posted May 24, 2006 03:57 PM            

The plots along the mean would show deviations [standard deviation] both above and below the mean and today's temperatures would not be much above the mean..if at all. Any reasonable scientist would use a smoothing factor...moving average..to damp out spikes and valleys both above and below long term trends.

The upshot of using a longer model of temperature would show there is no significant upward current trend in temperature change.

Junk scientists can fabricate models and charts showing just about anything they want to push.

For instance, if you really wanted to see a howl, 1941 scientists could have constructed temperature charts starting in 1890 and terminating in their current year 1941. The rising temperature line would have been shocking, really shocking.

Junk scientists of the 1972 could have constructed temperature charts supporting a coming ice age by using a start point of 1941, terminating in current year 1972. The falling temperature line would have been shocking, really shocking.

posted May 25, 2006 03:45 AM              

thats why, as ive said before, the temperature graphs arent even what sold me on the danger of global warming.....

its the ridiculous rise in co2 ppm levels which are unequivocal, unprecedented, and unrefutable....

regardless of what past co2 levels may have even been....its ludicrous to think you can pump billions of tons of co2 into the earths atmosphere and not get a matching rise in temperature....its physically impossible....

posted May 25, 2006 09:00 AM            

If you insist on slowing or regressing CO2 levels, put a cork in all the active volcanoes which are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and turn down the thermostat on the sun...which is heating the largest CO2 sinks on earth...the oceans and releasing those billions of tons of stored CO2 into the atmosphere...not to mention water vapor by evaporation. Water vapor is a much more efficient heat insulator than CO2.

posted May 25, 2006 09:40 AM              

quote:

---

Today's CO2 levels are not unprecedented when the long view is taken--jwhop

---

posted May 25, 2006 10:39 AM            

His own carbon footprint is an egregious violation of his own stated principles.

Algore, another leftist hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

Algore video...."An Inconvenient Story"
http://streams.cei.org/

posted May 25, 2006 10:47 AM              

quote:

---

"These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said. "They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims.

---

quote:

---

CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Exxon documents reveal the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for “global climate change and global climate change outreach.” Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998.

---

posted May 25, 2006 10:55 AM            

But mommie, I thought global warming means it's supposed to be hotter.
Little Johnny, hotter, colder or just right, it's all global warming!

But mommie, that doesn't make any sense!
You just have to take their word for it Little Johnny and don't ask inconvenient questions!

May 25, 3:37 AM EDT

Grape Damage From Frost Widespread in U.S.

By CAROLYN THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) --

"A late-April frost devastated young buds on grape vines in several western New York counties and beyond, challenging growers who had been hoping to rebound from a small crop last year.

"It was 24 degrees. That's just too cold," said grower Dennis Rak."

"The same frost painted an even bleaker picture for cooperative members in other states: Losses were estimated at 90 percent in Michigan and 75 percent in Ohio, said Jay Hardenburg, the cooperative's Eastern Region manager of member relations."

"In Michigan, for example, Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm on Wednesday requested federal disaster assistance for the state's fruit and vegetable farmers hit by recent frost and freezing temperatures in 28 counties."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FARM_SCENE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-05-25-03-37-42

posted May 25, 2006 11:02 AM            

Oh, I get it now. Algore's message is soooo important he can suspend his own rules, suspend his own principles.

posted May 25, 2006 11:04 AM              

Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science.

Analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050

As the data become more solid about the atmospheric conditions of the past, it's becoming increasingly clear that the current conditions of the past 200 years are a distinct anomaly, Brook said.

"The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," Brook said. "There is now no question this is due to human influence."

posted May 25, 2006 11:53 AM            

It's a wet dream fantasy of leftists attempting to shut down the US economy

I suppose you would then agree that Algore's carbon footprint exceeds the footprint of ordinary citizens at least ten thousand fold?

Algore's in good company with Kennedy who's embarked on the same mission and creating his own gigantic carbon footprint in the process. Let's not forget Huffington either.

Why are these hypocrites all leftist democrats?

***edit

posted May 25, 2006 12:55 PM            

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)

(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).

(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."

(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.

Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."

posted May 25, 2006 04:21 PM              

quote:

---

Thanks for admitting present CO2 levels are not unprecedented--jwhop

---

according to analysed data from the ice core, yes....unprecedented.....

perhaps you have information to the contrary?

posted May 25, 2006 04:26 PM              

talk about "inconvenient truths"

************

Dr Robert C. Balling Jr. is director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and a prominent climate change sceptic.

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]
His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market extremist Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

In August 2004 Balling told Business Week "I'm convinced there will be engineering schemes that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want". [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

***********

Dr Robert C. Balling Jr.

Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University

Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5

posted May 25, 2006 04:34 PM              

quote:

---

Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action."

---

*******

What To Do about Greenhouse Warming:
Look Before You Leap
by S. Fred Singer, Roger Revelle and Chauncey Starr
Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1992

Greenhouse warming has emerged as one of the most complex and controversial environmental and foreign-policy issues of the 1990s.

It is an environmental issue because carbon dioxide (CO2), generated from the prolific burning of oil, gas and coal, is thought to enhance, by trapping heat in the atmosphere, the natural greenhouse effect that has kept the planet warm for billions of years. Some scientists predict drastic climatic changes in the 21st century.

It is a foreign-policy issue because, for a number of reasons, the United States has taken a more cautious approach to dealing with CO2 emissions than have many industrialized nations. Wide acceptance of the Montreal Protocol, which limits and rolls back the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to protect the ozone layer, has encouraged environmental activists at international conferences in the past three years to call for similar controls on CO2 from fossil-fuel burning.

These activists have expressed disappointment with the White House for not supporting immediate action. But should the United States assume "leadership" in a hastily-conceived campaign that could cripple the global economy, or would it be more prudent to assure first, through scientific research, that the problem is both real and urgent?

We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this tine.

There is little risk in delaying policy responses to this century old problem since there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade. Instead of premature and likely ineffective controls on fuel use that would only slow down but not stop the further growth of CO2, we may prefer to use the same resources trillions of dollars, by some estimates to increase our economic and technological resilience so that we can then apply specific remedies as necessary to reduce climate change or to adapt to it.

That is not to say that prudent steps cannot be taken now; indeed, many kinds of energy conservation and efficiency increases make economic sense even without the threat of greenhouse warming.

http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/cosmos.html

**********

Roger Revelle died on July 15, 1991, a year before that paper was published(i wonder if he was even in on the final draft) and before he got to see bush jr brush off the last decade of scientific work and spend hundreds of billions$$$ on an even bigger uncertainty......wmd in iraq

posted May 25, 2006 04:41 PM              

Last January, amateur adventurer Vince Keipper realized a long-time goal when he trekked to the top of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But the view from Africa's 19,340-foot (5,895-meter) rooftop hardly compared to what he saw on the way up the mountain's Western Breach.

"The sound brought our group to a stop," Keipper recalled. "We turned around to see the ice mass collapse with a roar. A section of the glacier crumbled in the middle, and chunks of ice as big as rooms spilled out on the crater floor."

Keipper grabbed his camera just in time to capture a section of Kilimanjaro's massive Furtwängler Glacier spilling onto the same trail his group had ascended the very night before.

Keipper's photos speak for themselves, dramatic proof of a scientific near-certainty: Kilimanjaro's glaciers are disappearing. The ice fields Ernest Hemingway once described as "wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82 percent of their ice since 1912—the year their full extent was first measured.

If current climatic conditions persist, the legendary glaciers, icing the peaks of Africa's highest summit for nearly 12,000 years, could be gone entirely by 2020.

"Just connect the dots," said Ohio State University geologist Lonnie Thompson. "If things remain as they have, in 15 years [Kilimanjaro's glaciers] will be gone."

The Heat Is On

When Thompson's reports of glacial recession on Kilimanjaro first emerged in 2002, the story was quickly picked up and trumpeted as another example of humans destroying nature. It's easy to see why: Ice fields in the tropics—Kilimanjaro lies about 220 miles (350 kilometers) south of the Equator—are particularly susceptible to climate change, and even the slightest temperature fluctuation can have devastating effects.

"There's a tendency for people to take this temperature increase and draw quick conclusions, which is a mistake," said Douglas R. Hardy, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, who monitored Kilimanjaro's glaciers from mountaintop weather stations since 2000. "The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved."

According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests," he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html

posted May 25, 2006 04:42 PM              

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black

For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

points (4)&(5) may not be proven yet......

(6)youve got to be kidding me...."global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States." good answer!! applause........

posted May 25, 2006 08:13 PM            

By Samuel Thernstrom

With Al Gore’s new movie opening this week, there are some inconvenient truths its maker should consider: Gore himself has done incalculable harm to the cause of combating global warming. His efforts to call attention to the dangers of climate change may prove prescient but his policy prescriptions have been nothing short of disastrous.

Consider the facts: The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore personally negotiated for the United States, was a colossal mistake—a fundamentally flawed approach that has taken nearly a decade (and counting) to recover from. If ever a treaty was dead on arrival, it was Kyoto, given that the Senate had voted 95-0 against two of its essential elements before it was negotiated. (That vote rejected any treaty that would seriously harm our economy while exempting the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions—a sensible litmus test.) That didn’t stop Gore from agreeing to its terms, knowing full well that it would never be ratified—a remarkably cynical political move.

What’s wrong with signing an impractical treaty? A lot, actually. Kyoto stopped us from pursuing more realistic alternatives. Even now, Kyoto’s misconceptions haunt us: Having already agreed that the developing world need not reduce its (rapidly increasing) emissions of greenhouse gases, it will be hard to persuade those countries to reconsider. Yet without their participation, no limits on global emissions can be effective.

Before Kyoto, the world was seriously engaged in thinking through the challenge of climate change. That started in earnest after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which committed the world to working together to avoid dangerous interference with the global climate. It left open the more difficult question of precisely what to do but it set the right goal, and for five years scientists, economists, engineers, and government officials struggled with that question. After Kyoto, that process largely ground to a halt.

Of course President Clinton never even tried to get the Senate to approve the treaty, and for seven years the rest of the industrialized world wrestled with ratification. A year ago, the Protocol finally came into effect—at least on paper. We have next to nothing to show for it. Canada is the latest country to admit (just this week) that it cannot meet its Kyoto targets; it wants to pursue voluntary measures when the Protocol expires in 2012. The rest of the participants aren’t doing much better: No country has actually made substantial reductions in its greenhouse gas emissions because of Kyoto, and many European countries will miss their targets by double digits. Moreover, those limits are only a small fraction of what many scientists think is needed to stabilize the climate.

The problem with meeting these targets is simple: the necessary technologies don’t exist. At best, Kyoto would mean spending a lot of money to accomplish very little. Kyoto-style targets may promote modest reductions in emissions today but they aren’t going to produce the research needed for fundamental technological breakthroughs that could slash overall global emissions. Short-term, modest targets aren’t incentives for ambitious long-term research.

After wasting almost a decade pursuing Al Gore’s answer to climate change, Kyoto’s failure is clear. The much-celebrated “trading” mechanism that was expected to cut the cost of compliance is barely functioning. Trading emissions credits works well when the technologies exist, such as smokestack “scrubbers” to remove sulfur dioxide. But greenhouse gases are another matter: There are so many sources of carbon dioxide, and so few affordable ways to get rid of it. Establishing an effective market for trading these credits is much more complicated than advocates ever imagined.

So, if not Kyoto, what? Environmentalists should thank President Bush for breathing new—albeit indignant—life into the stagnant climate-change debate when he announced in 2001 that he wouldn’t pursue ratification of Kyoto. New policy opportunities opened up and people went back to the creative drawing boards. We’re taking small steps in the right direction, but activists are more enamored with their politics—which dictate that anything that Bush supports must be wrong—than with spurring these nascent efforts on. Clinton and Gore continue to mislead Americans by telling us that the solutions are simple and cheap—all we need is political will to implement them. Nothing could be further from the truth: the answers to climate change are expensive and elusive; they will be found in the Los Alamos labs, not the halls of Congress.

The only way to make meaningful reductions in global greenhouse-gas emissions is to develop new clean energy and transportation technologies—and not just hybrid cars and windmills. Doing politically correct things like building solar panels would shave a few points off our total emissions, but only breakthrough technologies like hydrogen fuel cells will make real cuts possible. And their cost is the key: We can build fuel-cell cars now—for $1 million. When we figure out how to sell them for $30,000, we won’t need an international treaty to get people to buy them. Almost every major car company in the world is frantically trying to unlock that puzzle and—are you sitting down?—George W. Bush, the ex-oil man who once mocked Al Gore’s fascination with green cars, is pouring billions of federal dollars into the effort.

Bush has also spearheaded other efforts to develop clean energy technologies, such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership, which includes key developing countries such as China and India. Activists scorn these initiatives because they don’t require emissions reductions today, but in the long run they are our only hope. The real question is how to best advance this research—government labs, private sector R&D, or some combination? What’s the right level of funding, and the best way of organizing the research?

posted May 25, 2006 11:08 PM              

quote:

---

Any reasonable scientist would use a smoothing factor...
moving average..
to damp out spikes and valleys both above
and below long term trends.--jwhop

---

quote:

---

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions
For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed

---

quote:

---

Anyone who knows anything about temperatures
in the medieval warming period knows temperatures
were actually warmer than they are now.--jwhop

---

posted May 26, 2006 02:52 PM              

or are you talking before mammals evolved?

posted May 26, 2006 03:58 PM            

Are you existing on earth today...with these high levels of CO2?

Do you feel dizzy, ill or in any way impaired?

OK Petron, this is a chart of temperatures and CO2 levels going back 500 million years and an explanation of what it means.

"The bottom chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

I'm going to post the entire article. Those with open minds can read and readily see that CO2 is not responsible for global warming or global cooling or global anything else.

The entire proposition of CO2 caused global warming is a hoax and always was a hoax. No credible scientist could possibly buy into the proposition and so, the objective of the crackpot hoaxers of global warming must be something else...as I've said.

All you who are quaking in your boots over CO2 caused global warming ending life on earth can cooperate with Algore and the global warming hoaxers, sell your cars, go on foot or a bicycle made in communist China. China which is not part of the mandated CO2 reduction articles of the Kyoto treaty and who stands to gain enormously if the US, Europe and Japan implement Kyoto and shut down our industry and transportation systems.