My goodness, people, where's your sense of humor? It's a very old joke about what happens to you memory and sense of judgment when you get older. I saw a new study just released a couple of days ago that the brain literally shrinks when people age. The study said that as the brain shrinks, not only is the memory affected, but actually some of the brain's control mechanism's are eliminated. The functions that are diminished are knowing what is acceptable behavior in public and which things are just not acceptable to say to a stranger and how to react in certain situations.

It proves definitively something I have long suspected. Old age just gives seniors an excuse to say what they've been t...

My goodness, people, where's your sense of humor? It's a very old joke about what happens to you memory and sense of judgment when you get older. I saw a new study just released a couple of days ago that the brain literally shrinks when people age. The study said that as the brain shrinks, not only is the memory affected, but actually some of the brain's control mechanism's are eliminated. The functions that are diminished are knowing what is acceptable behavior in public and which things are just not acceptable to say to a stranger and how to react in certain situations.

It proves definitively something I have long suspected. Old age just gives seniors an excuse to say what they've been thinking for forty years. It would seem that the new study implies that in their golden years, that little voice in your head that kept you out of trouble all those years, just 'goes away', on the brighter side, people forgive you, because you're senile!

I had never heard of Dr. Stephen Gray of the University of Colorado before his denial of global warming made him a good source of denialist quotes. U of Colorado is not exactly MIT or Cambridge. He's clearly a good meteorologist and a decent weather forecaster. However, predicting the weather is an entirely different ball game than predicting long term climate change. As Cptenaud already pointed out, his credentials are not impressive, and while his understanding of short term weather patterns may be spectacular, he is clearly out of his area of expert understanding, when it comes to knowledge of the physics (not to mention chemistry). of global warming.

Gray's work has been the subject of significant criticisms.[8] The Real Climate website published a critique of the key points in one of Gray's papers.[7]

* I meant to say atmospheric CO2, and it takes 50 - 200 years to dissipate naturally.

The chemistry is indisputable I can give you chemical reactions along with products and reactions, if necessary.

Sure
you can. But, what you CANNOT do is create an accurate model that takes
into account the innumerable feedback loops and processes that occur
that absorb CO2.

Globa Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of...

* I meant to say atmospheric CO2, and it takes 50 - 200 years to dissipate naturally.

The chemistry is indisputable I can give you chemical reactions along with products and reactions, if necessary.

Sure
you can. But, what you CANNOT do is create an accurate model that takes
into account the innumerable feedback loops and processes that occur
that absorb CO2.

Globa Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006, let alone out to 2100.

Hudgal, despite your claims of expertise in Chemistry, If the smartest
climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy
of 99 percent, the probability of a correct predictable model on
climate change would be 36.6 percent. Remember, that is IF a) the
scientist knew ALL the variables, b) knew all the feedback loops, c)
knew all the variables of the feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 %.

First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature

This assumes that this is a proper test. Of course not just GHGs influence surface temperature. 1, 2(pdf)

second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide

And how does that disprove GHGs as a cause?

third, the deterministic computer models [...] have proved unable t...

read more»

First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature

This assumes that this is a proper test. Of course not just GHGs influence surface temperature. 1, 2(pdf)

second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide

And how does that disprove GHGs as a cause?

third, the deterministic computer models [...] have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006, let alone out to 2100.

Not true. Actually the model that Hansen used in his 1988 congressional testimony was pretty darn good. And that model is many generations old too.

First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature;

Huh? We must be looking at different graphs, because if you look at the graph on a large scale to discount any outside factors on tiny fluctuations, the functions are virtually identical, just diplaced by a small period of the graph.

second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change

Yeah. that's my point. It has been a steady upward trend that has remained unchanged. Global warming does not mean that there will never be an extremly cold month, as some denialist ...

First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature;

Huh? We must be looking at different graphs, because if you look at the graph on a large scale to discount any outside factors on tiny fluctuations, the functions are virtually identical, just diplaced by a small period of the graph.

second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change

Yeah. that's my point. It has been a steady upward trend that has remained unchanged. Global warming does not mean that there will never be an extremly cold month, as some denialist tend to believe, only that there is an upward trend over time.

.second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change

That's the beauty of mathematics. One doesn't have to know every variable, only the limiting ones, and how to recognize a trend on a graph.
I'm suprised at you.

I'm surprised at you You're usually able to come up with better arguments than this.

Sure you can. But, what you CANNOT do is create an accurate model that takes

into account the innumerable feedback loops and processes that occur

that absorb CO2.

No, Wilhelm, You're right. You'd have to go to God for that. But you really don't need to take into account every miniscule amount of product to see the big picture. CO2and O2 existed ever since the first single cell plant and single celled animal came into existence and started producing them. It's a delicate balance, and when it gets out of whack badly enough, the results can be catastrophic. In particular one of the five mass extinctions occurred because the balance got out of whack. I...

Sure you can. But, what you CANNOT do is create an accurate model that takes

into account the innumerable feedback loops and processes that occur

that absorb CO2.

No, Wilhelm, You're right. You'd have to go to God for that. But you really don't need to take into account every miniscule amount of product to see the big picture. CO2and O2 existed ever since the first single cell plant and single celled animal came into existence and started producing them. It's a delicate balance, and when it gets out of whack badly enough, the results can be catastrophic. In particular one of the five mass extinctions occurred because the balance got out of whack. I can't remember which one it was, but if I had to bet, I'd probably say the Permian event, since that was the biggie, although, I'm not sure there was THAT much volcanic activity before that one. In any case, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere got so high at one point due to absolutely massive emissions of CO2 due to volcanic activity, that the 'tipping point' that you hear so much about, was reached and additional CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases were released as the frozen masses that held them were melted. The planet quickly became a huge desert and only the hardiest of creatures survived.

The problem that we're experiencing is not nearly that extreme. I'm sure most of you are aware of the relationship that animals share with plants. We depend on the oxygen they create during a series of complex chemical reactions, collectively known as photosynthesis, and they depend on the carbon dioxide we create during respiration.

6CO2 + 6H2O ---------------> C6H12O6 + 6O2
In English, all this says is that six carbon dioxide molecules will react with six water molecules to produce one molecule of sugar and six molecules of oxygen, under the proper circumstances (which is sunlight. Sorry, my Mathematica program with the equation editor hasn't made it onto my new puter yet. I know, it just looks like a garbled mess.) So tehe plants turn CO2 into O2, which we need to live.Conversely, animals turn O2 into Co2, which they need to live. Plants also turn some of the CO2 into carbonates, which pretty much keeps things in check. It's a pretty nice relationship as long as relative balance remains. The balance began to get slig...

6CO2 + 6H2O ---------------> C6H12O6 + 6O2
In English, all this says is that six carbon dioxide molecules will react with six water molecules to produce one molecule of sugar and six molecules of oxygen, under the proper circumstances (which is sunlight. Sorry, my Mathematica program with the equation editor hasn't made it onto my new puter yet. I know, it just looks like a garbled mess.) So tehe plants turn CO2 into O2, which we need to live.Conversely, animals turn O2 into Co2, which they need to live. Plants also turn some of the CO2 into carbonates, which pretty much keeps things in check. It's a pretty nice relationship as long as relative balance remains. The balance began to get slightly upset as humans started clearing rain forests. Additionally, we're dumping toxins into the oceans and killing aqueous vegetation, which is the biggest consumer of CO2.
So, we're killing the plants that change the carbon dioxide, and additionally we're burning tons of fossil fuels (which are formed mostly by organic processes and represent HUGE carbon sinks), dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing means to remove it. Only about 30 % of solar radiation is reflected, and the rest is absorbed. The greenhouse effect is not entirely a bad thing, because it insulates the earth and keeps us warm. But atmospheric CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere quite a while and is compounded every day, just continuing to amass in our atmosphere. CO2 It has nowhere to go so it just keeps piling up in the atmosphere, building up more, year after year. The problem will continue to compound as the planet's population continues to explode and more third world countries are becoming fossil fuel consumers.

The solution? Plant a few trees for every new baby born, or somehow keep people from reproducing so much? Hah!

Try reading the comment again reeaal slow. Here it is --

Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006, let alone out to 2100.

These are not my claims, they are IPCC admissions.

H...

Try reading the comment again reeaal slow. Here it is --

Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006, let alone out to 2100.

These are not my claims, they are IPCC admissions.

Hudgal, despite your claims of expertise in Chemistry, If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent, the probability of a correct predictable model on climate change would be 36.6 percent. Remember, that is IF a) the scientist knew ALL the variables, b) knew all the feedback loops, c) knew all the variables of the feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 %.

Now, I know this is clipmarks, and you can agree or disagree with me, but if you have a problem following that comment, then you need a remedial course.

They are not my conclusions. You need to take it up with the Climate Scientists.
And, for the record, Hudgal says the following comment is a "mess of babble"

Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change ove...

They are not my conclusions. You need to take it up with the Climate Scientists.
And, for the record, Hudgal says the following comment is a "mess of babble"

Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006, let alone out to 2100.

These are not my claims, they are IPCC admissions.

Hudgal, despite your claims of expertise in Chemistry, If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent, the probability of a correct predictable model on climate change would be 36.6 percent. Remember, that is IF a) the scientist knew ALL the variables, b) knew all the feedback loops, c) knew all the variables of the feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 %.

Now, I know this is clipmarks, and you can agree or disagree with me, but if you have a problem following that comment, then you need a remedial course.

"the idea that people are causing global warming is not likely and in fact refutable"

Oh, come on. since your assertion ignores the well-documented and long-established chain of causality, just conisder: during the hugely lush, hot, and high CO2 carboniferous period, the vast plantlife on earth pulled huge amounts of CO2 out of the air, which got buried and eventually became coal and petroleum; and we take all that CO2 that got buried over hundreds of millions of years, and put it back into the atmosphere over a few decades, and you think it wouldn't have any effect? The very least you could expect is that it would return us to the carboniferous period climate. but chances are that the ra...

"the idea that people are causing global warming is not likely and in fact refutable"

Oh, come on. since your assertion ignores the well-documented and long-established chain of causality, just conisder: during the hugely lush, hot, and high CO2 carboniferous period, the vast plantlife on earth pulled huge amounts of CO2 out of the air, which got buried and eventually became coal and petroleum; and we take all that CO2 that got buried over hundreds of millions of years, and put it back into the atmosphere over a few decades, and you think it wouldn't have any effect? The very least you could expect is that it would return us to the carboniferous period climate. but chances are that the rapidity of the change would not allow natural processes to put the brakes on and it would go further.

"Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected."

"IPCC admissions" my foot.

"20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change"? The temp in 1998 and 2005 (and one or two of the previous few years as well) is obviously outside the 95% confidence interval of all previous estimates for the past 1000 years (the gray 'noise' in the graph http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate2.jpg if you read the fine print) by a pretty clear amount. By the very dictionary definition of "statistical significance", this means less than 5% chance that whatever process is governing the current temperature is iden...

"Global Warming theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected."

"IPCC admissions" my foot.

"20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change"? The temp in 1998 and 2005 (and one or two of the previous few years as well) is obviously outside the 95% confidence interval of all previous estimates for the past 1000 years (the gray 'noise' in the graph http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate2.jpg if you read the fine print) by a pretty clear amount. By the very dictionary definition of "statistical significance", this means less than 5% chance that whatever process is governing the current temperature is identical to whatever process was governing previous temperature measurements, and in scientific research is normally considered sufficient evidence to assume that you have something new. No ifs, ands, or buts, no escape clause. You either believe in math, or
you don't.

"unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 -2006"? Hansen's 1988 model, which is way obsolete by now, predicts the climate since then very well. http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hansen88.gif up to 1998 and updated to show more recent temps, http://timlambert.org/img/hansenupdated (if the graph is still there). The models are validated by setting them to conditions ca. 1900 and letting them crank and they predict the climate since quite well, even including details such as the north atlantic oscillation and the southern oscillation, ending with .6 degrees rise for the century, as observed; over various runs from variously different starting conditions reflecting the variance of our estimates of conditions in 1900, they end up with slightly different results but all converge towards this result. In any field of science where there isn't a large body of cash with a stake in opposing it, this is routinely considered great results.