NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I remind you I do science every day. Its not that their different hypotheses as to how GW has developed and how the predictions of GW will affect us in the future- its about keeping bias out of the picture. Each set of hypotheses being tested and retested will be subject to more than just one set of data obtained in one particular way. Rather, this will continue to be an ongoing refinement so as to settle what portions of the different phenomena described in more detail than any skewed politico or pseudo politico could ponder, are legitimately linked to the artificial factors that create, develop, maintain, and affect GW in a very probable concert with the natural cycles that also are capable of creating, developing, and affecting GW.

The issue is not as simple as making one set of conclusions from one particular model- based on actual evidence- but rather unifying all evidence that has been verified to be consistent with evidence that can either support or reject a hypothesis.

Science that is based on making conclusions based on no hypothesis is called fishing.

If anything, as I delineated above in my previous post and have said before, I think that the global warming debate needs to be addressed from the weather and climate points of view to gain a more complete picture as to what is really going on.

So on the weight of what we know now do you think the drastic measures that Kyoto and other treatys propose are justified? I am all for understanding our enviroment and I am four square behind stopping real threats to our well being but I see the man-made GW as hysteria ginned up by politicians.

[HAL 9000 96]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

[GaryC 7]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense.

Edited March 14, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

Gary, there is plenty of evidence supporting my point of view documented in every major scientific journal that publishes climatological hypothesis-driven science.

Remember, its all about what is contributing to each particular aspect of the artificial basis of climate and weather change. Its not about falling into politics but rather about doing politics based on actual fact.

Neither is it about changing our entire energy base overnight. Things done that way are not only impossible, but extremely unrealistic.

Its about doing things a little bit more intelligently.

[HAL 9000 96]

To finish off:

"The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense."

The correlation is direct, yes. BUT, and a big one, there are catalysts and cooperative elements that can/could compound the issue further.

Furthermore, remember, weather. An Ice Age is something completely different (climactic). Think about what was happening post WWII in terms of industry, agriculture, and, where you get your sources from.

Global temperature has increased on average in the last 100 years of weather, and this takes into account the last 30.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

[GaryC 7]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

Gary, there is plenty of evidence supporting my point of view documented in every major scientific journal that publishes climatological hypothesis-driven science.

Remember, its all about what is contributing to each particular aspect of the artificial basis of climate and weather change. Its not about falling into politics but rather about doing politics based on actual fact.

Neither is it about changing our entire energy base overnight. Things done that way are not only impossible, but extremely unrealistic.

Its about doing things a little bit more intelligently.

I keep hearing that there is plenty of evidence supporting your point of view. I also see plenty of evidence that disputes your point of view. I am not saying your wrong and I am right I am saying we don't know yet. And on that basis I am unwilling to do the drastic changes that are spelled out in Kyoto. I would rather see some more definitive proof first.

[HAL 9000 96]

We're gonna have to. Look at what the price of gas is starting to do to our spending habits, groceries included.

Going green is no longer being identified as some tree-hugging hippy thing.

[GaryC 7]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

[GaryC 7]

To finish off:

"The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense."

The correlation is direct, yes. BUT, and a big one, there are catalysts and cooperative elements that can/could compound the issue further.

Furthermore, remember, weather. An Ice Age is something completely different (climactic). Think about what was happening post WWII in terms of industry, agriculture, and, where you get your sources from.

Global temperature has increased on average in the last 100 years of weather, and this takes into account the last 30.

But the last 50 years do not fit the template. Temps went down in the 60's and 70's and the last 10 years it has leveled off. That isn't weather, those are trends that lead to climate conclusions.

Edited March 14, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

Coal accounts for something like 50-odd percent of our national energy production. Its the filthiest thing going - far more so even than oil.

[HAL 9000 96]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

Gary, there is plenty of evidence supporting my point of view documented in every major scientific journal that publishes climatological hypothesis-driven science.

Remember, its all about what is contributing to each particular aspect of the artificial basis of climate and weather change. Its not about falling into politics but rather about doing politics based on actual fact.

Neither is it about changing our entire energy base overnight. Things done that way are not only impossible, but extremely unrealistic.

Its about doing things a little bit more intelligently.

I keep hearing that there is plenty of evidence supporting your point of view. I also see plenty of evidence that disputes your point of view. I am not saying your wrong and I am right I am saying we don't know yet. And on that basis I am unwilling to do the drastic changes that are spelled out in Kyoto. I would rather see some more definitive proof first.

Well Gary... this unfortunately for your point of view is insufficient to convince the real climate scientists that are actually defining through evidence the mechanistic contributors to what is and what isn't affecting weather and climate.

The proof is there in pieces. When the dots get connected in logical sequence is when models are created. Models are based on factual, patterned data, not any particular skew in the scientific process.

Besides, Kyoto will be readily obsolete as hopefully one day the financial aspect that makes your opposition to supporting protecting our environment will become null- we will be forced to go green or go broke AND the advancement of energy procurement will become much more green in itself.

Don't you just wish all that could happen simultaneously AND the proof was easier to read?

To finish off:

"The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense."

The correlation is direct, yes. BUT, and a big one, there are catalysts and cooperative elements that can/could compound the issue further.

Furthermore, remember, weather. An Ice Age is something completely different (climactic). Think about what was happening post WWII in terms of industry, agriculture, and, where you get your sources from.

Global temperature has increased on average in the last 100 years of weather, and this takes into account the last 30.

But the last 50 years do not fit the template. Temps went down in the 60's and 70's and the last 10 years it has leveled off. That isn't weather, those are trends that lead to climate conclusions.

No Gary. By definition that is weather.

Climate defines weather over much larger periods of time, like in the thousands of years.

[GaryC 7]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

Coal accounts for something like 50-odd percent of our national energy production. Its the filthiest thing going - far more so even than oil.

Coal is something we have a lot of. We can clean up the smokestacks enough to stop the pollution. Just stop worrying about the CO2. Coal will give us the room we need to develope other energy sources.

[HAL 9000 96]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

Coal accounts for something like 50-odd percent of our national energy production. Its the filthiest thing going - far more so even than oil.

Funny commercials on TV, no??

[GaryC 7]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

Gary, there is plenty of evidence supporting my point of view documented in every major scientific journal that publishes climatological hypothesis-driven science.

Remember, its all about what is contributing to each particular aspect of the artificial basis of climate and weather change. Its not about falling into politics but rather about doing politics based on actual fact.

Neither is it about changing our entire energy base overnight. Things done that way are not only impossible, but extremely unrealistic.

Its about doing things a little bit more intelligently.

I keep hearing that there is plenty of evidence supporting your point of view. I also see plenty of evidence that disputes your point of view. I am not saying your wrong and I am right I am saying we don't know yet. And on that basis I am unwilling to do the drastic changes that are spelled out in Kyoto. I would rather see some more definitive proof first.

Well Gary... this unfortunately for your point of view is insufficient to convince the real climate scientists that are actually defining through evidence the mechanistic contributors to what is and what isn't affecting weather and climate.

The proof is there in pieces. When the dots get connected in logical sequence is when models are created. Models are based on factual, patterned data, not any particular skew in the scientific process.

Besides, Kyoto will be readily obsolete as hopefully one day the financial aspect that makes your opposition to supporting protecting our environment will become null- we will be forced to go green or go broke AND the advancement of energy procurement will become much more green in itself.

Don't you just wish all that could happen simultaneously AND the proof was easier to read?

To finish off:

"The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense."

The correlation is direct, yes. BUT, and a big one, there are catalysts and cooperative elements that can/could compound the issue further.

Furthermore, remember, weather. An Ice Age is something completely different (climactic). Think about what was happening post WWII in terms of industry, agriculture, and, where you get your sources from.

Global temperature has increased on average in the last 100 years of weather, and this takes into account the last 30.

But the last 50 years do not fit the template. Temps went down in the 60's and 70's and the last 10 years it has leveled off. That isn't weather, those are trends that lead to climate conclusions.

No Gary. By definition that is weather.

Climate defines weather over much larger periods of time, like in the thousands of years.

Then we are back to the idea that the rise in temps over the last 70 years means nothing. That means man made GW is just an unproven theory and based on weather observations. Which is it? It can't work only one way.