The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

You probably think the reports on the lack of any kind of wrongdoing with regards to the veracity of the data at the University of East Anglia are just a bunch of lies, too.

Even if it turns out that satellite was providing faulty readings, we have these fine ground stations, some of which have been collecting data for over a century which provide an equally compelling case for global warming.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/techprogram/paper_159905.htm

And in 2005, noaa warned that "users of climate monitoring and application should exert caution in using the NOAA-16 OLR data."

http://www.weather.gov/ost/climate/STIP/NOAA16_olrdeg_080305.htm

Edited to add: And this is why they shouldn't provide unfiltered data sets to the public. People who can't bother to read about the limitations of the system presume all sorts of things that aren't true. Apparently the wild readings have to do with cloud cover.

Weren't more sever winters in North America one of the earliest predictions of Global Warming?

You got about 14" of right outside your door.  And more on the way.

Attention all. If you disagree with waterboy, you apparently are now a drunk.

If it snows too much, it's global whatever. If it snows too little, it's global whatever. Too much rain, too little rain...blah blah blah. Everything is global whatever's fault.

Face it. Those dems in the video I posted put their collective foots in their mouths.

I'm actually interested in who's blaming this snowstorm on global warming.  So far I've only seen you and Gassy do it, as well as select moronic talking heads on (right leaning) TV.  Has anyone with any sort of scientific rep at all put the two together?  

Related:  a great article from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0203/Winter-storm-raises-the-question-What-s-going-on-with-the-weather) on weather/climate variations that doesn't once mention climate change.

EDIT:  your youtube link may have that in it . . . I can't view them at work.

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  The cooling would be backwards engineered to be a product of the warming.  The cause is eternal until the politicians behind it move on or lose interest and the grants that drive the research evaporate.

Any issue that can rally people around a cause gives politicians power. 

You can support causes or pursue goals.  The difference is that goals have an alpha point and omega point, a start and finish.  Causes go on forever because no amount of achievement can satisfy them. No information can discredit them.  They are emotionally driven.

I pursue my goals while I watch liberals writhe, twist and bend in the eternal dance to push the boulder up the hill.

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  The cooling would be backwards engineered to be a product of the warming.  The cause is eternal until the politicians behind it move on or lose interest and the grants that drive the research evaporate.

The dance is entertaining but expensive.

EDIT:  your youtube link may have that in it . . . I can't view them at work.

This statement is so ridiculous, this can be my only response:

(http://yummymenandkickasschicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/wtf4.png)

Whatever happened to the global cooling from the 1970s. Just askin.

You think?
Look at what is happening now.  By 2010 we were supposed to be in dire straits with shoreline disappearing, extinctions, and a multitude of other warming related catastrophes.  Instead we find ourselves leveling out on temperature even though our carbon output globally has increased.  Manhattan is still around, as is the California coast.  The polar bears are still eating seals and their population is higher than ever. 

Manhattan and California are still around but there are several Pacific Island's that are going, going, gone.  Marshall Islands has one that is just about ready for evacuation.

The Weirding Module at work.

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201003/39157/cuts/dune-weirding-module_480x360.jpg)

Can the Kwisatz Haderach reverse global warming using the weirding module to save Earth?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded#at=30[/youtube]

Amazing. Stupidity of a video producer proven in record time: 5 seconds!

You still need to work on your sense of humor.

He needs to change his name to "Ostrich Boy".....

Hey, whatever happened to the on-coming Ice Age?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btTvJKqpKLo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Lets go back to the 70s shall we.  

BUT Guess what? WE DID put government efforts into place and reduced the ozone destroying chemicals.  WE DID avert what the scientists predicted could have happened. We saved the ozone that helps protects life on earth.

As for the smog and lower level ozone, we, through government regulation, DID indeed reduce their outputs.

Neither of the above actions destroyed our economy.  But they did help us.

They are counting on the the short lie, that people want to believe, winning out over the long truth.  

Remember when oil had to be changed every 2,500 miles.  Now it is 7,000.

It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.

It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.

Hoss,
Synthetic??  You got a 6.1 liter?  Turbocharger.

Or do you just like the idea of synthetic?

I have lifetime 19.95 oil changes with the dealership so I'll let them do it.  

Don't let that ever get away from you.

I finally put my truck into semi-retirement Thursday before last.  Seems like each vehicle I've owned since the first new car I bought in 1982 7000 to 7500 has been the recommendation.  That's been several Fords, several Hondas, a VW, and now a Hyundai.  I notice though there's a "severe duty" recommendation from most manufacturers for filters and oil of 3000 to 3500.

I had guessed a 2000 to 3000 recommendation prior to the mid-50's as oil filter technology was fairly non-existant to ones made with horse hair.  Air cleaners were oil bath and then oiled wire mesh prior to paper pleated filters.  With the old Harleys I used to restore, oil changes and air filter service were supposed to be about 500 to 1000 miles.  However, pre-1965 on the big twin, excess crankcase pressure was used to spray oil on the primary drive chain (there's a chain which goes from the crank to the clutch hub) and there was a simple drip tube to allow excess oil in the primary chain cover to drip out on the ground.  More or less you simply kept adding oil to the bike.  Harley didn't offer an oil filter until 1947 and that was purely optional for many years.

61 chevy 283 car had the cartridge oil filter, with a dry air filter.  I think they kept the oil air filter in pickups until 64/65 change over.

My Shovelhead says to change at 2500 miles.  And use HD filter (designed for low volume, high flow rate).  There is an alternate that will fit, but it is for something like an Austin America or something - still a high volume, low flow filter.  Tried them for a while, but didn't really feel "right".  

Have been using the diesel's oil in car, too.  Working well so far - started at 170,000 miles and now at 240,000.  Diesel at 245,000 also.  Biggest point is to get the better filters.  Used to use Fram long ago, until saw a "cut apart" side by side test of the different brands.  Never again.  Some versions are just about like putting a roll of toilet paper in the can.  Their high mileage premium filter is almost viable.  It is almost as good as the low end of the good ones.  (Wix being the most readily available of the better ones.)


Conan,
What oil did you use in the old HD's??  Have been using the HD oil and don't really like that - mainly due to price.  (right at 100,000 miles on the shovel).  Have used diesel oil quite a bit and it seems to do well.  Valvoline heavy duty and Delvac.

Good compression.  Bad electrical.  Leaky - to be expected.  That's how you know when to add oil to a Harley - the dripping stops.

I had some people swear by AeroShell aviation oil, it's ashless and made for air-cooled engines.  No idea how much that costs these days.  

Good compression.  Bad electrical.  Leaky - to be expected.  That's how you know when to add oil to a Harley - the dripping stops.

HD must have either learned from or taught the British sports car makers how to seal an engine/tranny.

And don't forget Lucas Electrics found on most British cars back then, AKA "The Prince Of Darkness"

HD SAE 50 in the winter, 60 in the summer, no multi viscosity.  Those are actually pretty good oils and formulated specifically for air cooled engines.  Other key to that was I had a great discount at Rte. 66 HD, so it was less expensive than other off the shelf oils.  

It's no wonder the engines needed a rebuild every five and a half miles with oil that thick. ;)

It's no wonder the engines needed a rebuild every five and a half miles with oil that thick. ;)

It thins out pretty much when the oil temp gets up around 200F⁺.

And until then, there's very little lubrication. :(

  Ok, where is the moderator on this forum?  Its frustrating to go to a thread that is carrying on a conversation thats something totally different than its title.

  Ok, where is the moderator on this forum?  Its frustrating to go to a thread that is carrying on a conversation thats something totally different than its title.

It's basically the same problem we have in just about every other motive for legislation.  if it's not going to help re-elect someone with votes, put money into their re-election campaigns, or enrichen their closest cronies, it's simply not going to happen.  This is what happens when we leave it up to government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.

The government doesn't dictate how you meet pollution targets or whatever, only that you do. That's pretty much leaving it up to the free market.

As for the cause of dysfunctional government, it largely stems from the two party system that makes it trivial for a person or organization to support candidates from both major parties and be ensured that someone whose palm they have greased is in office. You'll note that most business PACs don't go past 60/40 in favor of the party in power or that they think will shortly be in power most of the time.

Make it easier for third (and fourth) party candidates to be elected, and the problem should be lessened somewhat.

If oil were not such a fungible commodity, it might make sense to worry about the source.  As it is, why not use up all their oil first.  It leaves local oil in the ground like a savings account.

But then you have to rein in big oil to make it work.  And wouldn't that be an unwarranted government intrusion?

Hearing more again about 'local' supply of oil/gas.  Drill, baby, drill routine one more time.  Ok, sounds good.  Why aren't they already doing that?  Big oil is just sitting on 3/4 of the leases and known reserves that are already permitted in this country. There is no reason to open up any more until those resources are being produced.

So, that would mean it is not economically viable yet.  Hmmmm, maybe a little government funding would help move the process along?  Overcome the hurdles of investing in new technology with unknown returns.

Or just keep on letting big oil have their way and their subsidies to keep on doing what they been doing to us.

And if it were such a critical issue of 'national security' as the RWRE says when talking about ANWAR, then why would they not be doing it already.  Or a year or two ago, like we beat to death then?

I guess I would still submit that $100 per barrel oil is what is spurring drilling.  Back a couple years, when oil was at $30, you remember then how the Baker drill rig count was dropping.  Late 2008.  I guess home drilled oil wasn't such a matter of national security to Exxon, Chevron, or BP back then.  Or else, being the good corporate citizens they are, there would have been MORE drilling going on - in the name of national security.

Rig count history.
http://intelligencepress.com/features/bakerhughes/


Would one of those projects be coal bed methane?  Or shale oil?

Except for that whole non-native invasive plant thing.  Can you spell "kudzu"?

Yeah, it gives about 10 tons per acre.  And marijuana, which is native to this continent gives from 12 to 14 tons per acres.

Hands down hemp is best.

Switchgrass could be a contender at 6 to 8 tons per acre, but requires much more fertilization.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/crops-and-livestock/switchgrass-production-for-biomass/

If oil were not such a fungible commodity, it might make sense to worry about the source.  As it is, why not use up all their oil first.  It leaves local oil in the ground like a savings account.

I have a length of rope that I bought about 20 years ago at Burgess hardware.  It is about 1 1/2 " diameter and the really strange thing is that it is woven in a square shape.  Can't remember his name, but the guy that ran Burgess until they closed told me that his dad (if I remember right) had gotten a bunch of that right after WWII and it had been something used by the Navy.  Was made of hemp.

I have been using small pieces of it for decorative trim applications.   Wish I had a large spool of the stuff.  Stands up outdoors for 8 to 10 years with no treatment before it need replacement.  Good stuff.  Interesting, too.

Hemp worked well for thousands of years.  Yeah, there are places where I definitely prefer synthetic, but not all.  And even George Washington was a huge advocate of hemp!  If we aren't gonna listen to the foremost of our founding fathers, who ARE we gonna listen to???

Don't know about the strength of my little rope.  Would never put much of a load on it, since it is about 70 years old!  (I think it is pre-war manufacture.)  Just like I wouldn't count on a Model A for a cross country road trip, even with a complete rebuild/overhaul!!  (Family member had T and A and told me about trips from Kansas City to Tulsa in early '30s.  Very much more adventure than I want for routine trip.)

I suspect he would have chosen the synthetics if they had been available for many applications.  But I doubt he would have thrown out the old just for the sake of padding the pockets and power of DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and J Edgar Hoover.  But maybe he would.  Hard to say.

I'm sorry, Nate.  If you can't come up with a consistent term to describe the phenomenon, then it isn't happening and I won't be paying attention to any of your so-called "data," or "charts," or "graphs," or that fellow "Al Gore." 

Because after all, science is just like politics:  totally and utterly spinnable.   And therefore utterly untrustworthy.

I hate to rain on your sarcasm parade but collection and interpretation of data is not always as black and white as you might like to think.  Al Gore has little credibility in the world of science for me.

Some folk believe cavemen rode dinosaurs to work.  There's a "museum" dedicated to it.

http://creationmuseum.org/ (http://creationmuseum.org/)

Is parking at the museum free?  ;D

Is parking at the museum free?  ;D

Free parking.  Big admission.

http://creationmuseum.org/

This one is closer - just outside of Ft. Worth.

http://www.creationevidence.org/

Not a dead horse at all.  Cute cartoon, but doesn't really express very much of value.

Even a former denier who attempted to find holes in the (recorded, not reconstructed) temperature record failed to do so.

Wow! One.

Amazing that someone with such an anti-science mindset would bother to do a rigorous analysis.

Got it.  Everyone not agreeing with the favorite answer is anti-science and an idiot.

Nope. Everyone not agreeing with the results of the literally hundreds of studies that caused consensus to form in the scientific community are anti-science,

It's less settled, although still fairly clearly established, that human additions to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing warming. Denying the temperature record, on the other hand, is just being willfully blind to reality.

What would it take to convince you of the correctness of the present consensus?

It would take evidence to the contrary that hasn't been debunked by people respected in the field, a lack of consensus among climatologists, or strong indication that most of the currently accepted data was fraudulent.

Thus, I think it behooves us to counteract the changes regardless of the cause. We have the capability, but lack the will.

I've only read the first few pages (I should be working instead of reading), but this paper, released yesterday, attempts to apply statistics to global warming: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

Not too sure what to make of it yet, but it seems to make an argument that you can in fact relate some extreme weather events as to the overall warming trend, based on their relation to the 1951-1980 baseline. I don't know why the author chose those years.

It may or may not be bunk, but it definitely provides some food for thought.

The problem is that 60 years is way too short a sample time.  It just doesn't provide enough information to make any kind of valid prediction.

Look at that chart I posted on page 8.  For the last 10,000 years, we have moved continuously from +/- 2 deg C from the nominal zero point.  And that has been one of the most stable times in the last half million years.  We definitely have evolved our society in this quiet time.  What happens if the temp goes up to +4?  Well, it is likely then to head to -8 or -10.  Quickly.

We live in an aberrant time.  We may be reverting back to the more normal cycle.  Or we may be adding to the problem in a huge way (very likely) that will cause the changes even faster.  But the cycle is gonna happen no matter what.

That sound you hear?  That's me applauding.

Applauding the end of civilization as we know and have developed it? 

Hate to be a broken record - well, maybe I don't really - the movie mentioned earlier is not entertainment.  It is a prescient documentary.
There will be incredibly huge adjustments.

'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?

What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

I suspect it's called an avalanche. ;)

I suspect it's called an avalanche. ;)

I think Space Aliens did it.  ;D

I think Space Aliens did it.  ;D

I though it was because it started raining liquid nitrogen and it flash froze everything.

That would probably take a very large tank of liquid nitrogen.  And there were more than one that have been found over the years.

The tankers are buried under the ark on Mt. Arrarat.

I've been wondering where they hid those things!  That's great!  Maybe Noah's Ark has been preserved near there, too!  Wouldn't that be cool?

You will have to dig through the ark to get to the LN2 tanks.  Historians may not like that.

Resurrection.  Just had to throw this in for grins and giggles - from my early years.  And in the name of the effort to clean up the state, I would recommend a mandatory deposit on bottles.  

Oregon has done this for years. They tack on an extra $0.05 for soda and beer bottles and cans including two litre bottles at the time of purchase as an incentive to return them.

Resurrection.

This is in Oregon, where the energy usage profile is much different from here.  Like no air conditioning required.  So not an example of what might work here, just one way that solar is being done rather successfully in one place.

Tell that to the people that live on the eastern side of the Cascade Range where temps in the summer hit the high 90's to low 100's from June through August.

All the people that really count live by the coast.  ;D

Tell that to the people that live on the eastern side of the Cascade Range where temps in the summer hit the high 90's to low 100's from June through August.

Oh, that's right, "The Day After Tomorrow" is a documentary. Mind explaining to me how the air temp can drop below -80 degrees F fast enough to freeze the fuel and hydraulics in a helicopter instantly?

 So, your turn; How did the mammoths freeze solid in minutes??

There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death.
In fact, the
healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue
against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the
large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez-
ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed
any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.'

"Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show-
ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow
decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid
odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have
thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE]
Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth
were, "a hundred per cent invention."

"...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least
some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of
asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud-
flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the
Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros
from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood.

So, your turn; How did the mammoths freeze solid in minutes??

Well, when you have beaches like this, I guess you're right.

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1010799.jpg)

http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm (http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm)

Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
« Reply #128 on: November 14, 2011, 11:27:07 am » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 11, 2011, 04:05:15 pm'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?


Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.

What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.

Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.
What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.
And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.

heir, you are the one that claimed that they were frozen to death in mid stride about two pages back, not me.

The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

Yep.  I sure did.  I think that is certainly one possible scenario.  As is falling into the crevasse (been using the wrong word...).  Truth is, I suspect there are several scenarios.  In the overall scheme of things, ice ages seem to have a fairly sudden onset - but is that 2 to 3 minutes or 100 years?  I'm betting that if the ocean current they talk about is slowed substantially or stops due to fresh water - if that is what happens - then things may happen quickly.  Probably quicker than 100 years, but much more than 10 minutes.  Not sure enough information is known about past events to really understand.


The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

As for the mammoths, even encased in ice, with the decay and mummification, the food is talked about as if it is relatively un-decayed.  Freezing with "spoil" vegetation for eating, making it mush, but it doesn't take long - a few days at most above freezing - before experiences advanced decomposition.  The mammoth from the TV show a few years ago turned out to be only some bones and a little bit of flesh left. 

First off I will admit I do not believe in MMGW or have yet to be convinced that it is true. In my opinion it is up to them to prove it is true and not up to me to prove it is false. If I were proposing life changing rules if it were false that would be a different story then wouldn’t it.

Third, would someone please address the following questions that came to mind while I was watching this show:

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.
2. At no point in history have all the variables that exist today existed simultaneously. So how is that scientist can conclude that human intervention is what is causing this when it has happened before multiple times. In my opinion it seems that the cause and effect have gotten switched around.
3. Now this is something I always say to my friends: How is it that I can’t get what the weather is going to be on Friday right but I have to take these “experts” word for it that the weather 200 years from now is going to be unpleasant?

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.

If printed out and overlapped, you can see that EVERY change - up or down - in CO2 was preceded by change in temperature.  

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening?  None of the family has ever encountered anything like that (over 120 years and thousands of acres).  There is a program where they will pay you to take acreage out of production, but the only confiscation any of the clan has ever encountered was for a lake and dam site in Tennessee. 

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

Yes, the government subsidizes taking land out of productions, but only temporarily (like 5 to 10 years depending on the program).

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

What is nearly unprecedented is the speed of the rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature that we've seen without a corresponding change in the amount of solar insolation. This is, of course, due to our digging up massive amounts of carbon-based fuel from the ground and burning it.

It's a feedback loop.

We have such a short time measuring it, it is very difficult to make any kind of statement about historical solar insolation.

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

??

The distance to the sun and angle of incidence of solar radiation at any given time in the past or future can be calculated. This change is apparently much greater than the variations between solar cycles. Physics. It's a grumble.

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening? 

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

I have heard of property owners not being allowed to use their land for anything because it's the habitat for an obscure life form.  Insect, snail, something like that.  When the government or an agency of the government does that, the land should be removed from the tax roles.

There have been a few of those.  I think the count is up to about 3 now. 

Yes, you can use that.  But the local incidental occurrences always trump that when they occur.  Krakatoa for instance.  Whatever event happened at the KT boundary - we would have to burn coal another 200 years and even then probably wouldn't get close.  Yellowstone the last time it blew up.  (Looks like it is starting to stretch out again.)  Cutting down all the rain forests.  And yes, burning all the coal in the ground.  All bad ideas.

Then ya gotta wonder - and I mentioned this before - what happens when we shade 10% or 15% of the planet's surface area with energy collection devices?  (Can't say it will never happen - look how much concrete covers surface area here - we definitely see 'heat islands' around our cities.)  Or use so much wind velocity that it changes the orbit of the planet?  Yeah, I know, wild, out of control speculation, but it is stuff we should be thinking about beforehand, unlike the previous methods of doing stuff.  Like digging up coal and burning it.  Or cutting down all the trees and burning them.

Excuse me if I don't believe your data.  I'm reasonably sure it is not an epidemic but only 3?  I doubt it because I don't gravitate to obscure environmentalist news outlets.

Literary device to make a point using extreme exaggeration.

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.

Oh, and by the way...I am hurt to the quick!!  What a cruel thought to have let alone express in public!!!
(LOL)
Better?

I do not expect my rejection of any data you post to affect you in the least.  It was merely a notification that you have cried wolf once too often.  That story has been around long enough that it should not be affected by your Alzheimer's.

What?  I never cry wolf.  I just report the facts.  Sometimes with a little literary exaggeration for effect...

  Sometimes with a little literary exaggeration for effect...

The world's first hybrid sharks have been discovered in substantial numbers off the coast of Australia, and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/02/scientists-dozens-of-hybrid-sharks-found-off-australia/?npt=NP1

Work for Faux News do ya?

I saw that story on the tele this morning.

It could just as easily simply mean that one breed of shark mated with another.  Ever consider that?

The McRib is no longer available at McDonalds after January. . .

. . .it may be the result of climate change.

WHEW! Dodged that bullet.

I wouldn't say that. We're looking at enough sea level rise to significantly increase surge damage from hurricanes just in the next 20-30 years. That we may have learned enough from some ancient civilizations to prevent desertification doesn't mean the problem is completely solved.

The hobgoblin of the left is a bit amorphous right now

Only to those who disregard climate science. Thankfully, it's not really controversial in most of the rest of the world.

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png)

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

Damn the statistics...

Forget statistics. Damn the facts.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png)

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

And economics.  I remember that not all the countries had to meet the same environmental standards.

It is not the global warming that in the threat we are facing to day.  All the land is a plateau where all air breathing animals can survive.  These plateaus are the flat surface of the mountains that extend from the sea floors and in some cases are seven miles high.  Some will argue that all the land is floating on a molten base. Between the land and the plateaus supporting the flat surface where the animals sustain life are layers of water, oil, gas and coal among other products.  If we continue to remove this material earth quakes will become more numerous.  North East Oklahoma has been closed because of the miming, earth quakes are becoming more of a thereat, Mexico is experiencing the shifting of the subsurface layers that are being released at an enormous rate, removing the supporting subsurface whether it be gas, oil water or minerals.  In the eons of time the planet has been in constant change still the changes have only effected the generations at the time.  Public ridicule of the speaker denies the public of being warned of impending tragedy.  Just stand up and declare either stop decreasing the supporting subsurface or starting building an ark.  This threat is in the future.         

If you've been watching Fox News, you won't know any of this and will instead have been told that it's oh so unfair that we don't keep getting to emit more than twice the GHGs per capita that most Eurozone countries do and almost 5 times what even the Chinese do. Canada and the US are by far the largest GHG emitters on a per capita basis. Ironically, we still would get to emit more than our fair share, just not as much as we do now. Yet still people complain.

OK, so according to wikipedia, the 2008 numbers have the U.S. representing 18.11% of world GHG emissions. Again, this makes the U.S. look as if they are doing a pretty good job at limiting GHG output if you are comparing it to the statistics I gave above.

China was the only county that came in above the U.S. By my calculation, the U.S. emits roughly 3 times what China does, but produces (GDP) 2.5 times what China does. Not perfect, but by these measures the United States is not this gloutenous poluter that we are made out to be by people, just like nathan has done here.

so, we emit 18 percent of the world's GHG, but are only 4 percent of the Earth's population?  And that's not skewed?

So what as it regards to our GDP.  Per capita we're still kicking that donkey as it regards to emissions.  When you base it per capita.

You make it sound like since we product so much more we get a pass on polluting the hell out of the Earth.  Seriously?

Given our deindustrialization, I don't think that GDP is a terribly useful benchmark for our GHG emissions.

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I am not saying that we should just polute willy nilly. I'm not an idiot. But I just think people need to look at things spin this from a different perspective and realize that virtually every other country would like a weeker United States. I for one am not in agreement.

I'm not an idiot.

citation please.

We are not aliens visiting on our way to the next planet,

Do you have proof?

citation please.

Could probably give you statistics that go either way. But again, this is a trend with people that adhere to AGW. Attack the messenger, not the message. Way to stay above the fray though.

No sense of humor...  ;)

Heck I usually wouldn't care, and would think it would be funny. But having heard similar comments so many times, the comedic effect has somewhat worn off. Don't take it personal though. I apologize if I came off a bit abrasive on that last post.

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I have a higher estimation of aliens that what we have done to the planet would suggest.

If you can't laugh at what other people say and take it too serious, it's time to drink a Marshall...

It may be helpful towards the end of understanding why we have such large GHG emissions, but it doesn't speak to the fairness of it or whether we ought to get that large a share.

Furthermore, industrialization did cost us environmental damage. It need not continue to do so. We have the technology at hand to make a wholesale switch to renewables and nuclear plants, but we choose not to despite the obvious economic, public health, and energy security benefits involved.

We got extremely lucky in that the current solar cycle is relatively weak. Rather than capitalize on the opportunity that fell into our laps, a certain school of thought has decided that the slowing warming trend shows that we needn't do anything. As I've said before, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether the warming is caused by us or by natural processes. The effects are just as disruptive either way, so we should at least make an attempt to avoid the consequences.

I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do anything, I just don't think there is really anything we can do. Big difference.
...
He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade.

Since when has technological innovation been a bad thing for the economy? And, uh, yes, the GHG reduction targets are different for each country, as they should be. We weren't all spewing the same amount of GHGs in 1997, nor do we now. It would make no sense to have African countries commit to reductions in GHG emissions when they're emitting far less than their fair share to begin with. I believe in their case, it's a "don't increase your GHG emissions beyond x."

Moreover, it's not even as if the developed countries have to shut down more polluting industries or anything like that. They have the option of buying credits from countries that are meeting the standard with room to spare ...

I saw an interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who is apparently the temperature gatherer for NASA & the Dept. of Energy using satellites. So I assume that means he is taking atmospheric temperature readings, which I think is more accurate than ground level readings. He made the statement that by shutting down half the economy in order to reduce CO2 output, it would only forestall the warming by a hundredth to several hundredths C per decade of warming. According to him that is within the "noise level". So basically, shutting down half the U.S. economy (U.S. only) would produce an un-measurable reductions in temperature increases.

He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade. This from the guy that is actually taking the measurements. This is often a fact that is claimed to be false, but if you can't believe this guy, who can you believe?

Buying permission to pollute.  That sure goes a long way toward  reducing pollution.

And yes, it is true that the US can't, by itself, solve the problem even by flipping the big red button and shutting everything down. That's why global cooperation is necessary and was recruited.

Since you appear to have the time to do a LOT of research, your task for this week is to find out how much energy use reduction around the world would be required to stop global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption....

You misunderstand. The credits come from entities that are below their emissions target. This produces an extra incentive to increase efficiency.

If I run a 1960s vintage coal power plant that emits too much carbon, I have a couple of options to get in compliance. I can either install more efficient boilers and turbines to extract more energy so I can burn less coal for the same output, or I can call up Fred down the road who already did that plus some and reduced his emissions far enough below the cap that he has some left over to sell to me, or I can do some from column a and some from column b and maybe start selling more power.

You're completely right that it does not matter where in the world the GHGs are emitted, and that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works. Those who choose to emit less get paid by those who choose to emit more. Presto, instant incentive to pollute less.

I needn't take a minute. You asked a trick question, but the answer is zero. We need not reduce our energy use one iota.

I hope Dr. Spencer has kept his resume up to date.  He's going to need it but it probably won't help him much.

It's not a trick question.  The answer is obviously NOT ZERO or there would be no issues, unless Jim Inhofe is correct.

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?  It doesn't, it just transfers money. What you see as a solution, I see as an allowance for everyone around the world to pollute the maximum allowed by law whether it be in person or by proxy.

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?

Of course the answer is zero. Energy isn't the issue, greenhouse gases are the issue.

The entity gets to the point of being below the cap through efficiency improvements beyond that which is legally required. And setting a limit to the allowed GHG pollution is exactly what we need to do. There is a finite limit to the yearly GHG production the planet can tolerate. We need, collectively, to not generate more than that. Granted, our estimates may not be perfect, but they can be adjusted going forward as new data comes in.

And why should GHG emissions be flat out illegal? The problem isn't that there are GHG emissions, the problem is that there is too much GHG emission. I'm not sure why leasing of assets is so controversial with you guys?

If this is a joke, I get it. His opinion probably isn't too popular with NASA.

Anyway, how do you explain that Arkansas and Missouri do not cave in since they are riddled with underground caverns? Or Colorado? My best bet for impending catastrophe would be Yellowstone. It is due for activity.

What are you doing in IT?  You need to be pushing your already available in mass quantities, economical, no GHG energy solution

Think of the system as a whole. The energy source itself need not be close to carbon-neutral, although it could be, so long as we either capture the GHGs either before they escape into the atmosphere or after.

If you insist on the unrealistic goal of using industrial processes that emit no carbon we'll obviously make no progress, and we'll lose really nifty things like concrete. If, on the other hand, you examine the system as a whole, you'll see that it's not actually that hard of a problem to solve. Expensive, perhaps, but money isn't really an issue at the moment. You may not have noticed this, but people are presently quite happy to pay us to hold on to their money for a while.

I am thinking of the system as a whole.  I am not insisting on no carbon emissions.  I am insisting that merely moving money around does not solve any problems.  If the GHG problem is solved by merely having someone pay someone else for permission to pollute, there is no problem.  The insistence that a subsistence society needs to have the right to emit the same carbon/GHG footprint as a more technological society or be compensated is something on which we will disagree.  The concept that on a smaller scale, Fred's neighbor is going to willingly let Fred have carbon credits for less than it cost "Joe" to get them is also something on which we will disagree. 

Of course you disagree with the straw man you're building! The credits to be sold don't come out of my donkey, they come from Joe choosing to upgrade his factory in the first place.

What gives us the right to emit more than anybody else? Because we feel like it? We were here first? We're just special?

Regardless, I don't much care for the specifics of cap and trade. It's fine, but there are other ways to limit emissions. I don't really buy that the objection has much, if anything, to do with the mechanics of cap and trade. Whatever, at least we don't have to worry about sea level rise here in Oklahoma.

Straw man.  You're pretty liberal with that term.  Of course nothing comes out of your donkey, you don't buy anything from Joe so his cost to upgrade doesn't cost you anything.  You also don't buy anything from anybody who buys things from Joe.......

Because we are always the first called on to help in world disasters.  Because we grow more food than we need.  The next time some obscure country with minimal GHG emissions needs anything we should tell them to go .....  because we shouldn't have anything to send them since we have no right to pollute any more per capita than anyone else in the world to create those excess goods.  Maybe we should scale back and tell the world to ......  They don't like us anyway.   Let them starve. 

Joe may well decide to upgrade his factory anyway. He certainly doesn't have to. He does so because the credits themselves or a combination of credits plus some other ROI make it worthwhile. Just like any other business decision. Maybe he doesn't, in which case Fred either has to live with his present capacity or make his own upgrades so that he can produce more with the same GHG emissions.

I still don't get why you refuse to recognize that production and GHG emissions are separate things. We can still produce just as much as we do now and increase productive activity as much as we like in the future. We just have to do it by either increasing process efficiency or through capture/sequestration.

Your position sounds like to me like that of those who said CAFE would make it impossible to have nice cars.

Joe may decide to upgrade his facility based on ROI.  If that ROI includes selling credits at a profit, it will be done.  Chances are very good that he will want to sell those credits at a profit.  That will most likely mean that Fred can upgrade his factory less expensively than buying credits from Joe.  Fred can probably buy credits from someone who needs to make no investment to obtain those credits.  That's where the no net gain comes from.

I don't understand why you cannot accept that our present energy/GHG situation is one and the same.  We need to work toward less GHG vs. energy consumption but we are not there and you know it.

He might also look at the present value of the credits and decide it's best to sell them for less than he "paid" for them (which is actually what he paid for them, since he also got a more efficient factory with a lower energy bill out of the deal)

If we were there, this conversation would be pointless. Already much of our energy is generated at a fairly low GHG cost, we just need more solar, wind, and nukes. We could be there in 20 years if we actually worked at it. We seem to prefer prepackaged "solutions" that don't actually solve anything but sound good, though.

I have measured the carbon footprint of this thread and come to the conclusion that it warrants the purchase of a carbon credit.  Send me some money and I'll pick one up.

I wouldn't want you to hurt your back lifting the credits needed for this thread so I will decline to send any money.  I'm just looking out for you.
 
 :D

The only reason to sell credits for less than their present value, including a lower energy bill, is because the buyer is his "brother-in-law".

I didn't say the credits would be sold for less than their present value. They might, however, be sold for less than the cost of the upgrades, because that cost bought more than just the credit. Allocating the entire cost to the carbon credits is silly.

they are delivered in an ornate rose-wood and ivory box lined with baby seal down. 

I didn't say the credits would be sold for less than their present value. They might, however, be sold for less than the cost of the upgrades, because that cost bought more than just the credit. Allocating the entire cost to the carbon credits is silly.

I can see that the upgrade cost to achieve compliance would not need to be included in the credit cost but I will need more convincing that the additional cost to exceed the requirements will not be the price of a purchased credit.

If I buy a gas miser to replace my present car I will get a benefit of lower gasoline expenses.  If I decide to sell half of the car to you (co-owner, not saw the car in half) because I don't need it full time, I will charge you half the price of the car, not reduced by my lower gasoline bills.

You forgot hydro-electric although finding a river to dam without objection will be nearly as likely as building a nuke facility anytime within our lifetimes.  Storage technology will need to be vastly improved before solar and wind can take over.  We have had the discussion before about going to DC instead of AC which would make "batteries" a player.

Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July

The Greenland ice sheet melted at a faster rate this month than at any other time in recorded history, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw.

The rapid melting over just four days was captured by three satellites. It has stunned and alarmed scientists, and deepened fears about the pace and future consequences of climate change.
In a statement posted on NASA's website on Tuesday, scientists admitted the satellite data was so striking they thought at first there had to be a mistake.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.

Wagner and other scientists said because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before they can't yet determine if this is a natural rare event or one triggered by man-made global warming. But they do know that the edges of Greenland's ice sheets have already been thinning because of climate change.

Summer in Greenland has been freakishly warm so far. That's because of frequent high-pressure systems that have parked over the island, bringing warm, clear weather that melts ice and snow, explained University of Georgia climatologist Thomas Mote.

He and others say it's similar to the high-pressure systems that have parked over the American Midwest bringing record-breaking warmth and drought.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-07-25/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-climate-change/56479518/1

If Inhoff heads that way can he bring some of the ice melt back and drop it on Oklahoma please?

He can barely land a plane safely, the last thing we want is for him to drop anything from a plane.

He can drop his senate seat from a plane.

Then send out some real estate people so we can start developing the area...

Find some Vikings (Norse type).  They know how to do it since they did hundreds of years ago before the ice got too thick.

One of the suggestions as to why the Vikings disappeared from that area is that they steadfastly refused to mix with the indigenous peoples who had lived there for generations before their arrival. They considered them inferior. As such, they didn't learn how to cope with the climate changes of that time. "We're by Oden Vikings for Oden's sake. We don't need no stinkin' help!" Gives you pause.

Vikings are raciest!

In other news:

And while Ryan is calling wind energy subsidies "crony capitalism and corporate welfare" and calling green energy a "fad."  (Wonder what oil/coal/nuclear subsidies would be then?), we have reality again poking it's ugly little head into the room....

Since 2008 wind power output has jumped from 25-gigawatts to 50-gigawatts, or enough to now power 15 million homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The wind energy sector currently employs 37,000 workers nationwide including 7,000 jobs in Iowa and 5,000 in Colorado.


(Subsidy is about $0.02 per kilowatt hour generated.)

Less the 180 or so jobs DMI just announced they are cutting with the shuttering of their five year old Tulsa plant.

Ebb and flow.

Shows how badly corrupted our entire economy is by the "Harvard School of Business" model.  2 cents per kwh credit makes a whole industry fold?  (Plus the crash of natural gas prices.)  No way there could be a contrived connection between gas price and credit expiration, could there?

Wind will be back sooner than later - now, will DMI have the foresight to keep that plant for re-opening time?  Apparently not.

Interesting - their website still shows openings at Tulsa plant.  Seems kind of odd.  Guess it would be a bad time to be a welder in Tulsa.

Wonder who is going to buy that facility....?

Wind Energy is a loser....this country needs to get their technology priorities straight. Even Potus Obama is wrong when it comes to wind energy.

Then what is the right priority?

2 cents per kwh credit makes a whole industry fold? 

Bated breath sir.  Oodles of it.

Have you been eating fishing bate again?

Contraction of abated.

I actually knew that.  I was actually expecting a few replies based on the poor spelling skills (not typos) frequently demonstrated on this forum.

Then take it away.

This may explain why so many people in Oklahoma are obese, unhealthy, and why they vote for imbeciles.

Funny thing about your post, aside from it being completely off topic, it's fake. The article cites a medial study that does not exist in the Medical Journal it references. There is a similar article from three years earlier, but it's about arsenic and IQ scores.

Tell us clown, what's impairing YOUR IQ?

Perhaps his choice of news sources? 

impossible to legislate against.

Since we've been cooling It is now to be called "Climate Disruption." We are all still going to die.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/

We must put an end to cow farts and bomb China and India immediately to save the world. 

No, more coal is the answer. Since we're all going to die we might as well do so with the great jobs in Tennessee that it will save us. Coal is a beautiful thing.

I'm telling you though, the answer is earthquakes. My Geology prof always said the two most powerful forces in nature are volcanoes and earthquakes. We don't have volcanoes yet but we have plenty of the quakes here and they're non polluting and impossible to legislate against.

The man-made climate change hoax will prove to be more effective at destroying capitalism than communism ever was ~ Neil Boortz. Just now on Twitter.
This topic is all the buzz.

Weirding indeed:


Turns out excessive carbon dioxide causes our main food crops to take up less micronutrients from the soil. How nice.

Here's the hoax

This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

While the left-wing thought process includes building mobile homes for protection against tornadoes since doing anything, even if it is wrong, is better than nothing.

China is on fire, so lets outlaw matches in America!

More like "my neighbor's house is on fire, but I'm not going to do anything because I didn't start the fire."

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

Can you put your neighbor's house fire out by unplugging your toaster?

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

Not really sure why you think that reducing carbon emissions and sequestration projects are "wrong," given that the proximate cause of the warming is known to be (mainly) caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Then you need limit the amount of coal and oil that China, India, Russia, and a dozen other countries use.  I'm sure they will be open to your mandates.

Sure, I can accept that humans and their actions have the ability to affect the climate to a degree.  However, those at the political forefront pushing the narrative have blown up speculation into outright lies as to the ultimate consequences in order to enrichen themselves and their cronies.  That’s what I cannot stomach about the whole “climate change” narrative.  Stick to facts, not fear, and don’t use it as a political tool.  It’s real simple.

This appears to have gotten all mixed up in the writing....clarify, please...are you talking about Jim Inhofe and the Limbaugh-ists?  Or AlGore?

Since both are doing that - but the Limbaugh-ists have been having better success and making more money on it, so it wasn't quite clear from your note...

No, actually referring to con man Algore and his fraudulent carbon credit scheme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Your money and time would have been better spent on a fire resistant roof.

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

Yep, but now that the disaster is here, it doesn't do much good bellyaching about what could have been or what should have been done. What do we do now? To continue the dead horse of an analogy we've been using, fire retardant foam would be in order. If the analogy were more grounded in reality, I'd say let it burn and build a new house, but sadly the house we're trying to keep from burning down is the only one in existence.

As an aside, the movie looks good.

FOX News:   “We’ve passed the point of no return. Climate change: It is real, the science is true.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/21/daily-shows-jon-stewart-highlights-fox-news-climate-change-alarm/

Now Inhofe has no place to hide...

Interesting flooding map.  I can't get the link to zoom out but you can zoom out and change the flood levels.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=33.6312,-117.9149&z=4&t=3

Let the water level go up 40 meters and there won’t be crime in Compton anymore!

Was just watching COSMOS, and they showed a short bit on Carl Sagan, who talked about the effects of climate change for many years.

Interesting fact; since Sagan talked about it in 1980, we have released over 400 Billion tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.


800 trillion pounds.

Sounds like a lot.  Actually, it is a lot.....

NDGT is really making those deniers' heads explode.  It's been amusing to watch.  As well as the creationists.  Smart dude.

Wednesday's weather was strange. Wet, chilly, and just dreary. Is it the fault of global warming? Climate change? Polar vortex? Bush? Not sure.

Local weather is not climate. Q2 2014 was globally the hottest quarter on record.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/april_may_and_june_2014_is_the_warmest_three_month_period_ever.html

Wednesday's weather was strange. Wet, chilly, and just dreary. Is it the fault of global warming? Climate change? Polar vortex? Bush? Not sure.

It's Inhofe and his ilk that use the term global warming.  Climate change is what is happening around us.

 Perhaps I am just stuck in the 70s and the fear of an ice age.

Oh I understand climate change. Everything that happens in the world, colder in one place and hotter in another, is all signs something is wrong. Is what is happening in Tulsa right now man's fault? Of course it is. Would it be happening if man was never in existence? Of course not. Perhaps I am just stuck in the 70s and the fear of an ice age.

As the "good book" says - "Don't Panic!!"  (Hitchhikers guide....)  As long as you always have your towel, it's gonna be ok!!  The earth is easily able to deal with the stuff we have thrown at it - it has recovered from much worse many times over - the only question is whether WE will be along for that part of the ride....   

Good point. But how will we ever justify the need for carbon credits, no more coal, etc. if the world can recover? More importantly, why should we continue to complain about climate change or blaming Bush for the ice caps melting? And don't get me started on how Faux News and the Murdochian plot is set to destroy the environment here in Tulsa.

In his black-and-white photography series "Scared Scientists," Nick Bowers captures a raw element not often associated with scientific knowledge. For the series, Bowers interviewed a selection of scientists in varying fields, capturing the frightened looks on their faces while they contemplated their findings. The photos are minimalist but intense, each wrinkle and crease pointing to a human unease we can all connect with.

Just when you thought the climate humpers could not get any more bizarre, this happens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/nick-bowers_n_5701202.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xaol-nuttiness.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WgcFHnJHRx.jpg)

(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xaol-nuttiness.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WgcFHnJHRx.jpg)

It's now accepted as Climate Change (though it has had many names), a marvelous jewel of global politics that that has been around since the late 60's, and will likely be around until after we all die.

For the politician it promises power through through the fear of death, and increased tax revenue to provide a means to reward for campaign support.

For the academic it promises a never-ending fountain of grant money for research that leads to supportive conclusions.

For the business person, it offers a never-ending landscape of products and services to be paid in part with the diverted economic production granted from the politician.

You have to admire its perfection, because it is completely amebic, and offers no real successful perspective for refutation. Perhaps some day it will succumb to rust, but not in our lifetime.

I would maybe be worried if there was a specific weather phenomenon attached with global whatever. Instead, it doesn't matter what is happening outside because it is global whatever. Too hot, global whatever. More hurricanes? Less hurricanes? More snow? Polar vortex? All is because of global whatever. When you point out that the predictions do not come to pass? Well, what's global whatever for ya. It's just a joke.

Two specifics for you;

1.  Temperature about 2 degrees higher over the last 100+ years - probably on a par with numbers from the last 4 ice age cycles.

With the staggering increase in BTU output over the last century due to industrialization and transportation, one would think temps would be higher than 2 degrees more if that were the driver.

August and June-August global temperatures each reach record high, driven largely by record warm global oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918111917.htm

August and June-August global temperatures each reach record high, driven largely by record warm global oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918111917.htm

Think Jurassic....

Back to REALLY big reptiles!!

(http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sleestak03.jpg)

Bigger!!

Brontosaurus, etc.

He doesn't want to see or hear anything like that.

People not with the rally went down threw trash on the ground and took pictures. He reposts those pictures.

The lengths that climate deniers will go is hard to believe. They have a right to be uninformed.

Here Guido.

Here's alternatives to Hotair and FOX news if you want.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid)

How do you even know that's a legitimate pic?

How do you even know that's a legitimate pic?

DeCaprio was there as a featured speaker.  He's very passionate about renewable energy and encouraging people to just use less.  I'm sure he is as good a role model as Algore.  Of course Algore only has one home, and an old G4 that has been converted to run on Unicorn farts.  DeCaprio has 5 homes and likes to party on 500 foot yachts with his friend billionaire oil Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Attacking individuals as hypocrites and posting funny pictures of protestors isn't actually any kind of argument against the facts of global warming. You still have zero science on your side.

I thought it was Climate change?  Is it warming again?

You might stick to your day job as clairvoyant and let the climate scientists work on this.

 :o

Science has little to do with it.  This is ancient politics.
Metanoia- To change ones mind, intellectually, affectionally and morally.

They used to contract priests & astrologists to guarantee catastrophe and encourage subjugation.
Today the vocations have changed but the same contracts remain.

Repent, for the end is neigh.
To save the Earth we all gotta try, or else in the future we’re all gonna fry!
We have a solution, Stop Pollution!
Your ambition should be to stop emission.
Snow is melting the Earth is crying!
It can mean disaster if the temperature rises faster!

It's all fun and games until someone loses their freedom. Global Warming Climate Change hasn't run it's course yet, but when it does, the religion science will shift to something else, that is if we are still around after the meteor hits.
 
“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
Margaret Thatcher

I thought it was Climate change?  Is it warming again?

That's idiotic.

Perhaps.

The science was irrefutable back in 70's when the next ice age was coming, and Newsweek warned of the "grim reality" of global cooling.  And back in the 80's when we were all going to die because of a growing hole in the Ozone layer over the antarctic.  We were doomed in the 90s too, when the earth's rain forests held the keys to world survival, and were being mowed down at a rate of "20 football fields a minute."

If I live long enough, perhaps I'll get the opportunity to be an idiot about the scientific validity of next hobgoblin.  I rather look forward to that. ;)

Perhaps.

The science was irrefutable back in 70's when the next ice age was coming, and Newsweek warned of the "grim reality" of global cooling.  And back in the 80's when we were all going to die because of a growing hole in the Ozone layer over the antarctic.  We were doomed in the 90s too, when the earth's rain forests held the keys to world survival, and were being mowed down at a rate of "20 football fields a minute."

If I live long enough, perhaps I'll get the opportunity to be an idiot about the scientific validity of next hobgoblin.  I rather look forward to that. ;)

To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees

NEW HAVEN — AS international leaders gather in New York next week for a United Nations climate summit, they will be preoccupied with how to tackle the rising rate of carbon emissions. To mitigate the crisis, one measure they are likely to promote is reducing deforestation and planting trees.

A landmark deal to support sustainable forestry was a heralded success story of the last international climate talks, in Warsaw last year. Western nations, including the United States, Britain and Norway, handed over millions of dollars to developing countries to kick-start programs to reduce tropical deforestation. More funds are promised.

Deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. The assumption is that planting trees and avoiding further deforestation provides a convenient carbon capture and storage facility on the land.

That is the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is wrong.

In reality, the cycling of carbon, energy and water between the land and the atmosphere is much more complex. Considering all the interactions, large-scale increases in forest cover can actually make global warming worse.

Of course, this is counterintuitive. We all learn in school how trees effortlessly perform the marvel of photosynthesis: They take up carbon dioxide from the air and make oxygen. This process provides us with life, food, water, shelter, fiber and soil. The earth’s forests generously mop up about a quarter of the world’s fossil-fuel carbon emissions every year.

So it’s understandable that we’d expect trees to save us from rising temperatures, but climate science tells a different story. Besides the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, another important switch on the planetary thermostat is how much of the sun’s energy is taken up by the earth’s surface, compared to how much is reflected back to space. The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature.

Climate scientists have calculated the effect of increasing forest cover on surface temperature. Their conclusion is that planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.

In order to grow food, humans have changed about 50 percent of the earth’s surface area from native forests and grasslands to crops, pasture and wood harvest. Unfortunately, there is no scientific consensus on whether this land use has caused overall global warming or cooling. Since we don’t know that, we can’t reliably predict whether large-scale forestation would help to control the earth’s rising temperatures.

Worse, trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health. These emissions are crucial to trees — to protect themselves from environmental stresses like sweltering heat and bug infestations. In summer, the eastern United States is the world’s major hot spot for volatile organic compounds (V.O.C.s) from trees.

As these compounds mix with fossil-fuel pollution from cars and industry, an even more harmful cocktail of airborne toxic chemicals is created. President Ronald Reagan was widely ridiculed in 1981 when he said, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” He was wrong on the science — but less wrong than many assumed.

Chemical reactions involving tree V.O.C.s produce methane and ozone, two powerful greenhouse gases, and form particles that can affect the condensation of clouds. Research by my group at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and by other laboratories, suggests that changes in tree V.O.C.s affect the climate on a scale similar to changes in the earth’s surface color and carbon storage capacity.

While trees provide carbon storage, forestry is not a permanent solution because trees and soil also “breathe” — that is, burn oxygen and release carbon dioxide back into the air. Eventually, all of the carbon finds its way back into the atmosphere when trees die or burn.

Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent.

The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet. In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night. In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

Planting trees and avoiding deforestation do offer unambiguous benefits to biodiversity and many forms of life. But relying on forestry to slow or reverse global warming is another matter entirely.

The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.

Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Climate Science Is Not Settled

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will.

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.

• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -2.99% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Global climate change is real and the greatest threat to humankind and the biosphere.
 
Nations have agreed that the global average temperature must not exceed 2 deg C above the preindustrial value to maintain a safe and healthy planet. We are dangerously close. There is no time to waste.
 
Protection and restoration of tropical and other forests is essential regardless of their effects on climate. Currently, global climate modeling is not sufficiently advanced to predict reliably the effects of changing forests on the global average surface temperature.
 
The primary key to solving the global climate problem is the transformation of our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.
 
Land-use change effects a redistribution of carbon among land, ocean, and atmosphere reservoirs while fossil fuel emission adds carbon to these combined reservoirs. The long-term climatic effects of these two processes are very different. A primary reason for wanting to avoid human-induced climate change is to protect natural ecosystems. Protecting natural ecosystems is an important goal, regardless of their climate effects.

This scientist who worked at the DOE during Obama’s first term also highlights the unsettled science of climate change and points out climatological  computer models are as much art as science and rely on supposition and estimation because the complex interactions of earth’s environment is not fully understood nor agreed upon by scientists.  Hell, even most people who reject anthropogenic global warming agree the climate changes over time.  It always has.  The causes and solutions are hardly settled.

This is the crux of my skepticism with the global warming issue: policy initiatives seem to drive the scientific narrative when it’s apparent we know far less about climate change than politicians and pundits want us to believe. 

Growing polar ice and a relative flattening of warming trends over the last 16 years, especially seem to have scientists at odds.

No matter your bent on climate change, the article is a very good read.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

You both fail to grasp the context of my message from the two articles posted.  Both sources cited believe climate change is quite real.  However, both agree the science is far from settled in terms of cause, remediation, and projection of future temperatures and ramifications.  One even touches on the subject of the increase in polar ice as well as flattening of the warming curve over the last 16 years.

POINT: Climate change science is far from “settled” and climate change models are far from absolute.  The scientific community is in disagreement as to solutions to climate change or even if it can be manipulated.

So your plan of action would be?

We need to see more unilateral agreement in the scientific community as to an appropriate plan of action. 

My plan of action would be to stop using the issue for political benefit.  Indeed, many people are relying on political dogma as to what an appropriate solution is.

We need to see more unilateral agreement in the scientific community as to an appropriate plan of action.  That, in itself, appears to be in doubt amongst climate scientists.  There is much still unknown about how the planet deals with climate variations.

So do nothing?

The articles you are posting in no way are advocating doing nothing. The right mocks the very idea of doing anything and disputes that there is any such thing as global warming while there is no scientific debate that we are heating the earth and there is no arguing that this isn’t bad. This shouldn’t be political and the only reason it is political is because the energy industry is making it so. Your answer of doing nothing IS the position the energy industry is backing. Our own congressman wants to ban the government from even studying climate change.

You will nearly always be able to find points of disagreement in the science, that’s just how science works, but that is no reason to do nothing. The arguments being made in your articles are over what modeling to use, not on if global warming is real, or bad. The argument over the impact ranges from really bad to cataclysmic. The rest of the arguments are what to do about it. There is NO valid argument for doing nothing in the scientific community.

E.P.A. Says Catalytic Converter Is Growing Cause of Global Warming

E.P.A. Says Catalytic Converter Is
Growing Cause of Global Warming
By Matthew L. Wald
Copyright 1998 The New York Times
May 29, 1998

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

WASHINGTON -- The catalytic converter, an invention that has sharply
reduced smog from cars, has now become a significant and growing
cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Hailed as a miracle by Detroit automakers even today, catalytic
converters have been reducing smog for 20 years. The converters break
down compounds of nitrogen and oxygen from car exhaust that can
combine with hydrocarbons, also from cars, and be cooked by sunlight
into smog.

But researchers have suspected for years that the converters
sometimes rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous
oxide, known as laughing gas. And nitrous oxide is a potent
greenhouse gas, more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide,
the most common of the gases, that is warming the atmosphere,
according to experts.

This spring, the EPA published a study estimating that nitrous oxide
now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global
warming. Cars and trucks, most fitted with catalytic converters,
produce nearly half of that nitrous oxide, the study said. (Other
sources of nitrous oxide include everything from nitrogen-based
fertilizer to manure from farm animals.)

The EPA study also showed that nitrous oxide is one of a few gases
for which emissions are increasing rapidly. Collectively known as
greenhouse gases, they trap heat in the earth's atmosphere.

The increase in nitrous oxide, the study notes, stems from the growth
in the number of miles traveled by cars that have catalytic
converters. And the problem has worsened as improvements in catalytic
converters, changes that have eliminated more of the nitrogen-oxygen
compounds that cause smog, have conversely produced more nitrous
oxide.

Wylie J. Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the recently
published inventory, said that the problem created by the converter
is classic. "You've got people trying to solve one problem, and as is
not uncommon, they've created another."

Nitrous oxide, or N2O, is not regulated because the Clean Air Act was
written in 1970 to control smog, not global warming. And no
regulations exist to control gases that are believed to cause global
warming.

The United States and the other industrialized nations agreed in
Kyoto, Japan, last December to lower emissions of greenhouse gases to
5 percent below 1990 levels, over the next 10 to 15 years, but the
agreement has not been approved by the Senate, and no implementing
rules have been written.

"This hadn't really been on people's radar screen until climate
change started becoming an issue," said one EPA official involved in
reducing pollution from cars, who asked not to be identified by name.

The EPA has not proposed a solution at this point, and is seeking
public comment on its study. Auto industry experts say they could
solve the problem by tinkering with the catalytic converter, but some
environmentalists suggest that the growing production of nitrous
oxide is yet another reason to move away from gasoline-powered cars.
The EPA's study estimated that nitrous oxide may represent about one-
sixth of the global warming effect that results from gasoline use.

"It's like, clean is not green," said Sheila Lynch, executive
director of the Northeast Alternative Vehicle Coalition, a public-
private partnership that encourages non-traditional power sources.

Another expert, Christopher S. Weaver, an engineering consultant who
wrote a study on the subject for the environmental agency, said, "We
haven't cared enough to establish standards."

Precisely how much nitrous oxide the converters produce remains an
issue. A report used by the EPA in preparing its greenhouse gas
study, calculated that a car with a fuel economy of about 19 miles a
gallon would produce .27 grams of nitrous oxide per mile. That
represents an amount that is about one-third the limit of emissions
for nitrogen oxide, the chemicals causing smog.

Steven H. Cadle, a research scientist at General Motors, said, "it's
a huge number." In contrast, an older car without a catalytic
converter produces much larger amounts of nitrogen oxides, but only
about a tenth as much nitrous oxide, the greenhouse gas.

The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles
rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 as older cars without
converters have neared extinction. Using a standard unit of measure
for global warming gases, millions of metric tons of carbon
equivalent, nitrous oxide emissions rose to 54.7 million tons from
36.7 million during those years, the study said.

The contradictory impact of the converter has not been lost on
environmental officials or industry experts, who continue to debate
not only the extent of the growing problem as well as how to reduce
the emissions in future years.

Ned Sullivan, the head of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, said the converter problem requires a "comprehensive"
response. "This specific issue fits into a broader context that our
regulatory system has tended to deal with pollutants on an
individual, rather than a comprehensive, basis," he said.

He and others favor moving away from today's typical car design, a
big gasoline engine driving the wheels, to electric cars. Maine would
like electric cars. Another solution is hybrid cars, which use small,
efficient engines running on gasoline to help turn the wheels and to
charge batteries for electric motors that also run the wheels. Those
have much higher fuel economy, and thus lower greenhouse gas
emissions.

Car industry experts, however, favor less drastic changes. They
propose cutting nitrous oxide production by adjusting catalytic
converters in future models. They suspect that the gas is produced
when the converter is warming up, and believe the converters could be
redesigned to reach optimum temperature faster. That would also help
them destroy other pollutants better.

Weaver said that measurements on more kinds of cars and light trucks
would be needed to be certain about the size of the problem. But
Weaver said, "It is quite clear that you produce nitrous oxide in a
catalyst, in some circumstances."

At the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, an
expert on transportation pollution, Roland Hwang, said, "We can't be
pushing forward trying to reduce smog while making the global warming
problem worse; we can't have programs that undercut each other." He
said this was evidence that the transportation system would have to
use something besides gasoline.

Cadle, of General Motors would not go that far. But, he said, "You
have to be holistic and try and look at everything, which is
obviously difficult."

So let me get this straight. According to the EPA we're still gonna cook to death, but we'll die laughing thanks to their meddling.

You both fail to grasp the context of my message from the two articles posted.  Both sources cited believe climate change is quite real.  However, both agree the science is far from settled in terms of cause, remediation, and projection of future temperatures and ramifications.  One even touches on the subject of the increase in polar ice as well as flattening of the warming curve over the last 16 years.

POINT: Climate change science is far from “unsettled” and climate change models are far from absolute.  The scientific community is in disagreement as to solutions to climate change or even if it can be manipulated.

The polar ice has not been increasing for 16 years as the structure of your statement is trying to imply....conflate!  It has increased for 2 years, will see about the final results for this year.

And fixed the other problem for you....

As for "solutions" - there are none that we will ever take, let alone making small steps in the right direction....just as fixing the rain forests is a small piece in the effort, so to is the reduction of burning stuff to generate CO2.  Enough small pieces may slow the process enough to mitigate whatever may be the worst effects.  NO ONE is saying that is the whole solution, except when the RWRE tries to put those words in other peoples mouths to advance their economic scare tactics.

If, as a society, we really wanted to 'solve' a vast multitude of ills we are faced with, there would be an effort or "push" to fusion power production of the magnitude  we saw with previous BHAG's* during our glory days.  Things like the Manhattan Project, and the effort to go to the moon.  But that would create such a broad and sweeping change to our economy and society in general, and there are insufficient 'visionaries' in a position to advance that effort, such that it will never happen in my lifetime.

*BHAG = Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal

No, I was not implying polar ice has increased for 16 years.  I neglected to add it’s increased the past two years and the temp rise has flattened over the last 16. 

So, are you in disagreement from “the script” that reduced CO2 emissions would help alleviate climate weirding or not?  Take a ritalin and try again  ;D

I’m a global warming skeptic

So your plan of action would be?

Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale
http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Yours appears to be do anything, even if it's wrong.

But why? Nothing you have posted, in fact nothing that anyone has posted that isn't falsehood filled crap funded by Koch, Exxon and big energy argues against global warming at all. There isn't a single shred of fact based argument that has been made that argues global warming is somehow wrong or a hoax. So why are you still a skeptic? What fact based, science based argument can you still make?

Your position is an emotional one, and it's been paid for millions of dollars in marketing and propaganda, it has no basis in science or evidence or facts.

If anything, the alarmist’s position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don’t see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don’t believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.

(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png)

Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I’m surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not. 

It’s funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am. 

I believe it’s the simple fact that many people don’t consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it’s gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

Ummm, you can water ski from Alcatraz to Sacramento now........... ;D

If anything, the alarmist’s position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don’t see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don’t believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.

(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png)

Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I’m surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not.  


It’s funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am.  

I believe it’s the simple fact that many people don’t consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it’s gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

State of the Climate in 2013 Report Release

Image of State of the Climate in 2013 Report Cover
In 2013, the vast majority of worldwide climate indicators—greenhouse gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc.—continued to reflect trends of a warmer planet, according to the indicators assessed in the State of the Climate in 2013 report, released online July 17, 2014, by the American Meteorological Society.

Scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., served as the lead editors of the report, which was compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries around the world (highlights, visuals, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on air, land, sea, and ice.

“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”

The report uses dozens of climate indicators to track patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, including greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These indicators often reflect many thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets. The report also details cases of unusual and extreme regional events, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia in November 2013.

So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.


Front page summary:
Here's the site for the full report:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html

To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.

2013 State of the Climate: Earth’s surface temperature

Why it matters

Of all the planets in our neighborhood, Earth has a surface temperature that is uniquely friendly to life. That friendliness is the result of a balancing act between incoming sunlight and outgoing thermal energy—the heat radiated back to space by every part of the Earth system, from land to oceans to clouds and, especially, by the gases in the atmosphere. Surface temperature is one of several signals that indicate the status of Earth’s heat budget. Earth’s  long-term warming trend shows that the balance has changed: the atmosphere absorbs and radiates more heat (thermal infrared energy) than it used to.

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/GlobalSurfaceTemperatureAnomaly2013_610.jpg?itok=HZ27CxRy)

Surface temperatures in 2013 compared to the 1981-2010 average. NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab, based on Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center. Adapted from Plate 2.1(c) in State of the Climate in 2013.
Surface temperatures in 2013 were warmer than average across most of the world. Notably, Australia had its warmest year since national records began in 1910. Far-western Asia and the far-western Pacific Ocean also saw record-high average temperatures. At the same time, a swath of central North America, the Pacific Ocean west of South America and along the equator, and a few other isolated locations saw cooler-than-average temperatures.

The impacts of temperature on people, agricultural activities, and natural ecosystem are more often related to extreme temperature events than they are to changes in long-term averages, so the 2013 State of the Climate report also included an analysis of worldwide temperature extremes since 1950.

The year 2013 ranked within the top 10 years for the frequency of warm days and in the bottom 10 years for the frequency of cool days. More warm days than average occurred over large parts of Europe, central and east Asia, and Australia, while fewer warm days than average were observed over central North America. Regional and global average time series of these statistics suggest that the increase in warm day frequency and decrease in cool night frequency is part of a long-term trend.

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/globalsurfacetemp_insitu_all2013.gif?itok=_66u3yfU)

Multiple long-term records of Earth’s average temperature (different colored lines) since the late nineteenth century show a similar pattern: year to year variability combined with a long-term warming trend. The lines shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. Graph adapted from Figure 2.1, in BAMS State of the Climate in 2013.
Globally-averaged surface temperature for 2013 was 0.36 - 0.38° Fahrenheit above the 1981–2010 average, placing it among the top 10 warmest years since record-keeping began. Depending on the dataset considered, the year ranked from second to sixth warmest among the 134 years on record. Relative warming of the equatorial Pacific from cooler-than-average La Niña conditions to ENSO-neutral conditions helped elevate global average temperature slightly above the two previous years.

Since 1976, every year including 2013 has had an average global temperature above the long-term average. Over this 37-year period, temperature warmed at an average of 0.50 °F (0.28 °C) per decade over land and 0.20 °F (0.11 °C) per decade over the ocean.

To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.

References
A. Sánchez-Lugo, J. J. Kennedy, and P. Berrisford. 2014: [Global climate] Temperature [in “State of the Climate in 2013”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S9-S10.

M.G. Donat and R.J.H. Dunn. 2014: [Global Climate] Temperature Extreme Indices in 2013 [in “State of the Climate in 2013”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S12-S13.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate - Global Analysis - Annual 2013, published online January 2014, retrieved on June 30, 2014 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

And that is all absolutely and irrefutably true.  The dataset supports it 100% for the limited sample.  
It is also true and FACT that this creature will eat your skin!
(http://www.coolhealthguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dust-mite.jpg)
I will share with you though, that a dust mite is only a quarter of a millimeter in size and poses no threat to you.

"Idiots" like myself, sometimes like to consider a larger dataset, and I realize that is very unacceptable for you.

So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.

You are always quite the expert at everything. You prove it all the time.

In fact, why don't you go tell your IT director about your ridiculous your statement about Android being a superior business platform and see how fast he starts laughing at you.

That would be an awesome tourist expedition to sell.

Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.

So platform fragmentation, lagging app development and most of all security aren’t important to your org?

Good to know.

Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.

I read a review (I think it was EE Times...?) and they were talking about how great it is that Apple finally got all the features that Android has...since 2012.

I suppose that would be a huge concern if any of that was true.  :D

Just do what you do.  This is not a good road for you to be on.

Good to know you are up to date on these things.

So tell me, with most of the best and secure Android tablets today being made by Samsung, how are you going to handle them moving to Tizen? What are your plans for the coming fragmentation of Android into more and more sealed off proprietary forks like what Amazon is doing with the Fire?

What's your company's BYOD policy?

Good to know you are up to date on these things.

So tell me, with most of the best and secure Android tablets today being made by Samsung, how are you going to handle them moving to Tizen? What are your plans for the coming fragmentation of Android into more and more sealed off proprietary forks like what Amazon is doing with the Fire?

What's your company's BYOD policy?

NOT being sealed off is what has helped the Android market eclipse all others,

It would...maybe offer prizes as part of the tour package to who can go the furthest...

But then there are all those low water dams to get around....

If I'm not mistaken there are no LWD from north of the Sacramento airport to the bay. Fun business might be river cruises from Sacramento to Fisherman's Wharf. Do a down and back from downtown Sacramento.

I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

Compel you to use your data plan to send pictures/music/etc. to the phone 3 feet from you when you could just do it with Bluetooth.

I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

Absolutely nothing.  It can however now do things that your Samsung has been able to do for quite some time. Your old Note 3 will give you more battery life under normal use too.

In fact, battery life is one of my main concerns when purchasing a com appliance. We've got some Motorolas that will go almost three days under regular use on a charge.  My HTC will give me two days if I remain in 4G land, but travel and roaming will drop me down to a little over 14hrs.  My old iPhone and the guys that still use iPhones around the office typically remain plugged in, and have become conditioned to keep a charger on them at all times.    

Tethering is another big issue. We use our phones for wireless internet all the time at trade shows and on-site presentations. Tethering on an iPhone will completely deplete the battery, even if plugged into the charger.  I think we were able to get about 3 hours out of one once at a trade show.  The HTCs, and Motorolas don't seem to have much more of a drain when tethering as normal data use, and you can use them tethered all day long.  Samsungs do just slightly better than iPhones but really get HOT, like burn your hand hot!  I had a Samsung Galaxy S4 warp it's shell from tethering to a POS system at a show last year.  Phone was fine, just needed a new back panel.

.....I had a Samsung Galaxy S4 warp it's shell from tethering to a POS system at a show last year.  Phone was fine, just needed a new back panel.

The climate change community has reacted to this wreck of a policy not with second thoughts or openness to alternative frameworks, but with rage.  The fact that global warming has slowed or stopped, and that an increasing number of peer reviewed studies conclude that climate sensitivity is overestimated (meaning that the problem is either over-predicted or will be much slower in developing) is greeted with denunciations, and a shockingly shallow new refrain that “97 percent of scientists believe in climate change,” which is like saying that “100 percent of scientists believe in gravity” in response to any query about the mysteries of how gravity actually works.  When you point out the unreality of green energy dreams, you are met with foam-flecked denunciations of the Koch brothers.  In fact the opposition to the climateers is tiny by comparison to the resources deployed by the environmental establishment, not to mention the massive sympathy they receive from an uncritical media.  From the way people like Al Gore complain you’d think the climateers were up against the teachers union.

Interesting, I have an S5 for work and tethered at an event in Oklahoma City last month.  The phone got warm, but not excessively so.  Ran it most of the day tethered.  Maybe that was something they improved upon.

I use my iphone 5 all the time with my laptop when traveling.  But I use the phone to create a local hotspot instead of tethering directly.   All our demo guys (and gals) use the iphone hotspot, and it seems to work fine for them also.   

I practically live in Starbucks when traveling, and I've found I get better connectivity with the iphone hotspot than via the Starbucks wifi.

For me, tethering = local hotspot.  Should have clarified that.

For me, tethering = local hotspot.  Should have clarified that.

Yeah.  Same here.  I don't know anyone who uses a cord any more.  That's so 2009.

Yeah.  Same here.  I don't know anyone who uses a cord any more.  That's so 2009.

GM's big thing now is select vehicles come with the option of in-vehicle MiFi... I guess for people who cant set it up on their smartphones but are willing to sign another 2-year data plan contract. 

If apple is three years behind android, where does this put GM?

Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

The Sync system in the Fords is nice, but the voice controls it that are still archaic (perhaps 3 years behind).  You get a ton of options with display on the Fords, and rarely need to take your eyes of the road to find something.

Chrisler is still in bracing for Y2K.  Rented an Avenger to drive from Vegas to Palm Springs CA a few months ago (trade show to trade show).  Had about 1,700 miles on it when I got it.  Crappy tech and cabin appointments.  It seems they spent a lot of energy making the weak little engine sound mean, instead of any real refinements. By the time I turned it in at the airport, almost nothing worked properly, and the CV joints were popping around corners.  Reminded me of an 80's Pontiac.  I can see why they discontinued them.

Might help if you didn’t treat it like a rental car!

(http://ama-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11569937.jpg)

Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

The Sync system in the Fords is nice, but the voice controls it that are still archaic (perhaps 3 years behind).  You get a ton of options with display on the Fords, and rarely need to take your eyes of the road to find something.

Chrisler is still in bracing for Y2K.  Rented an Avenger to drive from Vegas to Palm Springs CA a few months ago (trade show to trade show).  Had about 1,700 miles on it when I got it.  Crappy tech and cabin appointments.  It seems they spent a lot of energy making the weak little engine sound mean, instead of any real refinements. By the time I turned it in at the airport, almost nothing worked properly, and the CV joints were popping around corners.  Reminded me of an 80's Pontiac.  I can see why they discontinued them.

Those states are South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Arizona. While it’s still very early, the 10-day forecast shows a potential major snowstorm for the mid-Atlantic and Northeast states late next week.

Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

I will try from fighting this whole battle again. It is not about air temperature or snowfall. It is about the ocean temperature. The Earth is 74% water. Hotter oceans cause climate extremes. And yes, we will still have some seasonal cold weather, but of the fifteen hottest calendar years, 13 of them have been from 2001 to 2013.

But I really know that you climate deniers will never be convinced.

And July was one of the coldest ever.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716 (http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716)

I will try from fighting this whole battle again. It is not about air temperature or snowfall. It is about the ocean temperature. The Earth is 74% water. Hotter oceans cause climate extremes. And yes, we will still have some seasonal cold weather, but of the fifteen hottest calendar years, 13 of them have been from 2001 to 2013.

But I really know that you climate deniers will never be convinced.