Amen. I watched last seasons' hurricane activity with an eye towards the enviro-nuts predictions, and as each day, week, month passed without a major hurricane, it was hard not to chuckle and point at their idiocy.

"You really can have it both ways"

Liberals CAN have it both ways.

Thems the rules.

"You see... it's perfect. If we have an active 2007 season it's because of global warming. If we have another dud... That's right; more proof of global warming. You really can have it both ways."

You expect any different from the criminal democrat perpetual fraud?

"The sad thing is that millions of people believe this nonsense."

Not to mention spineless Republicans who seem go along with the feel good phonies rather than telling them to go fly a kite.

It's a chaotic system, folks. Why do you think we talk about the weather ad infinitum et sin nauseum?
=================

Heads, the AGW lunatics win.

Tails, the rest of humanity loses.

Simple.

So, they predicted a huge hurricane season last year, and when it came up short they claimed it was global warming's fault. This year, they again predict a huge hurricane season and once again blame global warming if it doesn't (or didn't) happen.

Sheesh.

"You really can have it both ways"

Liberals CAN have it both ways.

Thems the rules.
Posted by: Murphy at April 18, 2007 12:36 AM

Murphy's Law? ;)

So global warming helps us?

Three cheers for global warming! I'm going to go have a few beers, cabbage, and beans and fart my way to my car and light her off and drive her around the neighborhood

Hip hip hooray!

The sane climate researchers think the La Nina last summer helped tone down the hurricanes. We're moving into a similar La Nina event again right now, which they're guessing will have the same effect this summer.

'Course, the Savior (Al Gore) will claim otherwise, but he doesn't have to explain himself, because he's the Savior.

"So global warming helps us?"

It very well may. Historic periods of warming seem to have been prosperous. I don't think that the deserts were actually any worse. It would be interesting to find out if anyone has actually studied the climate in currently arid regions during the past significant periods of warming. (such as during the Medieval Whats-it)

For all we know all that glacial melting and extra heat increases the evaporation and precipitation cycles. For all we know the deserts might even end up a bit greener.

Guessing about the future (more hurricanes? fewer hurricanes?) is sort of silly when we *can* look in the past and see what happened.

(And even *without* any human influence the Earth WILL get warmer, probably much warmer, at some time.)

The climate may well be warming because one thing that has been learned is that the climate is always changing. The real question is what's causing it? The only consistent evidence for human caused global warming comes from computer models that start out with an assumption call CO2 forcing. The fundamental problem, however, is that you can't model something you don't understand.

Finally, there is real science being done this summer and CERN to investigate the extent of the effect the Sun's magnetic field (not it's luminosity) has on Earth's climate. That link has already been established in peer reviewed scientific publications, but now CERN is hosting as series of experiments under the acronym CLOUD to discover the extent of the link. The results of these experiments may collapse the climate alarmist's theories like a house of cards. In fact, if the link is strong then the best prediction is that the Earth is headed for global cooling starting in about 5 years. We may need to release more CO2 to offset the Sun induced cooling.

First of all, I agree with Mac Lorry's post. Now I am going to natter. Solar luminosity is decreasing, which oddly enough means the total energy released is greater. Any elementary text in astronomy will explain why. I use Seeds "Fundametals of Astronomy

Global Warming = Golf all winter = Life is Good!

Ask any Meteorologist and they will tell you it is very difficult to get an accurate 10 day forecast. GLO-BALL warming cultist claim they have an accurate 10 YEAR forecast!!

It's one thing to debate warming and cooling of the planet, but start yapping about a 100% chance of specific consequences of future events, and one becomes an ASS.

So I have no idea what to make of the hurricane thing - it does seem that a number of people are quite eager to make a connection between individual hurricane seasons and climate change, which is really stupid - but as usual, some of the comments in this thread are equally bad.

Knightbrigade: you're confusing climate and weather. The two aren't the same, and predictions of the two don't come from the same models; it says a lot that this comes up in every single Wizbang climate thread.

Mac Lorry: "CO2 forcing" is not an assumption. CO2 is well known to be a strong absorber of IR radiation, and so has the potential to warm up the atmosphere - that's a fact, one that has been known for several centuries. The only question now is the strength of all the possible mitigating factors which may reduce the effect of the CO2 being added.

jayro, for the sake of all us idiots who aren't up on the difference between climate and weather please let us in on what constitutes climate. Last time I checked it was weather and, uh... more weather but you apparently have some additional information on the subject.

Jayro,
"weather" is a descriptive term identifying current atmospheric conditions. Climate is a descriptive term for weather over time in a specific region of the earth's surface (WNW Dict, 1997)

So how is asking the very real question of current weathers' impact on AGW somehow ignoring climate? A period of given temperatures will become the defacto "climate".

As to CO2, all gasses are impacted by one portion or another of the electromagnetic spectrum. The functions of specific gasses in this case were first noted at the end of the 1800's, and finally explored & documented in the early 1900's (hardly "known for several centuries").

J

Jayro,

It's you who have your fact wrong. It's a fact that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, but it's over very narrow bands of the IR spectrum and thus, it's absorption is less than a twentieth of that of methane. It's also a fact the water vapor is both an absorber and a reflector of IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact that atmospheric dust is both an absorber and a reflector of IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact the vegetation absorbs both IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact the some types of vegetation produce aerosols that reflect both IR and visible radiation.

However, it's an assumption to say that any of these known facts "forces" either warming or cooling. That's why anyone who talks about CO2 forcing is making an assumption. It's no more valid than talking about water vapor forcing or dust forcing. The computer models are designed around the assumption of CO2 forcing, and apart from these models of human ignorance there's no evidence that CO2 is responsible for global warming. In fact, the ice core evidence consistently shows that atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by global warming, not the other way around.

If the data from the CERN experiments establishes a strong link between the Sun's magnetic field and comic ray induced clouds we will finally have verification of a theory that explains nearly all the observed evidence of current and past climate changes. The CO2 forcing crowd will be proven wrong and put to open shame. We can then move on with policies based on real understanding. Of course, I don't expect Al Gore to relent in his pursuit of foolishness, and it's almost comforting to know that whatever Al Gore is pushing is wrong.

jayro, you are close. Most of the assumptions about the effect of the forcing and most of the models therefrom derived are pitifully inadequate at replicating all of the chaotic forces working on the climate, let alone the carbon cycle. And in this degree of ignorance it is senseless to wreak economic havoc on societies.
=================================

There is a nice recent article correlating aurorae and Nile River levels. I mention it because the aurorae are connected with the sun's magnetism, not it's luminosity. Cosmic rays and cloud formation may be a key.

I was intrigued by the suggestion that total energy from the sun is constant, but slowly increasing. In other words, a temporal decrease in luminosity has a corrresponding increase in magnetic and other output. Here are y

et more chaotic systems which impact our earth which are poorly understood.
=============================

Yes, Mac, you have the best precis I've seen, lately. Thanks.
====================================

There is only one word for the stupidity released in the form of hot air by all the know nothings on this post........GAIA.

Know it. Learn it. Observe it. Live by it.

How many different ways the level of ignorance and denial is manifested in America amongst the neocon supporters. How far has the green dollar separated this country from humanity's golden circle.

The "30 Percenters" may continue to deny reality but the rest of us have already started accepting responsibility for our actions.

Mac Lorry:
The fundamental problem, however, is that you can't model something you don't understand.

That's completely false. You can model something you don't understand and probably get a nice research grant to do so. However, the problem is when someone starts pushing the results of a flawed model as the 'gospel'.

(note that I'm not arguing against Mac's point but emphasizing that problems with climate alarmist)

Mike: Global warming made you say that! See, that proves it!

The "30 Percenters" may continue to deny reality but the rest of us have already started accepting responsibility for our actions.

It's funny how the rapid leftards like citing polls and referring to those with whom they disagree as '30 perceters'. Every time I hear this I think back to stunt Dave Letterman (or was it Leno?) did a few years back. He put people down on the street on NYC with a petition to help 'End Women's Suffrage'. Like good Democrats, people would sign and nobly express their outrage at womens suffrage and how it was wrong for women to suffer. Obviously, they didn't have a clue what they were supporting but it sounded bad so they were appropriately outraged.

Of course atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are related. When temperature increases, CO2 concentration increases. Why? you ask. Simple -- the oceans. There is an equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the CO2 concentration in the oceans. This equilibrium is dependent primarily on pressure and temperature (concentration of other gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, etc. and water salinity also affect the overall equilibrium, but to a much smaller degree). Even though there are atmospheric pressure changes, the affect of these changes is relatively small as compared to temperature changes.

The solubility of most gases (including CO2) in water decreases with increasing temperature. [Think of how much CO2 is released when you open a hot Coke vs a cold Coke.] So as temperature increases, the atmospheric/oceanic CO2 equilibrium shifts toward more CO2 in the atmosphere, and less in the oceans.

Of course, this is not an instantaneous shift -- the oceans are pretty deep and it takes a lot of time for all of the water to mix and/or for the CO2 to diffuse from the lower depths to the upper depths which are in equilibrium with the atmosphere.

I find the percenters deliciously ironic. Socialists disturbed by the excesses of Communism and Fascism studied the phenomenon and noted an apparently constant percent of people who favor authoritarian rule. These are the useful idiots of the moonbat fringe. You could look it up.

for cb et al:

I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message of a cloud.
=====================
==================================

Interesting explication of one part of the carbon cycle, but I don't think oceanic warming has caused most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that we have seen in the last century.
=====================================

mike, I know they did that women's suffrage clip on The Man Show. Damned funny!! "We want to put an end to the suffraging of women"!

Hey cb, Gaia wishes you wouldn't pretend to appreciate her when you know so little about her.
====================

Civil Behavior:

There is only one word for the stupidity released in the form of hot air by all the know nothings on this post........GAIA.

Know it. Learn it. Observe it. Live by it.

Hows that wooden computer holding up?

How many different ways the level of ignorance and denial is manifested in America amongst the neocon supporters. How far has the green dollar separated this country from humanity's golden circle.

I think ignorance is more apparent in those who follow the likes of Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis. Much the same can be said for those that heed the dire portents of a man with no education in climatology or science.

Instead of relying on superstition and outdated hypotheses', perhaps you should take a close look at some of the competing theories.

I promise, Gaia won't descend from the heavens and turn you into a daisy.

Assuming for a moment that this issue is more political than scientific, what are the motivational forces driving the two sides? What is driving the preponderance of respected scientists throughout the world to come up with their conclusions that it might be a good idea to address the impact, both present and future, our footprint has upon our little green and blue spinning home? Job security? Grant money? Fame and fortune? Are they plotting something? What about the other side? Let's see, who could possibly have a problem with science that supports a re-thinking of our energy strategery? Who would actually be against something with such a tremendous global upside? Maybe the factions that, as we speak, are battling to corner the market on what's left of last century's nonrenewable energy source?

Throughout this debate I've failed to see the downside of erring on the "conservative" side. What is there to lose by cleaning up our energy production and consumption habits? One thing, really, dollars in the pockets of the energy conglomerates who are bound and determined to wrench every last penny of profit without a single thought to the consequences. So because their pockets are the deepest they fund studies that attempt to contradict the conventional wisdom and engage their media mouthpieces to convince the masses that the whole thing is nothing more than a few headline grabbing politicians out to extend their 15 minutes of fame.

So the political eclipses the scientific. It's not about what may happen to the planet down the road, it's about Al Gore's messiah complex and his electric bill. Consume! Consume!

_Mike_,

There's also the famous "dihydrogen monoxide" petition ...

groucho, the Twenty-First Century's first trillionaire will be the one who creates the most effecient market for carbon exchanges, but it will have ground the poor by increasing the cost of energy. Gee, thanks.

Blind perverst. ::spits::
========================================

groucho,

It has nothing to do with the dollars coming out of the pockets of "energy conglomerates". It has everything to do with dollars coming out of my pocket. That is the downside to the socialist side (not the "censervative" side) of this argument.

We currently have only one economically feasible solution to CO2 emmissions right now. That is nuclear power. Of course the leftist have been against that for some time--playing on people's fears and lying to them as leftists so commonly do.

What motivated them, groucho? I don't know. From here it looks like a simple minded application of greenhouse gas theory and Mann's initially honest mistake with the hockey stick combined in the imagination of UN policymakers whose fundamental motivation was wealth redistribution to create this 'paradigm' of man's causing the destruction of the earth unless the redistributing was done. It's basically snowballed in the public imagination, particularly with madmen like Gore, and idiots like our journalists, helping to create the illusion of unanimity about the climate.

A wide variety of the best scientists are skeptical. These are the best times to be skeptical, because ironically one thing is certain, and that is that Gore can't be right.
===============================

_Mike_

Ok, you got me. I should have said you can't accurately model something you don't understand.

You can see from civil behavior's rant that much of the human caused global warming catastrophe dogma is the result of deeply held beliefs that human pursuit of a technologically based and developed world are inherently evil. People who feel this way see CO2 regulation as a means to control and limit such development. Thus, when real science comes along that disputes their human caused global warming catastrophe dogma they attack the source with religious vigor. Little wonder scientists working at CERN this summer to understand the linkage between the Sun's magnetic field and cosmic ray induced clouds are trying to stay under the radar for now.

Civil behavior's instincts are not completely wrong, however. There does need to be a means to control behavior that damages the environment. International treaties have had some success in limiting the use of various chemicals such as CFC's. The U.S. really does need to move away for dependence on oil and coal for it's energy needs, but that move needs to be based on real science not on cover for inefficient cars and job programs for farmers, which is what bio-fuel and ethanol are really about. For those like civil behavior I say they need to drop the emotional response and do the hard work of real science if they want a better world for future generations.