Great Moments In Small Town Media

A local paper covered a presentation on the politics of global warming and delivered a howler.  First, some background:

The Darien League of Women Voters (LWV) held the second session of its "Going Green" series Friday morning in Town Hall, hosting Congressman Christo­pher Shays (R) and Rafe Pomerance, president of Clean Air-Cool Planet.

Pomerance, a native of Cos Cob, opened the session by discussing the toll that carbon emissions have taken on the environment. He is a former State Department official who helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol and current president of Clean Air-Cool Planet, an independent nonprofit fund based in New Canaan that focuses on combating global warming.

Saying that this generation may be remembered as "the age of the release of carbon into the atmosphere," Pomerance explained that unstable amounts of carbon-rich gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, black carbon and aerosols in the atmosphere, had been directly responsible for a rise in the earth's temperature.

Well, OK - I'll accept that there is a human component to the recent warming trend.  However, the reporter runs off the rails here:

Pomerance said that the primary reason that such drastic effects have been seen in recent years is because the United States has only instituted "marginal" emissions policies to limit the release of carbon.

I promise you - Mr. Pomerance was not so daft as to suggest the world would be a notably cooler place today if only the US had gotten behind the Kyoto protocols or any other emissions controls actually on the political menu.  In fact, IIRC his rather tepid defense of Kyoto was that it was the best deal available and a useful first step, not that it was a particularly helpful deal in itself - he seemed well aware that omitting India and China and presenting a deal that was DOA in the US was not exactly the final answer to global warming.

The reporter's absurd mischaracterization of Mr. Pomerance's position makes it easier for the two sides to continue to talk past each other.

I hope to see a vigorously worded letter to the editor.

MORE:  Why take my word for it?  This is the opening paragraph of a Dec 2004 paper prepared by Mr. Pomerance's Climate Policy Center:

This paper assesses the prospects for implementing greenhouse gas controls in the United States. One basic fact frames the analysis. Namely, controls stringent enough to actually stop global climate change would as yet still cost more than the damage expected from climate change.

...The realistic political response is simply to admit that the current and likely future political constellation of forces is unfavorable to the implementation of all but modest emission controls and to adjust the goals of climate policy to match the political realities.

Mr. Pomerance struck me as a realist.

STILL MORE:  Chris Shays made the national security argument for conservation - we need to get the world off of Middle Eastern oil - but without as much enthusiam as I had expected.  Seems odd because Green Republicans could use some gas, as it were.

SUNSPOTS:  Ahh, but what about sunspots and solar flares?  The IDB had a neditorial today:

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

Here are some older articles on the sun:

Solar Flares and Global Warming

A recent study by researchers at Duke University and the Army Research           Office has found new evidence of a link between solar flare activity           and the earth's temperature. The work is another contribution to the           ongoing debate over global warming and its causes.

...Unless some           other underlying cause is responsible for the unlikely correspondence           between solar flares and the earth's temperature, the research suggests           that for the large part variations in global temperatures are beyond           our control and are instead at the mercy of the sun's activity.

The paper is here.

And Science Daily (who?)  had this:

ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2003) — New research on the sun's contribution to global warming is reported in this month's Astronomy & Geophysics. By looking at solar activity over the last 11,000 years, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) astrophysicist, Mark Clilverd, predicts that the sun's contribution to warming the Earth will reduce slightly over the next 100 years.

This is a different picture to the last century when solar flares, sunspots and geomagnetic storms, increased in number. This rise is simultaneous with emissions of greenhouses gases and an estimated increase in solar heat output, which together have warmed the Earth's temperature by a global average of 0.7 degrees centigrade.

The solar contribution to the increase is variously estimated to be around 4-20% leaving greenhouse gases to make up the remaining 80%. Clilverd and colleagues conclude that solar activity is about to peak and predict less activity in the next 100 years, with the occurrence of space storms likely to decline by two thirds. Their assumption is that the solar heat output will decline slightly accordingly.

The second paper seems to be saying that the sun is only a small part of the warming/cooling story; the first ascribes it greater influence.

Comments

[Neo]

It's a world of "sound-bites', so what do you expect.

The whole Global Warming Climate Change thing is full of such "sound-bites".

[Donald]

Tom,

What might that human component be? I ain't buying any of this man made global warming crap and there is not one single piece of actual scientific evidence that I've been able to find.

[Neo]

Another good laugh .. one of the "lynch" pins of the faux Energy Bill of last year now turns out to be a threat to the environment.

[Rick Ballard]

"Well, OK - I'll accept that there is a human component to the recent warming trend."

How very sophisticated of you. Have you quantified the "human component" and can you reveal what you believe it to be in a recognizable measure? How many degrees and what percentage of increase is attributable to the "human component"? Or are you perhaps relying upon the "scientific consensus" formed under the aegis of the Goracle's pronouncements?

Was the "human component" responsible for the "global cooling" which occurred in the period of the mid fifties to the late seventies? Or perhaps that was just a twenty five year anomaly like the present drop in temperature.

Hook, line and sinker.

[MayBee]

I had an English friend that moved to Darien and complained that people there simply didn't drink enough at dinner parties.
So that could be part of the problem.

[Sue]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175>People are going to be confused.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Huh! I'd assumed that this was the howler you had in mind:

Pomerance explained that unstable amounts of carbon-rich gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, black carbon and aerosols in the atmosphere, had been directly responsible for a rise in the earth's temperature.

Out of our five carbon-rich gases, one contains no carbon, and two-- in addition to being solid rather than gaseous-- have a cooling rather than a warming effect. A pretty impressive density of error!

[bio mom]

Yes, the science here is not clear on either side. That's how science works most of the time. And when dealing with something as huge as "climate" and trying to predict things or observe them over millenia, you are fighting a losing battle. I heard a very convincing presentation last year from a climatologist who believes his data supports the idea that we are actually in another ice age now. These small periods of warming are seen withing these ice ages. He fears that by 2050 there will be a dramatic downwards drop in average temperatures that will be quite dangerous. This was no goofball. He is a respected climatologist of long standing. So we will see who is right in the next 4 or 5 decades.

[Bill in AZ]

Sue, I had just read that article on the way over here. Lots of the same thinking going on over at Climate Audit in the Svalgaard threads due the extended cycle23. The IBD article has some inaccuracies, as might be expected from someone not familiar with the science. We're possibly heading into something similar to The Maunder Minimum which occurred in the 1700's. Each significant minimum get's its own name, and the Svalgaard thread is arguing about naming rights. I vote for The Goracle Minimum.

[clarice]

If I'm around to find out--assuming it takes another 4 or 5 decades,I'll be happy no matter how it turns out.

[Bill in AZ]

bio mom - I don't think we'll need to wait 50 years. Cycle 23 was moderate and is already past the average cycle length, with maybe 6 months to a year to go yet. Cycle 24 is projected by some to be maybe as long and moderate. We'll see the effects soon, and certainly within the next 10-15 years. Some folks who watch this say we are seeing the effects already - that the 15 inches of precip here in central AZ over the last 2 months is part of it.

That's OK by me - the last 3 solar cycles were intense and short cycle length - and created drought conditions here in AZ that haven't been seen since 1100 AD. Oh, it also created the Goracles hockey stick, that is beginning to look like a pretzel, sort of like his logic.

[Rick Ballard]

Bill,

I just noticed a good probable date for Hansen's Epiphany. The 2nd comment down pinpoints the change from colderist to warmerist - it's a decent thread with an excellent link to a Newsweek writeup on the consensus of 1975.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

How very sophisticated of you. Have you quantified the "human component" and can you reveal what you believe it to be in a recognizable measure? How many degrees and what percentage of increase is attributable to the "human component"? Or are you perhaps relying upon the "scientific consensus" formed under the aegis of the Goracle's pronouncements?

Was the "human component" responsible for the "global cooling" which occurred in the period of the mid fifties to the late seventies? Or perhaps that was just a twenty five year anomaly like the present drop in temperature.

Oh, Rick, for crying out loud, don't let your idiology lead you into saying things like that.

First off, saying there exists a human component isn't an assertion that he knows what the significance of it is. Whatever the behavior of the climate is, CO2 and CH4 content of the atmosphere has some effect, and humans have some effect on the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It follows therefore that humans make some contribution. On that much there is scientific consensus.

Second, it's very well supported that there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age; call it 1650. That's why we call it the Little Ice Age: if there hadn't been significant warming, we'd call it something like "when it got colder" or some such. There is some explanation for that; the argument is over what the explanation might be.

Third, it's just as clear (and largely sort of elided by the RealClimate crowd) that CO2, or even CO2 and CH4 aren't the only components of that explanation. Whatever that explanation is, it's going to come down, at last, to some kind of horribly nonlinear system of partial differential equations, of which one will be a PDE with a bunch of terms that are functions of CO2 concentration and CH4 concentration. Those terms will almost certainly be such that they contribute to temperature increasing as concentration increases. That's why they're called "greenhouse gases".

None of this means that greenhouse gases are the most significant contributor, but that isn't what Tom said.

The RealClimate crowd goes on to argue that there's an inflection point around 1900, and that the RATE of warming has increased since then. This is the famous "hockey stick". Thedy go on to adduce that human-mediated increase in CO2 is responsible for that inflection.

It's not clear that this is actually true. But Tom didn't say anything about that.

Now, what you could say reasonably is that there is a lot of controversy, and a lot less consensus than is usually asserted, that this warming is at all unusual; that there really is any inflection around 1900; that the models used to predict further warming aren't very reliable; that they don't take into account some homeostatic mechanisms (like aerosols, cloud cover, increasing albedo, and so on); and that it appears like we might be heading into another Maunder Minimum, in which case decreasing solar output will have a very strong forcing effect in itself.

What you actually said though is either poorly thought out or not thought about at all; whatever the cause, you're effectively throwing out a boatload of red herring in place of reading what Tom actually said.

[bgates]

Whether the earth is heating or cooling, we know two things for sure:
-it's America's fault
-the Democrats are brave enough to take the UN's advice on how to fix it

[come to think of it, we know those two things about all problems]

[kim]

We are cooling, folks, and have been for several years, though it has only gotten dramatic in the last six months. If we are headed to a new Grand Minimum, as I believe, we have 30-50 years of cooling ahead of us.
===========

[kim]

Anybody remember my late August prediction that the globe was cooling and that the War in Iraq was over? I wanted people to tell everyone they knew that with a big smile on their face and watch the reactions. I hope you all followed my advice.
==============================

[kim]

The three Svalgaard threads on Steve McIntyre's blog, climateaudit.org are up to date on the sun-climate connection. It seems obvious that the sun is the main driver of climate change, but just how small changes in solar input cause larger changes in climate is not yet understood. That particular mechanism's discovery will earn a Nobel Prize, soon.

Andy Revkin, at dotearth, a New York Times blog, has a thread nearly 900 comments long about AGW, with many heavyweights chiming in, and at least one lightweight(shameless self-promotion). It's the AGU thread, headlined with a bright red and frightening map of the globe.
=====================

[kim]

Pay particular attention to Pete's graph in comment #454 of the Svalgaard #2 thread, and surrounding commentary. The implications of that graph are why I believe we will cool for half a century, or so, before warming up again.
==========================

[kim]

Remember Thompson? You know, Fred? He was the only candidate who understood what a fraud AGW is. Perhaps Romney knew, too. Surely he was the only one capable of independently analyzing the data to see the truth. Maybe that's why he promised a revival in Michigan. Internal, here we combustion.
======================

[Rick Ballard]

Charlie,

Excellent rebuttal. So the "human component" in global warming has a physical value of ?

A decent answer is necessary because granting the grounds of "human component", a propositional tautology concerning effect on myriad natural conditions on earth, is, IMO, of no practical value without quantification. Ceding the ground encourages acceptance of a consensus concerning not just an undeniable tautology but a policy of amelioration based upon an extraordinary abuse of the precautionary principle.

I should have taken the time to go through the rationale in my first comment. Watching the hide the ball tactics of the AGW "scientists" involved in generating the consensus has left me somewhat short tempered regarding the matter.

[Tom Maguire]

How very sophisticated of you. Have you quantified the "human component" and can you reveal what you believe it to be in a recognizable measure?

Let me first thank Charlie CO for his defense. Secondly, I have abandoned the trench labeled "No Human Impact", and I think it is a lost position for the Republican Party to continue insisting that either (a) nothing is happening, or (b) something is happening but there is zero human impact.

However, there are plenty of trenches behind that one. I'm still in the Lomborg (Skeptical Environmentalist) trench defending the notion that none of the plans on the table are cost-effective and there are many better things to do with our money if saving/bettering lives (especially in the third world) is the real goal.

Here is an old post to get started, and I still like this - "Bjorn Lomborg - Like Kryptonite to Kyoto".

And good point about the five carbon-rich gases being a howler, too. The only reason I let that slide is it is too dumb for anyone to think a guy who has been working this issue for decades actually said it. The policy point is pretty dumb, too, but there might be some enviro somewhere saying it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

So the "human component" in global warming has a physical value of ?

Something between -30 percent and +30 percent of the change in temperature since 1900. I'd believe it's around 10 percent positive without a lot of complaint; Roger Pielke Sr gives the +30 figure, but I'm suspicious that he's not accounting sufficiently for increase in albedo. On one hand, he's a world expert and I'm just some math geek. On the other hand, we're seeing Antarctic ice increasing in unexpected, un-modeled ways, and all that nice white icecap reflects heat.

Now, you may be right that ceding anything to the arguments of the anthropogenicity advocates is politically unwise; personally, I guess I'm ivory-tower enough that I don't like it when either side fudges the facts for political purposes.

Isn't that exactly what Gore et al seem to be doing?

[Cecil Turner]

I think it is a lost position for the Republican Party to continue insisting that either (a) nothing is happening, or (b) something is happening but there is zero human impact.

Hopefully we'd base the assessment of facts (as opposed to the corrective action) on science rather than politics. In any event, the only logical measure-of-merit is: significant anthropomorphic contribution . . . which remains unproven.

And if we're seriously looking for corrective action (due to stewardship, precautionary principle, or whatever), then expansion of nuclear power production is the obvious low-hanging fruit. And pointing that out ought to be a reflexive response to Goracle-type hypocrites whenever they start pounding the pulpit.

[Rick Ballard]

Charlie,

Were there enough SH data collection points in 1900 to establish a global mean temperature as a "fact"? There appear to have been enough to say something about average temperatures for North America and Europe but even Asia has some rather large lacunae from what I've gathered at Climate Audit. If the records don't exist or if the records that do exist have been 'adjusted' by proponents of the 'global' aspect of warming without thorough documentation of the adjustments then I don't believe that fudging has entered into picture.

[Bill in AZ]

Granted, we all know that Bush screwed up the war in Iraq...

Granted, we all know that human produced carbon dioxide has contributed to global warming...

They're memes. Conservatives (or non-believers) are required to preface anything they say with those statements, otherwise their argument will get shot down before the 2nd sentence - whether you believe the meme or not. They are memes that must be repeated before you can be heard - and then you've already lost any argument.

I frankly don't subscribe to either meme, and will not lend credence to them by prefacing arguments with them. General Washington screwed up the American Revolution - repeatedly. Same for Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. It's war and things happen. I think some bloggers have created macros that any time they say "Bush", it is automatically followed by ("who screwed up the war in Iraq"). Keep memes alive.

We have been inundated with "arguments" that humans have created greenhouse gases sufficient to create global warming. I have seen convincing arguments that go the other way. I have seen convincing arguments that greenhouse gases are a product of and lag the solar conditions that create global warming. These never get any attention because they don't fit the meme. The only thing that is clear is that there is no scientific consensus - so why prejudice the discussion with a meme with no basis in fact.

[GMax]

Well given that the other side likes to call a food fight "consensus" I think that it may well be unwise to acknowledge human contribution since if it is very small, rounding to the nearest whole number would in fact lead to zero, as no one seems to say 51% or more.

Not being a scientist all I can do is read and then process through my logic meter. But the fact that every model that is currently used to predict climate is so useless that is only apparent function is to provide backup for the toilet paper dispenser does give one some pause. How can you tell if the activity raises or reduces ( in some manner just not currently understood ) when you can not accurately predict with your model and given input very recent history and observations?

[Bill in AZ]

come to think of it, I have even seen a convincing argument that fire won't melt a steel milk crate... dunno what that was about though...

[Rick Ballard]

GMax,

That Newsweek piece I linked above has a nice (for 1975) graph that demonstrates the accuracy of the consensus forecast at that time. That was before the marvelous GCMs that were brought into being a few years later but we're about to see reality overcome even the very best GCM quite soon. When the NYT and the London Times both give space to fellows saying "hey, wait a minute" it's not a particularly sound tactic to cede. Unless, of course, political objectives are considered to be of higher importance than noting the wrinkles on the Emperor's flabby butt.

There was definitely an inflection point at around 1900, just as there was in the early '40's and late '70's and today. Global? I don't think that the data supports that conclusion wrt the southern hemisphere.

[kim]

There is a lot of human impact on the environment, and it is likely that CO2 has a warming effect, though much smaller than the alarmists would have it. We can worry about its warming effect when we start coming out of the coming Grand Minimum.

Google Bodele Depression and see what wind farms in Africa would do to the Amazon Basin. Four hundred millions tons of African minerals fertilize South Africa, EACH YEAR, from dust lifted by wind funneled through a mountain gap. We are all downwind from the unintended consequences of wind farms.

It is insidiously dangerous to believe we can generate significant amounts of energy from the natural climate regulating mechanisms of the earth without significantly deranging those mechanisms. Emphasis on 'significant'.
=======================
=======================================

[kim]

Rick; see tinyurl.com/yor74c

Those are worldwide temperatures. We are cooling; you know GISS is corrupted. UAH, and RSS, are the most reliable.
=========================

[sylvia]

Another thing that I saw recently that didn't get much press was that volcanic activity influences global temperature. First off from the gasses emitted and second from the land formation that is the result. Apparently it was discovered recently that more or less land on the earth also effects the global temp. So in other words, everything effect the temperature, including humans, however I would venture a guess none has as much influence as the sun.

[Pofarmer]

Kim

Are you saying that windfarms are gonna stop the wind? Or that tidal generators are gonna stop the tide?

[kim]

You take energy out of the wind, there is less in it.
================================

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

If you pull energy from the climate via wind farms and tidal generators, you cannot say that they may not slow the wind and tide.

It's the same tautology that makes "There is a lot of human impact on the environment, and it is likely that CO2 has a warming effect" a logically true statement - even if the effect is .00000001%. Pick your starting point carefully and you can magnify the "result" according to your desires. 1715 is a great starting point if you would like to show a correlation with a very sharp increase in warming, 1645 works well if you'd like to correlate something with seventy years of cooling. 1978 works just great for the warmerists but 2008 looks like it may snap the blade off their phony hockeystick.

Kim's concern about windfarms may be much more valid than the CO2 schtick. The most important greenhouse gas is H2O and slowing down the clouds passing through could be even more problematic than slowing down the airborn transport of dirt.

[kim]

There is a HUGE amount of energy in the wind, orders of magnitude greater than even many more people could use. But the key word is 'significant'. My example about the Bodele Depression is to highlight the unintended consequences.

The globe's climate regulating mechanisms are precisely the machinery the 'greenies' want to interfere with in order to have 'sustainable' energy. When this little problem about the Bodele Depression is pointed out to them, heads explode.
================================

[kim]

Again, I'm not sneering too much at greenies. It is going to be cost effective to take care of the earth. It's just when they go off irrationally, about CO2, and about 'sustainable' energy, that I object. Their wrongheadedness is going to critically delay things we ought to do.

This CO2 mess is going to be hard on science. It is a disaster of credibility.
=================

[kim]

My 11:56 post last night should have said South America, not South Africa. Missouri gets some of those Bodele Depression minerals, but doesn't need them as much as the Amazon Basin does, nor does it get nearly so much.
===========

[Pofarmer]

Ya know, one interesting thing. There is a major interstate about 18 miles south of me. We see a lot of storms blow up from the Ozarks and just dissipate about the interstate. I've maintained that it's a wind effect, heat effect, something, that breaks up these storms. You have a straight cut through the geology, and lot's of turbulence going on there. Of course, it's also about the transition point from the Ozarks to more of a plains type topology. Still it's frustrating to watch a promising weather system on radar just suddenly dissapear.

[kim]

Rick, those graphs of Tilo Reber show global temperatures at the peak; we're headed down with an increasingly negative slope. Whether we're headed for a Grand Minimum or not is not sure, but we are surely cooling, now, and for the near term.
====================================

[kim]

The turbulence of wind makes it very difficult to assign specific results to specific cause, but you can't get around the fact that wind with less energy in it will behave differently than if the energy had been left in.
========================

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

Read this about the Australian Rabbit Fence. Robert Pielke's site has the best accumulation of papers on the effects of land use on local and regional weather. Figure 5 in the Rabbit Fence paper is pretty extraordinary.

Kim,

Which graphs? I've lost track somewhere. I agree that GISS is the most corupted and that UAH and RSS are more reliable (depending on "adjustments") but I don't believe that I've seen a graph tied to Tilo Reber recently.

[kim]

See above, tinyurl.com/yor74c
=====================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I swear, the first time I tried that URL it took me to the Stossel piece. I wish I could post Reber's graphs directly into comments here.

[Pofarmer]

I can't trust any of the climate models. They simply haven't been proven. The weather models that the NWS uses are proved everyday, and they still have a very low probability of being right. Anything over 2 or 3 days out is just about as accurate as throwing darts.

Yeah, I know, climate models are different than weather models. Really doesn't matter, untilly you can run them through enough cycles to prove them, you basically are just employing a lot of programmers.

[kim]

Thank you, Rick. Any chance for Pete's graph in comment #454 on the Svalgaard #2 thread at climateaudit.org? The last part of it, the part that really drops is speculative, but still.

Do you see Daniel in the Lion's Den at Georgia Tech?
====================

[kim]

I've been having a lot of fun on the Dotearth blog comparing climate modelers to model train enthusiasts. My latest was to say that it is as if they laid their circular tracks on the ceiling, and won't understand when and why the train won't stay up there.
======================

[hit and run]

Pofarmer:
The weather models that the NWS uses are proved everyday, and they still have a very low probability of being right. Anything over 2 or 3 days out is just about as accurate as throwing darts.

You know during the drought here this summer, I went every day to weather.com to look at the 10 day forecast and see if any rain was coming.

Though I didn't record the exact figures, based on recollection, I figure that there was an 80% chance that days 7,8,9 or 10 would show at least a 60% chance of rain.

And it rained like twice all summer.

[Syl]

Still it's frustrating to watch a promising weather system on radar just suddenly dissapear.

It might be downsloping. We get that here in my area if the midlevel winds have a western component. Storms cross the Appalachians, the winds start sinking and the storms dissipate. Often after a front has gone through downsloping quickly compresses, dries, and warms the air.

[Pofarmer]

Now pretend you're trying to make actual dollars and cents business decisions off of that.

Frustrating doesn't begin to cover it.

Then I hear that these "Climate models" are predicting this or that.

Gimme a break.

[Rick Ballard]

Pete's graph in comment #454 on the Svalgaard #2 thread

Kim,

Here's the USDA stats site.

Comparing yield figures to the climate data numbers is kind of interesting. 1998 was a great yield year but 2003 was better. Then the slide started.

[Syl]

The weather models that the NWS uses are proved everyday, and they still have a very low probability of being right. Anything over 2 or 3 days out is just about as accurate as throwing darts.

Actually they have a very high probability of being right. There are actually several models in use which cover various types and combinations of data. It's the specific regional NWS guys who make the final call on various aspects of a forecast (temp, winds, precipitation, timing, etc). He knows the region, knows the models, and often speaks from the gut, data notwithstanding.

'Oh, there goes the GFS again with its convective feedback problem. I'm going with the NAM this time'

'Ah, as I expected the blah blah is finally coming more into agreement with the blah blah in the latest runs'.

As for more than about five days out, the probabilities are too low for the granularity required for your street or neighborhood. A front may be expected and it happens but you won't know how much precip you're going to get or if something will pass 100 miles north or south of you.

I love it when the nightshift NWS guy says, well it's here in the data but I don't think it will happen 'cause in these situations before it's never panned out. Then the morning shift guy tells us its gonna happen.

And it doesn't.

:)

I really love my NWS guys and I'm not being facetious.

[Pofarmer]

1998 is about when we started having every other year droughts through here. We had some great years all through the '90's, then it's been a roller coaster since.

[JM Hanes]

Pofarmer:

We used to see a similar effect where a small city (75,000) about 10 miles away stood between us and the prevailing winds. The terrain was relatively flat, and when a storm cloud heading our way hit the urban thermals, it would dump all its rain in town. It was even more depressing when a front came through, and we'd have to watch the rain move past us on both sides -- leaving us bone dry in the middle.

Rick:

"The most important greenhouse gas is H2O and slowing down the clouds passing through could be even more problematic than slowing down the airborn transport of dirt."

I understand the argument that you've been making, but last time I checked, H20 was not a gas. I think you'll have a hard time persuading anyone that wind power might represent any potential tipping point, however, when rerouting water has been one of the central features of human life on earth.

[Rick Ballard]

"but last time I checked, H20 was not a gas"

You might wish to check again. I suggest - "greenhouse gas" H20 - as the search string. That drops the results down to only about 8,550, where - H20 gas - will return 380,000 results.

[JM Hanes]

Rick:

You're seriously proposing Google hits as definitive? I'll see your 8,550 greenbacks with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

A substance possessing perfect molecular mobility and the property of indefinite expansion, as opposed to a solid or liquid; any such fluid or mixture of fluids other than air. Normally, these formless substances completely fill the space, and take the shape of, their container.

Water vapor is not a gas.

[kim]

Vapor is gaseous. Gasses are vaporous. Water, among its miracles, has phase changes accompanied by peculiar thermodynamic properties. Be glad.
==============================

[JM Hanes]

kim:

"Water, among its miracles, has phase changes accompanied by peculiar thermodynamic properties."

And perfect molecular mobility ain't one of 'em.

[kim]

Suddenly the IBD article is the subject of big controversy. One of the sources of quotes, Canada's Tapping claims that AGW is a big concern. He truly has hedged his bets, because he, as well as other solar researchers are all anxiously watching the behaviour of the sun for clues to its near term activity. It is spotless, now, not unusual at minimum, but quite unknown is how much longer, or more quiescent Old Sol will get.

Tapping makes the same point I do, but sees it from the other side. We both suspect long term cooling. He thinks the problem of CO2 will just be worse at the other end. I'm sure we'll have other energy solutions by then, and in the meantime, a little extra CO2 will warm and feed our billions.
======================

[kim]

Are you really trying to tell me that water vapour is not a gas?
=====================================

[kim]

Water is in the set H2O, but does not fill it.
===========================

[kim]

I can't believe I've found JMHanes in error. It's like scoffing at cathyf, or sneering at Clarice. Or calling TSK9 a dumb dawg.
==================================

[Rick Ballard]

"Eleven chemical elements are gaseous at normal temperatures and pressures: hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, chlorine, argon, krypton, xenon and radon."

'Course, that's just a Wiki article.

[JM Hanes]

You obviously weren't here when I said that John Edwards had resigned his Senate seat to run for Prez! As you can see, when I'm wrong, I'm usually really wrong.

[clarice]

That is so rare as to be virtually non existent, JMH. (I forgot about the Edwards thing and will now just forget it again.)

[kim]

Whew, now, about global cooling.
==================

[kim]

Uh, Rick, unconvincing. Those are elements, not compounds. So much for Wiki. Heh.
==================================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

True. There's very little about the subject that doesn't reach "unconvincing" or, at minimum, uncertain at a level which would preclude much of an investment in mitigation.

AS far as JMH being really wrong, I was much more wrong in my initial reaction to Tom's comment and regret having posted it.

I still don't regard the political cession wrt AGW to be necessary. McCain and Bush will look as foolish as the Goracle if we're heading into a minimum and we appear to be about four or five years past peak today.

[kim]

Well, the fact is, carbon dioxide probably does have a small effect on climate. It's just been vastly overblown, driven by humanity's primitive urge to blame the actions of the Gods on human behaviour.

Unnecessarily encumbering carbon will unnecessarily starve and freeze millions, if not billions, of sentient humans, if, in fact, we are cooling, and the evidence that we are mounts every day.
===============================

[JM Hanes]

Strange as it may seem, I always thought of it as airborne water particles that get picked up and blown around, collected into clouds, etc. etc., not 99% of the atmosphere. Odder still, when you realize that I've always thought that Poseidon should have outranked Zeus, hands down.

In any case, if we're heading into a new ice age, maybe we should be praying that man really can contribute to global warming.:) Back when the concensus was global cooling, I remember seeing a graph that started back at, like, the beginning of time. The macro cycling made an inevitable nosedive look virtually preordained -- and it also made it look like we're sitting right on top of the peak that precedes it.

[kim]

Elegant, Miz J. If we are fortunate, our conception of the natural world changes every day. Clouds hold the key to the exquisite sensitivity of the climate to small changes in the sun's output.

I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.

The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry-violet rays, as the song says.

H/t No. Coward, and Plum
================

[JM Hanes]

Well, a tip o' the hat to you, kim. Not many folks can make a major correction sound like a compliment!

[kim]

Ain't we got fun?
=========

[hit and run]

From John Hindraker at Powerline

I suspect that many global warming alarmists are well aware that time is running out for them. If nothing is done and global temperatures decline in coming years--as they inevitably will, the only question is when--the alarmists will have been refuted. On the other hand, if they succeed in pushing through industry-destroying caps on carbon emissions around the world, and especially here in the U.S., they will take credit for the cooling when it comes, claiming it as vindication of their theories.

I like it!!!! I really, really do!!! Actually, it almost sounds like something I might even write.

Global Warming Cabal [Jonah Goldberg]
It's way too cute and conspiratorial, but it ain't altogether crazy either. From a reader:

Wanted to propose a theory about Al Gore and other global warming alarmists. Maybe others have reached this conclusion, but I haven't seen it.

Was just reading an article <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html> [which] starts out profiling Bill Gray, the preeminent hurricane guy. Talks about how he is a global warming skeptic and how he's pissed at how he's being treated in the scientific community. Etc.

But then I read this sentence, "In just three, five, maybe eight years, he [Gray] says, the world will begin to cool again." and it hit me...Holy cow. The global warming alarmists KNOW the earth is going to begin cooling in a few years - and their alarm is that they have to have Kyoto-like programs in place that they can point to as the cause of the cooling.

If they can succeed at this - they effectively control the world. In a few decades they can revive the "earth is cooling and there's an ice age coming" alarmism - and prescribe policies that ensure they have the power they want to manage that impending climate disaster.

Exit question: Will John too be labeled "way too cute and conspiratorial, but not altogether crazy"?

Of course not. I'm waaay cuter than Hindraker.

And besides, they're all out to get me.

[kim]

Watch out for albedo. That may be the excuse for near term cooling.

However, the science of the sun-climate connection is coming into focus.

Andy Revkin's AGU thread on DotEarth has the skeptics giving the warmers a run for the money. Shameless self-promotion alert.
==============================

[Moderate Moe]

Tom,
You claim that this reporter went 'off the rails' and asserted that Pomerance said that the world would be cooler if the US signed Kyoto, but the reporter never did any such thing. He only claimed pomerance felt that the US has instituted only "marginal" emission regulations, which is true. Kyoto isn't even mentioned. In any case, you go on to say that if the US wouldn't have changed much if we had signed it because of India and China, well guess what pal. The US was the most powerful nation on the planet and if we had signed the friggin thing guess who would have had too as well? That's right, India and China. So basically what I'm sayin is, use your Brain before, you attack someone who has friends that use them.

[lilcurlyorange]

Kim I think that your tactics are wrong and unclear. The globe is not cooling, nor will it ever be cool. I mean come on how many people have to call you crazy before you are going to ever shut your trap? And in the long run.....YOU"RE WRONG!!!!!!!

[battery]

If you want to consider the nuttiest thing we do in power generation right now, it's to use natural gas to run an electric power plant (built as a "peaking" plant but now running 365 days/year) during winter months and use it to run people's electric heat. When they could burn the gas directly in their furnaces and use like half of the amount of gas for the same amount of heat

[sophy]

We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy wakfu kamas and join us.