to claim that the poles are about to get colder. If you wanted to make a point with these two articles, I’m not sure what that point is.

    At any rate, since the second article points out that temperatures have been rising since about 1800, and are expected to continue rising, this does not in any way contradict the current human-affected climate change models. In fact, this article displays exactly data which supports those models.

    The third piece you linked, from Fred Singer, has been repeatedly discussed. shortchain has done an excellent job of handling it.

  167. Gator says:

    One more. The articles I posted were to demonstrate the extremely questionable anthropogenic link to warming. Once again I will say, warming is happening. Using a data set that is 150 years to extrapolate causation for cycles that extend over hundreds, thousands and millions of years is absolute nonsense. In a year or a century or a millenia the earth will be cooling again, no matter what we do.

  168. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator, my bad.

    Sitting here confusing the troposphere with stratosphere!!! Thanks for the kicking!

  169. Number Seven says:

    Too much stuff for me to read so I will have to refrain from commenting on it except to say to Bart, Esq. and his comment about why is the surface hotter then the troposphere: Ever notice that when you wear a black shirt in the sun, you get warmer then when you wear a white shirt.

    My best guess is it is because of UV radiation which has little to react with in the upper portions of the atmosphere. It will react with objects on the ground, thus heating up the ground more.

    Bart Esq., your question is about as silly as asking why does a microwave oven heat the food more then the air inside it.

    And you make a living as a lawyer? 🙂

  170. Number Seven says:

    Max, looks like I made the same mistake. Funny thing, it was Bart who first used the term troposphere. Hmmmmm

  171. Bartbuster says:

    causation for cycles that extend over hundreds, thousands and millions of years

    So far you have provided ZERO evidence that the current warming is due to a long-term cycle.

  172. Bartbuster says:

    Definitively eliminate that causation as being in effect this time and then we can talk.

    You didn’t define a causation. Until and unless you can do that, you got nothing.

  173. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    So you say the reason for GW is “whatever caused” the Medieval Warm Period — which may not have even been global — whose amplitude doesn’t compare with the current observed warming.

    Why? Without a time machine, we may never know what may have happened in some other part of the world which caused the MWP. So in effect you are suggesting a snipe hunt.

    Thanks, but I haven’t fallen for that one since I was 9.

  174. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    I never said that the earth gets 100% of it’s heat from the sun, I simply asked how under a greenhouse gas theory, you would see increases insurface but not troposheric temps?

  175. Bartbuster says:

    OK an alternate theory. Hmmmm? OK, how about whatever caused the spike in the Climatic Optimum. Which cause we can’t identify. Ergo we cannot rule out the same forces being at work now. Definitively show the causation for that spike. Definitively eliminate that causation as being in effect this time and then we can talk.

    This pantload is the classic example of AGW denier “logic”.

  176. shortchain says:

    Actually, it would be a lot easier to figure out what’s causing the current warming (which we can actually observe in real time) and then, from that knowledge, try to figure out what caused the MWP. I’d hazard a guess that perhaps an undetected hyperactive volcano in some as-yet-unknown location spewed an enormous amount of CO2, then blew its top, the resulting dust causing the Little Ice Age (which immediately followed the MWP).

    Probably in Antarctica. Gator, apply for a grant. We’ll hold your hat while you are down there looking for that volcano. Be sure to look under the ice cap. Or maybe somewhere down in the ocean depths.

  177. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma, are you yet ready to admit you made up that bit about MSNBC and “global cooling”?

  178. Gator says:

    Shortchain

    Might I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the difference between the MWP and the Climatic Optimum.

  179. dcpetterson says:

    For anyone who wants to delve into the science behind atmospheric temperatures, here are a few good places to start. unfortunately, a couple of them are fairly old, but they still deal with the concepts well. In general, the atmosphere is not heating as much as the surface because it can lose heat into space, and the existence of clouds also cools the air itself. Conversely, the air also acts as a blanket to help keep the heat of the surface in, so the ground itself stays warmer.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7839

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast21jul_1m/

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

    Also, just as important as surface and atmosphere temps, there is the ocean. NOAA has some great information on the rising temperature of the world’s oceans.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl.html

  180. Gator says:

    Shortchain you are very derisive for someone who made such an elementary mistake as conflating the MWP with the CO. Maybe your condescension is misplaced.

  181. Gator says:

    DC and Shortchain

    Impugning a man’s integrity and character in order to cast doubt upon his facts is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And that is precisely what you have done with Singer above. Unfortunately for you, the man isn’t what you must refute in order to prevail. The facts are. And you have failed miserably at that.

  182. dcpetterson says:

    Here’s one of the best places to go on the web to get information on the climate:

    http://arcserver4.iagt.org/climate1stop/

  183. dcpetterson says:

    Gator, I haven’t impugned anything. Once again, I invite you to present for us the peer-reviewed articles that Singer has published on climate change. You are also invited to present the reasons (in their own words) why climate scientists do or do not accept his theories.

    shortchain has explained why his ideas don’t work mathematically, in addition to showing that his past history makes it plain his work can’t be trusted to be objective.

  184. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Sue me. I’m a mathematician, not intimately familiar with denialist terminology. So what you meant was the “Holocene Climatic Optimum.” Fine.

    Your response to “let’s figure out what’s happening now, where we can actually observe what’s happening, is to say “let’s jump in our time machine and go back perhaps 40,000 years”?

    I didn’t think you could mean that. You do understand that, the farther back you go, the less reliable the temperature data is? ( This is a new one for me. I was familiar with the “MWP” which is also a “peak in the climatic optimum” — the idea that we need to go back 40000 years is just …weird).

    Hey, I’ll have to go. No more time to devote to this waste of effort.

  185. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart,

    The same way the air one foot above the surface of an object is cooler than the mirror itself. One is a better “sink” while one transmits through. You could also look at absorption and transmission in IR energy bands.

  186. Bartbuster says:

    OK an alternate theory. Hmmmm? OK, how about whatever caused the spike in the Climatic Optimum. Which cause we can’t identify. Ergo we cannot rule out the same forces being at work now. Definitively show the causation for that spike. Definitively eliminate that causation as being in effect this time and then we can talk.

    Until and unless you can do that, you got nothing.

    Gator’s views on global warming run through a BS filter:

    I have no idea what is causing global warming and YOU CAN’T PROVE ME WRONG!!

  187. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Y’all take a break and look at this .

    Another pilot friend sent it and it’s cooler than a witches ti . . . Er. No, well, it cooler than an ice crystal in a Slurpee floating in a bowl of liquid nitrogen in Antartica.

  188. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Apparently, there have been several spikes in the “climatic optimum”, including one 40 megayears ago. That one has now been traced to a rise in CO2 levels (what a shock.) They don’t know for certain how much the CO2 increased — their estimates are rather iffy — but they think it might have been double the prevailing levels. Assuming that it’s the same as the pre-industrial levels, which were about 260-280ppm, if we hit 500 (which, at current rates — which may not hold, either being too low or too high — may be in about 20 years) means we’ll have exceeded any value in the past 60 million years.

    Whooo-hoo! We’re number 1! Biggest mass extinction in history, here we come!

    Of course, the Holocene spike, which was the one you are focused on, was different. It seems to have been caused by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit. (See wikipedia as a starting point). But that one wasn’t nearly the size of the one 40 megayears ago.

    I’m still a bit puzzled by this deep concern with events of ancient history when we have unfolding before us a historic event — but FWIW, there you are.

    My posting is going to be intermittent for a while. Have fun.

  189. dcpetterson says:

    Gator, you made a comment a while back that deserves a response:

    …notice that when the temps were 1-2 degrees higher than today, the Climatic Optimum, was the incubation (hah) of several great civilizations.

    “By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.”

    But now if temps go up we’re all gonna’ die!!! Really?

    No, we’re not all gonna die. That’s not what the climate scientists are saying. They’re saying there will be massive changes in the climate — which means the growing season, the places where things grow, sea levels, rainfall patterns and amounts, much more powerful tropical storms and hurricanes and thunderstorms, radically altered distribution of fresh water, etc., etc.

    Billions of people today live near the ocean. The places they live will be flooded as sea levels rise. Most of Florida, most of New York City, and much of America’s east coast and gulf states will be under water.

    Huge areas of Asia will be without fresh water. There may well be wars fought over access to water. Much of the US Midwest will become a desert, and the fertile areas that now feed corn and wheat to the world will move north, into Canada, if they survive at all.

    There have been massive extinction events previously in Earth’s history (the most famous being the death of the dinosaurs). This could easily trigger another one. The loss of biodiversity and and of wildlife worldwide would be something that the planet may not recover from for a million years or more. Most new medicines and much of the research into new food sources comes from our existing biodiversity. All that goes away.

    The Earth will survive. Mankind will survive. It’s likely that human civilization will survive. But the level of human suffering would be unprecedented. Billions starving and dying of thirst. Massive relocations. The upheaval and chaos involved is nearly unimaginable. There is nothing in recorded history to which to compare such a worldwide catastrophe.

    Thinking very long term, it could be a good thing — it certainly will be an encouragement to human ingenuity, just to survive and thrive in this kind of world. Out current political and social structures, however, will be severely stressed, and probably won’t make it through the crisis.

    The problem isn’t “we’re all gonna die” — well, billions will die, but not all of us. The problem is the massive disruption and worldwide suffering, a collapse of the world as we know it. I would think conservatives would want to conserve some of what we have, and not so casually throw it away.

  190. Mr. Universe says:

    Hey all,

    Sorry to be so uninvolved but I slept in late with someone a lot better looking than you guys and we went and did a hike after brunch. Plus, I’m kinda over this argument. I really have no need to teach deniers to sing. As far as I’m concerned, that argument was over a long time ago, or in lawyer parlance; asked and answered.

    I’m really more focused on how to address the problem of AGW and, more importantly, why there is still resistance to it. That part puzzles me the most.

    Let me know if you have anything interesting on the topic.

  191. shortchain says:

    Mr. U.,

    I’m having trouble with my net connection, so I’m even shorter than usual, but:

    On how to address AGW: Renewable Energy.

    As to why there’s resistance to it, the traditional energy companies are going to fight this tooth and nail, just as the tobacco companies fought to keep the truth about tobacco hidden. It’s their livelihood, after all. By manufacturing doubt, which they have perfected, they’ll delay and delay and delay …

    Name the last person who got rich by pointing out the uncomfortable truth. If they’re exceptionally lucky, they get all or part of a nobel prize, which is peanuts, compared with the money that Heartland, Cato, the WSJ, or AEI rakes in every year in opposition. Which proves there’s more money to be made telling the rich what they want to hear than telling them what they don’t want to hear. The hilarious aspect is that a lot of people with no more money than you or I are supporting the denialist industry.

  192. Gator says:

    Oh great, look at this. I go out to quaff some libations and bed a wench or two, and I come back to find that you’ve squatted and squeazed out a steaming pile of opinion and befouled the place.
    No worries though. I have a large supply of those efficacious opinion disinfectants, facts and data.

    And still no contradictory numbers for the gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Hmmm? Wonder why? Oh yeah, because that would be a fact and not an opinion.

    This discussion has run its course. I enjoyed the reparte and will be back for more. But now being, as they say, well into my cups, I am bidding you adieu and bon soir.

  193. Bartbuster says:

    And still no contradictory numbers for the gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Hmmm? Wonder why? Oh yeah, because that would be a fact and not an opinion.

    I have no idea what is causing global warming and YOU CAN’T PROVE ME WRONG!!

  194. Bartbuster says:

    Oh yeah, because that would be a fact and not an opinion.

    I hate to point out the obvious, but it’s just your opinion that your “facts” are significant.

  195. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Please note that Gator is arguing an ENTIRELY different point from Bart:

    Gator says:
    February 4, 2011 at 19:15
    The question isn’t whether there is global warming… there is. The question is – Is it anthropogenic?

    As I said above: “I don’t think that MOST climate scientists will state “with absolute certainty” that AGW is, in fact, anthropogenic. Most tend to follow the graphical data showing the coincidence between AGW and the industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels as tending TOWARDS that conclusion. But the fact that they continue to intensely study the data and trends demonstrates that they have a ways to go before being “absolutely certain”.”

    Gator, as to Singers citation: It is pretty well established as to the controversy surrounding Mr Singer. Do you have citations from any other credible scientists in the field of climatic research that concur with Singer?

    DC, can you cite scientists that state with absolutely certainty that AGW is primarily due to anthropogenic causes?

    Thanks to both.

  196. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    And bartbuster, please consider Lincoln’s admonition as well.

    Gator is gigging the hell out of you.

    You are producing nothing to counter his argument, but squeals of sarcasm.

    Said squeals adding no more to the debate than those of a pig, just after first frost.

  197. shortchain says:

    Max,

    No true scientist would state with absolute certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow. This appears, at first glance, to be a variant of the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy — except, in this case, it is integral to being a scientist that there must always remain a tiny doubt in even the most settled science.

    As I recall, the best guess, as of the latest IPCC get-together a few years ago, was that it was the consensus opinion that the probability of the observations made up to that time being due entirely due to causes other than AGW was below 10 percent.

    There were significant dissenting opinions, primarily from scientists and organizations whose funding comes from the energy companies.

    If a conclave of those same scientists were held again this year, the estimated probability of alternate causes would be even lower, as, in the interim, we’ve had several of the hottest years on record, and a bunch of other “tells” (predictions made by the AGW models) have appeared. Even so, it’s probably not at the “statistical certainty” level of .95 for versus .05 against.

    It may be confusing, but the most accurate statement is probably along the lines of “98 percent of climate scientists believe, with 95 percent certainty or above, that the rising global temperatures are largely caused by AGW”.

    You won’t find any scientists (well, perhaps a dozen) who will still deny that the global temperatures are rising. That’s become the province of those who not only deny AGW but also observed reality, like Bart. Just as, after the damning large-scale studies on the effects of tobacco use came out, the manufactured doubt industry switched its argument from “nothing there” to “no demonstrated mechanism” — but you can still find some people who don’t believe that tobacco use is dangerous.

  198. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shortchain,

    Thank you for your response. It follows what I’ve stated above twice now. (Gator, Are you listening?)

    The issue arises because, as Gator can argue outside the above context, 50 years ago Wagner was ridiculed by almost every geologist over his theory of plate tectonics and, 100 years ago, the same occurred with Einstein’s Relativity Theory. In both those cases, time proved the “establishment’ fools.

    It is on that hook that Gator hangs his hat. And on which we respectfully disagree.

    Meanwhile, those who deny AGW completely are placing bubblegum on the brim of their hats and throwing them against the wall, hoping them to stick.

  199. Bart DePalma says:

    Max aka Birdpilot says: The same way the air one foot above the surface of an object is cooler than the mirror itself. One is a better “sink” while one transmits through. You could also look at absorption and transmission in IR energy bands.

    The GHG hypothesis is that CO2 and other GHGs are absorbing and thus retaining more solar heat throughout the atmosphere.

    All levels of the atmosphere should therefore retain additional heat per the added GHGs. (We will put aside the fact that the added manmade GHGs are far too minuscule to affect temperature)

    I agree that lower levels will have higher concentrations of GHGs than the troposphere and have a higher proportional temperature increase.

    However, this does not explain why NASA figures based upon surface temperatures show the “hottest decade on record” while the three satellite databased show a temperature drop.

    http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/05/solar-minimums-and-global-cooling.html

  200. Gator says:

    Max

    How about a DOE report?

    *******************************************************************

    Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly. Clouds trap only 14 percent of the radiation with all other major species present, but would trap 50 percent if all other absorbers were removed [105] (Table D2 and Figure D1). Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth’s atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues [106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor. It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html

    ***********************************************************************************

    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

    What the evidence shows
    So what we have on the best current evidence is that

    -global temperatures are currently rising;
    -the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
    -the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
    -there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
    -the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
    -if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
    -the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
    -water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
    determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
    the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

    The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

    References

    Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859–869.
    Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
    Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7–19.
    Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1–22.
    Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.–Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
    Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
    Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17–20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; 614-292-0403; essenhigh.1@osu.edu.

  201. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart,

    “All levels of the atmosphere should therefore retain additional heat per the added GHGs. (We will put aside the fact that the added manmade GHGs are far too minuscule to affect temperature)”

    Incorrect assumption. That would require that “all levels of the atmosphere” be of a consistent chemical composition. Thus the molecular heat absorption and retention also be consistent.

    That is not the case.

    (BTW, heard from Mainer? And did you check you email about the possible hacking? Thanks.)

  202. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    You say: “All levels of the atmosphere should therefore retain additional heat ”

    This is not merely wrong, it appears to based on a belief that the atmosphere is somehow homogenous in temperature. Which would, if true, mean that thunderstorms don’t happen; that hail is impossible; and that freezing rain can never happen. Perhaps you’ve noticed all these things happen, and with a surprising frequency.

    I notice that your blog post was written in 2009, and refers to solar activity. The key quote, which you misunderstood, appears to be “Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract.”

    This refers, of course, to the upper atmosphere. You appear incapable of understanding the difference between the exosphere and the troposphere.

    Since the solar cycle affects temperatures on Earth to the extent of .1-.2 percent, uncertainty in the solar cycle, however wild, cannot come close to explaining the global warming we observe.

    You predicted, based on the NASA report, that the next few winters would be colder than normal. This did not happen. (“Severe” weather, as in “lots of snow” does not mean “colder”, as you still appear to be unable to comprehend.)

    So your blog post is both a testament to your ignorance and proof that your predictions were wildly wrong. Yet you leave it up, apparently unaware that you are just demonstrating your foolishness. That’s funny.

  203. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Please provide a specific citation to “the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago”.

    A lot of us have other work to do, and we can’t sort through a dozen non-linked documents to find it.

    Personally, if a rise is on a 25,000 year cycle, then the current rate at which the rise is occurring appears to be anomalous. (See here, where the peaks occupy 10,000 years (and have a CO2 level far below what are currently seeing.)

    If this is really “current thinking” on the best explanation for GW, it would appear to be ignored by climate scientists. Hence, you should publish it and make a name for yourself.

  204. Bart DePalma says:

    Max

    I am working on the email scam. Thanks.

    No word on our project apart from yours.

    I am writing a chapter for my book today with a SB party inthe PM.

  205. Bartbuster says:

    Gator is gigging the hell out of you.

    You are producing nothing to counter his argument, but squeals of sarcasm.

    Said squeals adding no more to the debate than those of a pig, just after first frost.

    No offense, Max, but I’m not planning to take debating advice from someone who thought the Corwin Amendment meant that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

    Gator’s entire argument fell apart when he admitted that he has no idea what is causing the globabl warming. All he’s doing now is trying to distract you from that.

  206. Gator says:

    SC

    You’re joking, right? Since I am the ONLY ONE in this discussion that has posted ANY FACTS W/CITATIONS and you have done nothing but spew your opinion and demonstrate your profound ignorance on the subject (see MWP/CO comments including calling those SCIENTIFIC CLIMATOLOGY terms denialist words).

    How about you educate yourself on the subject even a tiny little bit before you speak on it again. Read a book.

  207. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    You really make it difficult. I had to do a search of both your links to find out that, although you list several references, you are just parroting from the Essenhigh paper. The general rule is that you should not list references that are not central or mentioned significantly.

    For a discussion of Essenhigh’s mistakes (for which he should not be ridiculed — he’s not a climate scientist), see here. Basically, he’s just wrong.

  208. Bartbuster says:

    I am the ONLY ONE in this discussion that has posted ANY FACTS W/CITATIONS

    You’re also the ONLY ONE who has said he has NO IDEA what is causing the warming. How about if you come back when you actually have something to add to the discussion.

  209. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Pretending that you are the only one who has posted citations and facts is just so precious.

    Books? How quaint. Pretty much everything worthwhile today is published on-line.

  210. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    Dr Esserhigh’s paper is a decade old. While I am not cognizant enough to personally dismiss it, I ask you would a physics paper written in 1900 necessarily supercede Special Relativity in 1911?

    And, seriously, it does NOT purport to answer the “tipping point” question. Nor does it state that human additions to GHG’s do NOT have sufficient effect on AGW as to correspond with the rise in temps seen the past 150 years. A subtle, but very important in your use of the paper in support of your assertion.

    Same applies to the DOE report from 1994 that you cite.

  211. Gator says:

    Shortchain I’m beginning to wonder if you are intelligent. The references were FROM HIS ARTICLE. Those were his references that I copied as part of the post. Had you bothered to actually read it you might have seen that. But then had you bothered to read anything you would have seen that the article which both you and DC attributed to Fred Singer was in fact written by Monte Hieb. He merely quoted Singer once in the piece. Again, educate yourself before you spray your silliness all over.

  212. Gator says:

    Max

    And he is discussing data and occurences that stretch over millions/billions of years so no I doubt that 10 years makes much difference. And those were not intended to bolster my argument, only to answer your request to substantiate the %s in the Singer piece which was not even written by Singer but by Hieb. This is getting tedious.

  213. Bartbuster says:

    The entire premise of my post is tha NO ONE knows what is causing the warming.

    I know. You’re arguing in favor of ignorance, which appears to be your only strength. Unfortunately, it’s still important for us to find out the cause for the warming, especially if we are the cause.

    The bottom line is that climate scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of the current warming. If you have a different theory, publish it. If you want to argue in favor of ignorance, there is no reason to listen to you.

  214. dcpetterson says:

    Max —

    shortchain did an excellent job of describing the scientific consensus on global climate change. I agree completely with what shortchain said: It may be confusing, but the most accurate statement is probably along the lines of “98 percent of climate scientists believe, with 95 percent certainty or above, that the rising global temperatures are largely caused by AGW”.

    The anti-science crowd pretends the natural caution of scientists amounts to prevarication — you’ve heard the Creationists say that evolution is “only a theory” and “hasn’t been proved.” In the same way, they use accurate statements such as shortchain’s as a way of pretending there is is a great deal of doubt about the causes of the global climate changes we’re seeing.

    Since most of the public doesn’t understand how science works, the easy path to combating the nonsense from the deniers (not necessarily the right path) is to say that yes, the earth’s climate is changing, and a good part of that change is due to human causes. The better path, of course, is to help people to learn how science works, and to understand what a statement such as what shortchain made actually means. A lot depends on who the audience is, and who you’re talking with at the moment.

  215. dcpetterson says:

    Gator, others have posted facts and citations as well. I’ve provided links to the NASA and NOAA site, for example. The “facts” you’ve posted have been mostly cut-and-paste from the sites you linked. That’s not a criticism, it’s merely pointing out that following the links would have been pretty much the same as reading your comments.

    Most of the facts you cited are not in dispute. You agree that the climate is warming. We are together on that. The facts you cite do, in fact, document that the earth is warming. Good, we agree so far. There is no reason to dispute those facts.

    So, that you have presented “facts with citations” is good, and need not be disputed. We are agreed on most of those facts. You can stop arguing that you are the only one who has presented facts,and, therefore, you are more convincing. Let’s accept the basic fact: The Earth is warming.

    We disagree on the causes. At issue is the interpretation of the facts. Nothing in the raw facts you cite provides an argument against human activity having an impact on the climate.

    Your argument on interpretation has primarily been, “The Earth has warmed before, without human intervention. We may not know why those previous events happened, but maybe we don’t need to know. We have no reason to think the current warming is any different.”

    An argument on the other side is, “We can study the current warming trend, and see what is happening with the Earth now. Regardless of what caused those previous periods of warming, we can see what is causing this one. This time, we have good reason to think the warming is being caused by higher levels of certain gasses in the atmosphere. The increase in those levels is primarily due to human activity.”

    Therein lies the differences in our approaches, not in the re-pasting of facts which are mostly not in dispute.

  216. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    Scientific discovery is tedious. There is a LOT of stomping and tromping around on old turf. Only a few steps extend the frontier. But with lots MORE TEDIOUS stomping and tromping, those few steps into new territory eventually become old ground.

    It’s called peer review.

  217. Gator says:

    Morning DC

    The facts that I posted were designed to show that the greenhouse gas levels
    A. are not as high as most seem to assume
    B. are not primarily CO2 but instead water vapor

    The historic #s were to illustrate that this is a minor temp variation occurence and of no true significance. Also, meant to illustrate the stupidity of saying things like “2010 was the hottest year on record”. Yeah, if you only go back 150 years. Over the last 12000 years about 9000 have been hotter. Those are facts.

  218. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bartbuster said: “No offense, Max, but I’m not planning to take debating advice from someone who thought the Corwin Amendment meant that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

    No offense taken.

    Particularly from one who does not wish to see that, had the South voted as a bloc to ratify the Corwin Amendment, with the substantial support it had in the North, it would have taken slavery COMPLETELY OFF the table as a casus belli.

    But the paranoid Southern oligarchs WANTED to prove the Compact Theory, had done so for 30 years, so THEY CHOSE NOT to take slavery out of the equation. Thus giving them convenient justification.

    Sorry, we’ll continue THIS debate later.

    Please, I beg you, quit just tossing snark bombs and start to add REAL content to your comments, making them actual rebuttals. We agree 90% of the time on substance.

    Remember that.

  219. Gator says:

    Max

    The thing is, we’re not doing research, just posting on a blog. Pretty sure my comments aren’t gonna be peer reviewed for publication. Nor yours or anyone else’s on here (except maybe for a few who might be quoted in case studies in psychiatric journals).

    So when it becomes tedious, I become gone. Catch ya’ll on another thread another time. Go Pack!

  220. Mr. Universe says:

    @Shortchain

    RE: renewable energy policy. Yes, that’s what we’re working on out here. Not only because it makes sense for energy independence in a post peak oil world but because we’re going to have to grapple with the issue of climate refugees in a few decades

    I haven’t really weighed in on the discussion of AGW because I think it’s a moot point. The Earth is round so let’s get past that debate. Plus, I get tired of having to explain how climate change works every time it snows somewhere. If you do want to know more about it visit 350.org.

    Meanwhile, no one has taken me up on my question about AGW:

    What if you’re wrong?

  221. Gator says:

    Mr U

    If I’m wrong Africa becomes lush and verdant and my Orlando area home becomes beachfront.

    What if you’re wrong?

  222. Mr. Universe says:

    What if I’m wrong?

    You mean other than a cleaner atmosphere, sparking innovation in renewable energy before the oil runs out, avoiding the ‘Mad Max’ struggles over dwindling resources, and averting a potential climate disaster that could threaten the existence of humanity itself?

    Answer: hopefully nothing.

  223. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Why, then,copy Essenhigh’s citations? When I’m reading a paper, I scan it first, then look at the citations to see if I recognize any of them. This gives me an understanding of where the author’s been.

    You’ll have to forgive my confusion on being handed a load of crap copied for no reason from one source when you could have simply cited the source.

    I’m thinking the only reason you did it is to confuse people into thinking there were multiple sources when there was, in truth, only one.

    I also notice that you have no reply to the criticisms to which I linked. I also notice that you have no answer to the following criticisms:
    1). If this is a megayear-scale event, it cannot explain the short-term spike we’re seeing right now. The scales are simply not in the same order of magnitude in time.
    2). You have not read, apparently, the demolition of Essenhigh that I cited.

    Please notice that I haven’t exactly buried you with citations here. I’ve kept them simple and on-point, which you consistently fail to do.

    I also notice that the “manufacturers of doubt” engage in the following dishonesties:
    1) invention of new terms for phenomena and concepts which are known by other names (see: Bart referring to “GHG”, which is an acronym for Green House Gas — which is not a theory. We already know that, due to the GHG effect, we exist in an environment where liquid water is common.) Or your “spike in the Global Optimum” (which I don’t fault you for — you seem to have just picked it up somewhere, not realizing that there have been several “spikes in the Global Optimum”).
    2) burying the argument in BS (as an example, citing references which are unnecessary because they are subsumed in another citation). (Bart is largely excused from this, as he understands so little of the science involved — or any science — that he has no sense as to what is meaningful and what is irrelevant.)

    In sum, while pretending to insist on “debate” and complaining about “condescension”, you really should realize that I, for one, am not interested in “debate”. I’m interested in the truth. And what you refer to as “condescension” merely comes from a certain level of knowledge of statistics and probability as it pertains to chaotic processes — a knowledge which I observe that those who are arguing the “doubt” side here seem to lack. Some of them utterly.

  224. dcpetterson says:

    @Gator
    The historic #s were to illustrate that this is a minor temp variation occurence and of no true significance. Also, meant to illustrate the stupidity of saying things like “2010 was the hottest year on record”. Yeah, if you only go back 150 years. Over the last 12000 years about 9000 have been hotter. Those are facts.

    Hey, once an asteroid hit the Earth, wiped out the dinosaurs, killed of 90% of all living things. Global warming isn’t gonna get as bad as that, so we’ve got nothing to worry about, right?

    Yes, there were hotter periods thousands of years ago. You missed my comment at February 5, 2011 at 15:58. Please go read that. It is in response to the rather useless argument that “Hey, before recorded history, things were worse!” That will be small comfort to the billions who will die or be displaced or impoverished when the coastlines flood and the the fresh water in the interior of Asia is mostly gone. Nor will it help the millions (maybe hundreds of millions) whose livelihood has been destroyed because the American Midwest is now a desert.

    We don’t have to wait for something to be The End Of Humanity before we agree it is undesirable.

    And there is no downside to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Cleaner air, getting off fossil fuels onto renewable energy, increasing the security of the United States because we don’t have to rely on foreign sources, creating jobs, improved health — there’s no reason not to take the steps, and lots of reason to do it, even apart from the climate change aspects.

  225. Gator says:

    I am so down with the ‘Mad Max’ thing!

    “Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves.” That is my kind of world! LMAO!

    BTW, in your scenario of being wrong you forgot to mention trillions of dollars wasted on unnecessary regulation and control. A minor detail, but nonetheless germaine.

  226. Bartbuster says:

    Apparently Gator is still promoting ignorance. At least he keeps playing to his strength.

  227. shortchain says:

    Mr. U.,

    If I’m wrong, and AGW is not behind the warming, then the net effect of my proposed solution will be an elimination of dependence on foreign oil, a corresponding decrease in the economic and diplomatic influence of Saudi Arabia around the world, local production of energy products, a spike in research on energy production, better satellite technology, and a cleaner environment, complete with more amphibians and fewer mosquitoes. We’ll still lose the low-lying areas, but maybe we can get a time-share on the White Sea.

    If Gator is incorrect but his preferred path (“do nothing”) is followed, then Gator better invest in a search for a good immunization for dengue fever, malaria, yellow fever, and cholera. And mosquito repellant. Lots and lots of mosquito repellant. Otherwise the enjoyment of his beach front property will be diminished significantly.

    I don’t think there’s even an alternate reality, no not even a Bizarro world reality, where Bart would be correct. Too many internal contradictions. Such a universe would logically implode on creation.

  228. Gator says:

    Sc

    I take back the intelligent remark. You must have at least a modicum of intelligence because it has become apparent that you are in fact a mathematician. No one but a math geek could be so mind-numbingly pedantic and boring. And I could post a dismantling of the foolishness posted at realclimate. Can you say echo chamber? Can you say self-reinforcing bias? But really, what would be the point? You claim to have posted facts. All I asked for was anything debunking the concentration % #s and NO ONE HAS DONE IT. So where you at Mr. Mathman?

  229. Bartbuster says:

    If I’m wrong Africa becomes lush and verdant and my Orlando area home becomes beachfront.

    Actually, your home is probably under water. Of course, that is the case even if you are right, since ignorance also results in the sea level rising. The only difference is that in your world we don’t know why anything happens.

  230. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    I am a mathematician. And a pedant. It’s nice to be recognized for one’s strengths. Thanks for noticing.

    When you say “And I could post a dismantling of the foolishness posted at realclimate” and then say, “but I won’t because I’m tired” (after copying and pasting hundreds of lines so far).

    Just for your information, I interpret it to mean “you win, I’ve run out of stuff to copy and paste.”

    I would suggest that, if you grow tired (like we all do) of individually responding on your own hook, you could do as we do: find a citation where the paper or web page is refuted in detail and post a link to it.

    I would find that useful, as I would follow it and see if I could spot an error. Which I did for the one I posted. Since I had already identified the central flaw in Essenhigh’s argument (which is that H2O doesn’t have along atmospheric life, comparing it with CO2), it was gratifying to see that quantified there.

    Bit if you can’t find anything to criticize my pedantic nature, well, thanks anyway for playing as long as you did.

  231. Gator says:

    Shortchain

    Where do you see in any post, me taking a postion on what we should do? You don’t so saying “If Gator is incorrect but his preferred path (“do nothing”) is followed,” is incorrect. At no point did I suggest a path to be taken. My premise is that there is GW, but there is very real doubt as to the anthropogenic nature. Nothing more, nothing less. If you inferred additional meaning from my posts you were, yet again, incorrect.

    You keep spouting things about ‘science’ so here is a little basic science for you.
    Until you can definitively identify the causation for the previous occurences of the same phenomena and subsequently eliminate it or them as the causation of this occurence, you CANNOT state with certainty the causation for the current event. That is basic logic and scientific research theory.

    I don’t believe that we can effect the GW scenario to any measureable degree. Having said that, we need to develop alternative fuel sources because the KNOWN reality is that we will exhaust fossil fuels at some point in the not too distant future.

    What we should not do is overreact in some panic driven orgy of regulation and taxation.

  232. Mr. Universe says:

    @Gatordad

    BTW, in your scenario of being wrong you forgot to mention trillions of dollars wasted on unnecessary regulation and control

    Actually, not true. I can’t remember the article but a couple of scientists estimated that it was going to cost us more in the long run to deal with the mitigation of GW than it would to deal with it now. One way or another, we are going to pay for the excesses of the industrial age.

    The world will continue. The question becomes, what would you like this place to look like for your Grandkids?

  233. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma, are you yet ready to admit you made up that bit about MSNBC and “global cooling”?

  234. Gator says:

    SC

    Reading comprehension seems to cause you some trouble. I didn’t say I was tired, I said it was pointless because you are intractble and closeminded. I didn’t elucidate on the intractble and closeminded because it is self evident. And math was a good choice as reading seems to cause you issues.

    If it makes you feel better… ok you won. Uummm, what exactly did you win though, if I might ask? Your self respect back by making that claim? LMAO!

  235. Bartbuster says:

    Max, the problem here isn’t my intellect, it’s yours. You are arguing with a person who has nothing to offer. He’s arguing for ignorance. He could make the exact same arguments to claim that gravity doesn’t exist. He could point to the fact that stars at the outer edges of galaxies orbit at virtually the same velocity as inner stars. He could post the stats and YOU COULD NOT REFUTE THEM. Good luck trying to explain dark matter to him. He could also point out that the laws of gravity fall apart inside black holes and YOU COULD NOT REFUTE THAT. Ask him what theory he thinks should replace gravity, and he’ll say that it’s just the way it has always been.

    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    So, the question here isn’t why I’m responding to him with snark, the question is why everyone isn’t responding to him with snark. Until he comes up with a theory to replace AGW, there is no point responding to him at all. I just happen to enjoy snark.

  236. Mr. Universe says:

    And I haven’t flown into MCO (Orlando International) in several years but if memory serves, it’s just under 100ft above mean sea level. You could actually have some ocean front property. Maybe you could sell it to those poor bastards from Key West. 😀

  237. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    You say: “At no point did I suggest a path to be taken. My premise is that there is GW, but there is very real doubt as to the anthropogenic nature. Nothing more, nothing less.”

    Except you cannot avoid the choice of either “doing something” or “doing nothing”. There is no middle ground in that choice. So the claim that you aren’t suggesting a path is false. You clearly are arguing that we should be “doing nothing”. There’s no other interpretation of your statements possible.

    Nobody will argue that there is no doubt about AGW. There’s plenty of doubt — but AGW is the best working hypothesis we have, and, given the down-side risk, we will not be following the path of wisdom if we ignore the science.

  238. Mr. Universe says:

    Here’s another way of looking at it:

    We’re going to go after every bit of combustible material on this planet. Of that, I have no doubt. Unavoidable. But in the meantime, we must be looking at new and renewable resources for our energy needs.

    So, we either use up all the combustible resources quickly and wind up with a damaged ecosystem and a ‘Mad Max’ scenario, OR we regulate what we have left. And one way to do that is tax those who wish to continue to use combustibles for the damage we know is happening to the planet. It forces governments and corporations to look for cleaner, better, alternate ways of doing things.

    Because, let’s face it; if we wait for unbridled capitalism to respond to the market on this one, it may be too late. That’s unacceptable.

  239. Mr. Universe says:

    Bummer. Music world loses an Irish artist. Guitarist Gary Moore died today.

    Black Rose

    One of my favourites. Particularly the harmonic duet in the solo section of the song.

  240. Gator says:

    Shortchain

    Now I am going to seriously call you on this. You don’t have a **** clue what I want or don’t want, or what I think we should or should not do. And the fact that you see this as an all or nothing scenario tells me that you are neither scientific nor reasonable. This is a nuanced situation that requires reason and a nod to reality.

    Please desist from assuming that you know anything about what I think or feel or believe. And from thinking that you can extrapolate from my words meanings that are not specifically elucidated therein.

    And BTW, you really should stick to math. Words betray you. You have apparently mistaken pedantic for erudite. They are not the same. Being erudite is admirable. Being pedantic, not so much. And you are…

    pe·dan·tic   /pəˈdæntɪk/ Show Spelled
    [puh-dan-tik] Show IPA

    –adjective
    1. ostentatious in one’s learning.
    2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

  241. Gator,
    Rather than let us sit here guessing what you think we should do about fossil fuels, why don’t you tell us?

  242. Gator says:

    MW

    Why would you care what I think we should do? What difference does my opinion make?

    Having said that I will reiterate what I already said. Quoting myself from above:
    “I don’t believe that we can effect the GW scenario to any measureable degree. Having said that, we need to develop alternative fuel sources because the KNOWN reality is that we will exhaust fossil fuels at some point in the not too distant future.”

  243. shortchain says:

    Michael,

    I don’t wish to speak for anyone else, but, in the interests of saving you from having search through all the comments, Gator is on record with this:

    “we need to develop alternative fuel sources because the KNOWN reality is that we will exhaust fossil fuels at some point in the not too distant future.

    What we should not do is overreact in some panic driven orgy of regulation and taxation.”

    FWIW.

  244. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Sorry if I stepped on your reply to Michael.

  245. Mr. Universe says:

    Having said that, we need to develop alternative fuel sources because the KNOWN reality is that we will exhaust fossil fuels at some point in the not too distant future.

    I will accept agreement on this as a satisfactory compromise. Let’s go forward from there.

  246. Gator says:

    Since my comment was eaten by the censorship god, I’ll repost.

    Shortchain you know nothing of my beliefs. You are foolish if you believe that you can extrapolate anything from blog comments I make. Please desist in making unfounded and foolish inferences about my beliefs.

    And stick to math. Words betray you. You seem to have mistaken erudite for pedantic. Erudite is good… pedantic not so much. You are not erudite you are…

    pe·dan·tic   /pəˈdæntɪk/ Show Spelled
    [puh-dan-tik] Show IPA

    –adjective
    1. ostentatious in one’s learning.
    2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

  247. Gator says:

    And the pedantic charge is per you own admission. Again, words are not nearly as concrete and easy to manipulate as numbers. Play to your strengths.

  248. Mr. Universe says:

    @Gator

    Our filter automatically rejects posts that have certain curse words and too many links. I have approved your ghosted post.

  249. dcpetterson says:

    Gator, shortchain is not pendantic. Shortchain is educated, and is not talking down to us. Rather than deal with the external irrelevancy of communication style, let’s stick to substance. You’re getting far too personal, and it has nothing to do with the conversation.

    shortchain, I personally love your style. It’s great to converse intelligently with someone who assumes we can understand words with more than one syllable.

  250. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    There’s no need whatsoever to “extrapolate” on your beliefs. You stated them clearly, although you may think you phrased them in a manner to allow plausible deniability. Your paranoia about “regulation” and your “doubt” about AGW, based on copy-and-paste from the usual denialist sources is all that is necessary to figure out where you are coming from.

    As far as “pedant” — you accused me of reading comprehension? I admitted “pedant” — meaning teacher.

    You then went off on the word, extrapolating it (to use a word you seem to think highly of) it into a personal attack. The only truth in what you say is that I am a stickler for accuracy. If that is “pedantic” in your eyes, then I accept the charge.

    As for the rest, I’m thinking you have a bit of a problem with projection.

  251. Gator,
    If nobody’s opinion matters, then this site has no purpose.

  252. Mr. Universe says:

    I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Gator has posited that AGW is not legitimate. He has given credible arguments backed by references (which I haven’t verified). So regardless of how I feel about the subject, I ask the question; is he wrong?

    I think his argument merits honest debate. Are humans causing a global climate collapse?

  253. Bartbuster says:

    Gator has posited that AGW is not legitimate. He has given credible arguments backed by references (which I haven’t verified). So regardless of how I feel about the subject, I ask the question; is he wrong?

    If he doesn’t provide a more plausible explanation for the warming than “we don’t know”, then it doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong.

    Of course, if he thinks we should encourage renewable energy and discourage burning oil/coal/gas, it also doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, since that is the most likely solution to AGW.

  254. shortchain says:

    Mr. U.,

    If you really want to debate this, Gator’s claims should be broken out into specific claims and their precise citations. As it is, it’s time-consuming to figure out what, precisely, the quantitative argument is, and even more so to figure out where the data supporting it comes from. There are papers that you’d have to go find, there are books you’d have to buy, and there are links which may or may not be complete. There’s no way we can discuss this sensibly unless we all have access to the material.

    I’d say that, if you want to discuss this issue, you are going to need to collect all the arguments, the supporting material, and then make an itemized list. It would also be better if this weren’t taking place down at the bottom of a thread. (It takes a while for the entire thread to reload.)

    If you can find a sufficiently patient and thick-skinned doubter, or if you want to play that part, collect all the material and start a new thread. Be prepared for a trial of your patience.

  255. Gator says:

    Shortchain said: “As far as “pedant” — you accused me of reading comprehension? I admitted “pedant” — meaning teacher.”

    ped·ant   /ˈpɛdnt/ Show Spelled
    [ped-nt] Show IPA

    –noun
    1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
    4. Obsolete . a schoolmaster.
    Use pedant in a Sentence

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant
    ***********************************************************************************
    Definition of PEDANTIC
    1: of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
    2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
    3: unimaginative, pedestrian

    You really don’t know when to quit do you? LMAO!

  256. Gator says:

    Shortchain

    Numbers are apparently your thing… words are mine. And I’m sorry if I was rude but you really don’t know much about the science of global warming. That was obvious from your posts. You tried to deflect from your lack of knowledge by backpedaling and saying ‘oh there have been many climatic optimums’. That is silly. We are discussing the holocene epoch and this was part of what I posted:

    “The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 – 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.”

    So there was no mistaking this for say the Miocene Climatic Optimum which occured millions of years ago, not a few thousand. Instead of just admitting you were in over your head you made it worse. You would have been better served to stay out of a conversation on a subject of which you are ignorant.

  257. Bartbuster says:

    Shorter version of Gator’s latest post:

    I can’t explain the warming, so I’m going to distract you with BS.

  258. dcpetterson says:

    Mr. Universe,

    To address your question, Gator is merely quoting someone who doesn’t know much about global warming, but is simply playing with numbers without understanding them. The position Gator is advancing isn’t very coherent and doesn’t make much sense. He likes to say that in certain past eras the Earth was warmer (which is true), but doesn’t want to address what warming would mean today. (The simple fact that the Earth was once warmer in some prehistoric era is supposed to make us not care about what the effects of warming would be today.) Nor does he address any of the causes of the current undeniable warming trend.

    So, on the question you asked — “Gator has posited that AGW is not legitimate” — Gator has not offered any reason to think human-influenced global climate change is not what’s happening, nor has he offered any alternative theories. The only theory that currently meets the known facts is that of human-influenced climate change — that is, the global temperatures are rising due to increases in atmospheric greenhouses gasses, which concentrations have increased due to human activity.

    I would enjoy a thread dedicated to global climate change. It would be nice if there was a coherent alternative view. I’m afraid we won’t be likely to see one.

  259. Gator says:

    DC

    First re: posting ‘someone playing with numbers’. At least I posted numbers to be critiqued. Far more than can be said of you.

    And BTW, those #s were not from Fred Singer. Had you looked at the article you would have known that. You did not. And yet you feel qualified to pass judgement on those very same numbers HAVING NEVER LOOKED AT THEM AND HAVING MISIDENTIFIED THE AUTHOR. Yeah I’ll take your opinion as valid. ROFLMAO!

    Second, the only postion that I advanced is that there is reason to believe that GW is not anthropogenic. Not sure what you find incoherent about that. Comprehension problems perhaps?

    Third, no I don’t care to speculate at what may happen if the earth’s temp were to rise another 2 degrees. My speculation has no value, nor does yours. The difference is that I am aware of that.

    Fourth, you say that because I show that this cycle has happened before that I suggest somehow that you should not care about what may happen. That’s stupid and I NEVER said that.

    Science cannot identify the causation for previous cycles nor for this one and yet you chide me for not suggesting the causation for the current cycle. So climatologists can’t answer your question but you think I should. Bwaaahaaaahaaaa!!! You are a funny dude.

  260. Bartbuster says:

    Shorter version of Gator’s latest post:

    I can’t explain the warming, so I’m going to distract you with BS.

    In fact, science has explained many previous warming cycles with at least the same level of understanding that we now have of gravity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s