Milton Banana

I'm confused. Climate change? A thread talking about record cold. But, its AGW? Global warming mentioned in one post. This is what I don't get, and let me post an elemental example. Rising CO2 plus rising temperatures equals AGW, correct? That is the theory as I understand it. Let's see that in the form of an equation. a = rising CO2 b = rising temperatures equals c AGW or "climate change." a + b = c But, this thread seems to equate falling temperatures with AGW © as well. This is where you lose me. a = rising CO2 b = falling temperatures c = AGW or "climate change a + -b = c The second equation still equals c. The very same outcome of the first equation. That's not possible. Its just not possible. Elementally speaking.

I may or may not agree with your article. I would have to read it before commenting. Using Grist as a credible source for anything is questionable. Grist is funded by V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation who funds dozens of activist groups who are not based in science. They are based upon agenda driven political and money making efforts. The Rasmussen Foundation itself is awashed in over 93 million dollars. Sounds like fat cat corperations to me. Here is their mission. Founded in 1991, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation’s (VKRF) work is based on the premise that since human activity lies at the core of most current environmental problems then human creativity and collaboration are at the heart of solving the problems these activities create. The environmental mission of VKRF is to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient, stable, and sustainable planet. We believe best practices for promoting sustainability will be most effectively developed through an integrated systems approach and one which furthers the involvement of an informed public in environmental decision making. This tells you where this foundation sits before they tell you where they stand. They are not about objective science. The V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation also gave 825,000 dollars to the Environmental Media Services. Here is a bit about this group. EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. Its all about greed. The money has to flow into the right pockets. Its not about the truth or science. Its about gaming the system.

Yes you are indeed correct in pointing out temperature and CO2 have risen since 1975 at reasonably the same rate. But look at the study again. From 1915 to 1936 a similar temperature increase occured without the same rate of increase in CO2. From 1936 to 1975 temperatures fell without a similar CO2 decrease. For a full two thirds of this study CO2 and temperture don't seem to be linked. If I were a climate scientist I would be focused on 1936 to 1975 because a solution could exsist in those years. I am impressed greenman. You frame this discussion in the correct fashion by using the term hypothesis. I completely admit what I present here confirms or denies nothing. But, for the sake of argument lets look at another study presented in graph form. This is the same temperature study compared to ocean temperatures. The AMO is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, and the PDO is the Pacific decadal oscillation. Both run positive and negative. Warmer and cooler depending what is going on as the conveyers turns over. As you can see they match completely. So it would seem atmospheric temperature is much more a function of ocean temperature (that part of the system that holds photons the longest) instead of CO2 content in the atmosphere. I have a theory on the first studies results from 1975 to present. If I have time and if interest in this thread continues perhaps I'll share it.

What might those "other variables" be? My graph again clearly shows temperature has not risen linearly with CO2. But then you go on and quite accurately describe our system as a non linear system. This means, essentially, that the response of a system is not directly proportional to a change in the system's parameters. Sometimes a small change in a parameter will cause a very large change in the system, and sometimes a large change in a parameter will result in no change in the system at all. Without a clear-cut description of the processes involved (and no such clear-cut description exists for Earth's climate) any model is, at best, a bit of a guess. Non-linear systems defy description by modeling. The failure of climate models to accurately predict changes in temperature is therefore no surprise. That is why methodology is so important. That is why I consider computer modeling in climate science to be GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. So, greenman if I am reading you right your problem is with capitalism. You discount an industry funded study because industry in a free market economy is based upon capitalism. You discount a government funded study because a free market government is based upon capitalism. I am curious. What type of funding would you except as being scientifically acceptable?

Money is green regardless of it origin. To suggest corporate money taints a study is rather short sited. Just as short sited as suggesting government money guarantees a good study. Or any other source of funds for that matter. I prefer to look at methodolgy. But that doesn’t guarantee quality of outcome in the final product either. Track record of past conclusions of that scientist is considered as well. Let me repeat my question from post number 30. Here is the study source I was referring to. Clearly this study indicates mean temperatures fell from 1940 to 1980. This study clearly indicated CO2 was steadly rising in our atmosphere. How is it possible temperatures fell during that time if CO2 is the cause of global warming?

Tried to start an herb garden this year. None of it took. I'm just left with 3 Northern hop plants and one Kent Golding. I home brew so that's why I grow hops.

I was a tobacco user for 17 years. Copenhagen was my vice. My method of quitting was quite unorthodox. I got pneumonia and the drugs I was on made me sleep a lot. Three days later I realized I had not had a chew for three days. Figuring my body was free of it I had to take this opportunity and quit. The mind battle later was not an easy one. I’d say it took a good three years for me to be free of all cravings. One year to be free of daily cravings.

I am a member at www.twospoke.com and www.cyclingforums.com. This is what I ride.

There is a brand new Vestas plant south of my town. Tried to get a job there two years ago. Now there is talk that if government subsidies dont come through they will have to reduce their workforce by half. Limited energy assisted by the government is not the answer. When a 747 is flown from New York to Frankfurt using another form of energy I'll look at it. Nuclear is an option. The Navy solved their propulsion problem with it all right. All the light water reactors were pushed and put in place because the government could make bombs with them. Look into a new plant type that could be the wave of the future. Thorium reactors. http://thoriummsr.com/ [media=] The difference simply put is that when a light water reactor is set up all the procedures are set up to keep the reactor from melting down. If the reactor was in use and everybody just got up and walked away this type would probably melt down. The LFTR reactor all the time and effort is put into keeping it reacting. If everybody got up and walked out this reactor would stop reacting.

I never mentioned CO2 in my post but since you bring it up this whole CO2 theory is a bit muddy in my mind. We are told more CO2 equals higher temperatures. If you look at land based temperature records we see temperatures on the continental United States fell from 1940 to about 1980. They fell enough to create hysteria over global cooling and the coming of another ice age. All of this happened before the EPA and really any regulations. With CO2 steadly increasing in our atmosphere at that time how is it possible that temperatures fell?

20 steps outside my front door is a clam fossil in a rock from one of the most common formations from this part of the country. The White River sandstone. Now what do you suppose that could tell me? That where my house is used to be the floor of an ocean. That indicates huge change. The only constant in this system is change.

Just a small observation. In this thread alone global warming is said to be responsible for flooding and drought. Both extremes of precipitation. How is this possible?