Is it going to rain tomorrow?

This is going to be seen as blasphemy to the religion of Gore. Heads will roll as he played on our fears.

There is a great lesson here about the amarmism and knee jerk reaction to scientists' statements of what they think at the time. I am so glad we did not sign on to Kyoto. I also know many countries who have regret it big time. ww

idk.

The general trend among the alarmists is to accelerate the timetable of the Doom & Gloom. This is right up their ally.

Ramping up the pace is their response to more and more scientists going on the record against global warming alarmism. Increasing the threat as justification to ignore the growing "Hey wait a second" crowd.

If the models had been off in both directions, I might agree with you. But they weren't. They all underestimated the rate of sea-ice loss.

That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account. It doesn't say, suggest, or even hint that the elements which are being accounted for are being calculated incorrectly. So the models are incomplete, but not worthless.

THEY SAY WERE SUPPOST TO BE HAVING A INCREASED AMOUNT OF HURRICANES THIS YEAR BUT DID,NT THEY SAY THAT LAST YEAR? THIER TELLING US A BUNCH OF POPPYCOCK

On no media newscast will you hear the mitigating factors you cite, Paul. It doesn't fit The Agenda, which I've always suspected is more about getting Democrats elected than any tangible concern about "The Environment".

Paul, your logic seems breathtaking ..Because scientists and their computer models failed to predict the severity of the trend lines of ice loss, we should be somehow reassured that as margin of error was so great, that is the loss was much greater than expected that anything could possible in the future.
Scientists have been predicting that the ice loss will start to show an exponetial rate, very soon and based on photos of the last 25 years and the latest observations. Scientists note stunning loss of Arctic ice, snow this April, 2007 it looks that we are reaching this point. We are headed only one way..down..
Paul, this isn't the stock market with ups and downs..this is a meltdown reinforced by bio-feed back loops that is very difficult to reverse; the exact opposite of the snowball effect.

If we are "headed only one way..down.." then how do you explain the fact that there is more ice in Antarctica?

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Since ice variably accumulates and decreases variably according to local conditions, it is not a leading indicator of anything.

The Sillies.
=======

What seems clear is that the rate of polar ice melting is more accelerated that predicted, which should be the important point here. Things are warming up, and quickly. Even that commie-pinko leftwing rag, National Geographic, seems to agree. Cyclical? Man-made pollutant driven? A little of both? What's the difference? Where's the downside in assuming the worst and working to curb emissions and pollutants ASAP? If we are on a slippery slope, maybe we can slow things up a bit and avert some of the more radical climate shifts; if we're not, we have a cleaner, more eficient environment perhaps less dependent on imported oil. Where's the problem?

The head-in-the-sand crowd, with fingers inserted firmly in ears, ignores the obvious, choosing instead to beat the bushes for any shred of evidence they can spin to support their politicization of our climate. I think they are mortally afraid that when this does turn out to be more of a problem than they're saying, it will be a mortal blow to whatever little credibility they may have left

Egad! It's the dreaded "double mortal".

Hmmmm - so what exactly is the problem? Article didnt address impact, which, according to UN, seas will rise 18" by mid century while Algore says 20'. I say poppycock. The Artic is water, not land. When the ice melts it has no impact on sea levels. If all the ice in the Antartic and in Greenland melted off the land, than there would be a major impact on sea levels - but that just isnt happening. So what's the real downside of less ice over a certain period. Do they really expect us to believe it'll reduce the polar bear population - still plenty of room to live, I'm sure.

But I do agree with Groucho - we should be concerned about polution - and we have been. The US is the world's leader in cutting polution. Polution used to be the cry of the environmentalists - but they changed to "global warming" - not sure why, but I'm guessing they can raise more money that way. gc

The data for ice melting is quantifiable from a historical perspecitve. One only has to look at the Great Lakes as evidence of melting ice.

Climate change is par for the Earth...what hasn't been convincingly argued is that the change in-and-of-itself (in any direction) is bad or that the Earth can't handle it.

If we go just on past evidence, the Earth seems to weather it (pun intended) just fine over the long term.

There are arguments for lowering pollution emissions (Mercury, Lead, Sulphur Dioxide) that aren't part of the natural atmosphere. But C02 is a by-product of oxidation (biological (think breathing) and industrial). If it is determined that there is too much carbon in the air, we can use human ingenuity to sequester it. For example: Soils offer new hope as carbon sink.

Here's some more food for thought. Dupont and BP are promoting the use of Biobutanol. In their presentation they conclude:

Today, biofuels account for less that 2% of global transportation fuels but this could increase to 30% in key markets in the future...

What's interesting about their approach is that they account for the recycling of C02 emmissions.

With any alternative fuels, the infrastructure has to be in place for it to be used. I firmly support alternative fuels so the arab countries can go back to what they do best and that is fight each other. And no, you cannot assume the worst. That is exactly the problem here. What should always happen is do what you are sure needs to be done, emphasis on sure. ww

Oh, lord, the dreaded 'double variably'.
================================

Any late word from CERN?
==============

Paul,

Please get the joke right:

When asked to comment about a glass 50% full of a liquid:
An Optimist sayes, "It's half FULL"
A Pessimist sayes, "It's half EMPTY"
An Engineer sayes, "It's TWICE as big as necessary"

My parents often said, "That boy ain't right."

An Aerospace Engineer

If the computer models are not correct then the conclusions about which elements cause the melt are not correct.

The world *is* getting warmer at the moment.

The controversy is in the "why" of it. And while reducing pollution is it's own reward, that's not what the AGW alarmists are demanding of us. The "why" of global warming is humans and denying it is heresy, or at the very least we're supposed to figure "better safe than sorry."

But human caused global warming requires a whole lot more than reducing pollution (which is good for us all) but requires solutions with very real potential for serious harm to real people.

It matters to get the "why" right. When melt is happening at much greater rates than the computer models predict it means that the *why* is not right.

Which means the "solutions" will not be right.

>If the models had been off in both directions, I might agree with you. But they weren't. They all underestimated the rate of sea-ice loss.

>That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account.

Wolfwalker you are -to be blunt- an idiot.

If there is "an element that isn't being taken into account" that basically defines the models being worthless worthless.

If they can't even model the past, how can they model the future?

>Paul, your logic seems breathtaking ..Because scientists and their computer models failed to predict the severity of the trend lines of ice loss, we should be somehow reassured that as margin of error was so great, that is the loss was much greater than expected that anything could possible in the future.

Steve Crickmore, Your lack of reading comprehension is breathtaking.

If the models are off by 300% predicting the past, how much faith should we put on them to predict 100 years in the future?

Your problem is that I'm talking science and you're talking about your religion.

BTW Steve, to show just how much you have on the ball, the story you linked???

Yeah, that's a news story on the study I linked in the post.

Other than that, you made a good point.

So a study that shows ice is melting even faster than predicted...shows that there's nothing to worry about.

Come on, man. Really.

Let's say this study was a report on your daughter's cancer. The doctors had made computer models, and showed a mass growing at a slow and deadly rate; and a biopsy then showed a much faster and deadly rate.

Would you be relieved, because this 'disproves' their models?! I don't think so.

What do you have to gain by thinking this way? What does it get you?

Your problem is that I'm talking science and you're talking about your religion.

And that says it all. You get the same sort of stuff out of the guys that stand on the street corners with THE END IS NEAR signs. Global warming is based on wild guesses, jimmyed models, and political philosophy all wrapped up into something akin to the jonestown cult. God forbid you point out the errors in the dogma because you get people like Crickmore and his ilk who'll lay down the righteous indignation with a zeal that would make a Southern baptist preacher blush.

Jim,

So, are you taking Gore's "the Earth has a fever analogy" to a new level?

It would get you away from the doctors with the lousy models and on to someone who knows what they're doing! And that is about as much an answer as your stupid, emotional analogy deserves.

We know cancer can be deadly and we will take all necessary precautions to avoid and/or stop it. Global-warming is some scare tactic to use a rise in the earth's temperature as a means to bring about a political idealogy. There is nothing to suggest that a rise in the Earth's temperature is bad for the planet. Nothing to suggest that it hasn't happened before. Nothing to suggest that simply curbing emissions will do anything.

What this article does suggest is that we have no way of knowing what is going to happen and certainly no way of modeling the outcome.

Rex Tillerson believes the jury is still out on global warming

Exxon Mobil chief cools global-warming
By BOB COX
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS -- Global warming was a hot topic at the Exxon Mobil Corp. annual meeting Wednesday, but Chief Executive Rex Tillerson continued his effort to cool some of the criticisms of the oil-industry giant.

groucho asks a good question: "Where's the downside in assuming the worst and working to curb emissions and pollutants ASAP?"

Here's the good answer: opportunity costs. When you spend money or time on one thing, you do not have it available to spend on other things. If you, for example, go out to dinner with your family, you cannot use that same money to go to the movies, or put gas in your car, or give up to have a job where you work fewer hours. It's all trade-offs.

So looking at that in the context of what to do about global warming, any money spent in some mad rush to do something now is not available to do anything else. If there were a definite, imminent crisis threatening life and livelihood, and if we could not adapt around it, and if we knew how to fix it, then it would be fairly easy to justify spending large amounts of money to prevent or mitigate the problems.

The doubt I, and apparently many others, feels is that we are not convinced that there is necessarily a coming crisis that will be bad for children and all living things, because all we are seeing is demands to stop asking for evidence, and ridicule for pointing out evidence contrary to the consensus that, we are informed, is absolute and beyond debate, again with a paucity of evidence. Whether we could adapt around any problems easier than we could prevent them is out of bounds of rational discussion, apparently, and any attempt (such as Paul's post) to determine if we even know how to fix the problem are derided and ridiculed.

Given that we are not convinced, shouting at us is unlikely to convince us. And given that the opportunity cost tradeoff is apparently that the government should reduce our wealth directly (through taxation) and indirectly (through imposing costs and limits on businesses that provide that wealth), in order to spend massive amounts of our wealth on this purported problem, you must pardon us for asking for something more than "because it might be true."

Wolfwalker sez:

That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account. It doesn't say, suggest, or even hint that the elements which are being accounted for are being calculated incorrectly. So the models are incomplete, but not worthless.

The models are indeed worthless, you numbnut. If the modelers are inaccurate or have missed even one variable, it blows their whole model out of the water.

Suppose we have a good climate scientist who decides to use 100 variables for his model. Further optimistically suppose he's nailed every variable down and is 99% accurate on all 100 of them. To know the probable accuracy of his model, multiply 99/100 by itself 100 times. This works out to about 36.6%, or about a one in three chance his model is accurate.

Yer sacred computer models ain't worth nothin'.

Exactly, J.R. Jim's "child with cancer" analogy is seriously off. Still, a medical analogy might work.

Say... growing. Growing is normal. Giantism is not, and is not healthy. Suppose a "cure" for giantism. Suppose every time a kid grows more than six inches in a year the doctor sticks 'em with the cure.

Or I suppose we could get the cancer analogy to work. Not all growths are cancerous. Suppose a doctor stuck a kid on chemo when the tumor was benign.

The study compared model simulations of late twentieth-century climate with observations.

Isn't that like comparing a Hot Wheels model of a '57 Chevy and a real '57 Chevy?

OMG. Heidi Cullen is gonna have a cat over this.

"Essentially what's happening is there's been so much warm weather, week after week, month after month, season after season, the environment is just not behaving the way it should" in the Arctic site I linked to at 10.08a.m.

The Arctic has been thought of as the canary in the coal mine of the globe. Paul, looks for the silver lining, that the ice loss was worse than was predicted by incremental computer projections, it nullifies the exercise, but this is precisely the point that has'n't been lost on the 'alarmist scientists. "Planet Earth does not do gradual change. It does big jumps; it works by tipping points" what I called exponetial change which is very difficult for a computer to predict exactly, but we sure as hang will know when it hits us. I suspect those living in Alaska already do, such as senator Ted Stevens who once was an avowed sceptic of anthropogenic global warming, but has become convinced since the beginning of this year, that we have to combat it.

So, are you taking Gore's "the Earth has a fever analogy" to a new level?

So you're completely ignoring my analogy? Why, is it just too uncomfortable for you?

It would get you away from the doctors with the lousy models and on to someone who knows what they're doing!

And straight into the faith healing of "there must be something wrong with their model, because it's even worse than they say it is."

At least I'm comforted thinking you'll treat your daughter's life as coldly as you're treating the future.

Furthermore, your response is stupid and emotional. Nyah nyah nyah.

Here's what I don't get:

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not?

- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome?

I mean, I honestly don't get it. Seriously. All arguments aside, can you just explain to me why you think this way?

Perhaps a bit off topic, but it gives me endless amusement that the people who propose that the world spend a large percentage of its collective GDP on global warming mitigation in reliance on those computer models are often the same ones who oppose nuclear power -- an energy source that does not contribute to global warming.

Doesn't matter a bit to them that: (a) the nuclear fuel cycle has been studied in real time for 60-ish years; (b) that the chemistry and physics of nuclear power are well known and have been put to practical use for about the same amount of time; (c) with the exception of Chernobyl (an event that at root was due to an incompetent politico/economic system) the technology has been producing electricity safely for about the same time; or (d) that the global heat cycle is several orders of magnitude more complex than the nuclear fuel cycle.

And by the way, the geology special shown on The Science Channel last night talked about previous epochs when the glaciers in the Rocky Mountains had disappeared--long before humans ceased being hunter-gatherers. Finally, Greenland was not always covered with ice--why do you think the Vikings called it "GREENland?"

THIS is happening because of AGW, and THAT is happening, yada, yada. Show me the temperature records. Show me the WARMING, not some tangential side-effect possibly caused by warming.

Oh, wait, the temperature data doesn't show warming (outside of urban heat islands in growing cities). Oops.
For temp graphs, see:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm