Originally Posted by Odin

Perfect weather for the kitties, they are descended from the African Wildcats of the Sahara, that's why they have those huge satellite dishes (ears) on their head.

Actually those satellite dishes are designed to detect the high-pitched sounds of birds, rodents, lizards, and insects that they catch and devour. But you are right about the heat. Dogs wilt in it.

Doesn't it say much for Man that he warms up to two of the most bloodthirsty killers (cats and dogs) that ever lived?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Before you can have a regeneracy where everyone decides to do what has to be done, everyone has to have talked through and believe that something has to be done. I hope I'm wrong but it doesn't look like that's going to happen this Crisis.

That's an interesting definition of regeneracy; a quite clear one. Remember though, we are at 1850, not 1860. There were no decisions yet in 1850; just a compromise to try to put things on a back burner. Is Justice Roberts playing that role now?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if China and India don't go along, anything we do would be tantamount to turning the air conditioner on while leaving the window wide open when it's 100 degrees outside - and China and India clearly aren't going to go along, since to do so would be to commit economic suicide.

They are already doing more than we are.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are already doing more than we are.

Even if that's true, if the Democrats go ahead with this now, by the time the next election rolls around unemployment will be at 15%, gas will be at $12 a gallon, and gold will be at $10,000 an ounce - handing the Republicans a historic landslide victory, after which they will turn around and repeal everything.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if China and India don't go along, anything we do would be tantamount to turning the air conditioner on while leaving the window wide open when it's 100 degrees outside - and China and India clearly aren't going to go along, since to do so would be to commit economic suicide.

Sure, and the Chinese will say the west has been messing up the world for centuries, so why shouldn't they get the same chance to emerge from the Agricultural Age pattern? Well, they wouldn't put it that way, but you get the idea.

I am not saying that those accustomed to burning fossil fuels won't come up with excuses. I'm not interested in debating whose excuse for inaction is better. I'll even throw in the observation that values lock generally can't be broken until after blatant and disastrous problems with the old values have generated in your face beyond a reasonable doubt catastrophe. Crises grow up to become full scale monster Crises because the conservatives in charge will not budge until it is absolutely clear that the reality they are fond of is clearly doomed.

I'm just predicting that with benefit of 20 20 hindsight, assuming the basic pattern of turnings holds, the next generation of prophets are going to be truly royally pissed with the Millennial generation of civics. That goes for American prophets, Chinese prophets, African prophets, all of em.

Not that it is really the Millennial's fault particularly, but they'll be the generation in power when the time comes. I've got the feeling, assuming the climate scientists are anywhere near correct, that the old friction between the Boomers and GIs will seem mild in comparison.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Even if that's true, if the Democrats go ahead with this now, by the time the next election rolls around unemployment will be at 15%, gas will be at $12 a gallon, and gold will be at $10,000 an ounce - handing the Republicans a historic landslide victory, after which they will turn around and repeal everything.

Quite the reverse. If something were to be done about conversion now, although given Republican control of our government nothing much CAN be done anyway, gas prices would fall, unemployment would fall to 5%, and gold would fall; giving Democrats a sizeable victory in 2016 and forever.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Even if that's true, if the Democrats go ahead with this now, by the time the next election rolls around unemployment will be at 15%, gas will be at $12 a gallon, and gold will be at $10,000 an ounce - handing the Republicans a historic landslide victory, after which they will turn around and repeal everything.

I hate to say this, but if gas is at $12 a gallon, unemployment is going to be way above 15 percent!

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

And don't even get me started about how the state I was born in sanctions same-sex marriages but not mixed martial arts.

Maybe I'm just a dumb guido.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

And don't even get me started about how the state I was born in sanctions same-sex marriages but not mixed martial arts.

Maybe I'm just a dumb guido.

A man who has issues with looking "manly" has emotional maturity issues.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

And don't even get me started about how the state I was born in sanctions same-sex marriages but not mixed martial arts.

Maybe I'm just a dumb guido.

Welcome to my ignore list, pig.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

And don't even get me started about how the state I was born in sanctions same-sex marriages but not mixed martial arts.

Maybe I'm just a dumb guido.

Having lost both a brother and a sister (both who smoked for a number of years) to lung cancer when they were in their 50s, I'm afraid that I view any smoker as a "dumb guido".

Sorry. For me, its personal.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

And don't even get me started about how the state I was born in sanctions same-sex marriages but not mixed martial arts.

Maybe I'm just a dumb guido.

Why not add the dry states' neurotic and unmanly phobia about water to that of petroleum? Why the comparison? Because they are both fungible liquids we are using up at a high rate of speed, and feel entitled to use up as fast as we please, whether drought conditions exist or not. Except that water can replace itself; petroleum can't.

Oh, and some of us aren't really bothered by being called 'unmanly' because we are not men, never were, and would laugh at the thought of being men.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The usual denialist suspects are gonna pounce on you, LOL!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The left's neurotic phobias about petroleum and tobacco (I'm a past, present and future non-smoker, by the way) just rub me the wrong way, big time. I find them so, for lack of a better descriptor, unmanly.

Get used to it, bro. Those two things are big-time killers. What is unmanly is the refusal to act to curb these addictions. Addiction is decisively unmanly; being hooked is the opposite of that.

Another study ignored by the Democrat Media Complex....Tree ring study shows the climate was much warmer 2000 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...trial-age.html

Originally Posted by Weave

Another study ignored by the Democrat Media Complex....Tree ring study shows the climate was much warmer 2000 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...trial-age.html

One reason it's being ignored is because it has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the global warming we are experiencing now, no logical bearing on the discussion AT ALL, and no relevance in the slightest to anything going on at this time, and no interest to anyone except climate scientists and then only to a small fraction of them, and anyone bringing up this study either doesn't begin to understand the idea of AGW and what is or is not relevant to it, or else is lying.

That's setting aside the fact that your source here is the Daily Mail which means the facts reported are very likely wrong.

EDIT: Make that definitely got the facts wrong. The idea that the earth has increased its distance from the sun sufficiently to create a measurable climate change in a mere 2000 years is balderdash. That any scientist would present a hypothesis like that to account for a set of data as anything other than wild conjecture is also balderdash. In short, as is usual for the tabloid press, which is what the Daily Mail represents, this is worthless.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One reason it's being ignored is because it has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the global warming we are experiencing now, no logical bearing on the discussion AT ALL, and no relevance in the slightest to anything going on at this time, and no interest to anyone except climate scientists and then only to a small fraction of them, and anyone bringing up this study either doesn't begin to understand the idea of AGW and what is or is not relevant to it, or else is lying.

That's setting aside the fact that your source here is the Daily Mail which means the facts reported are very likely wrong.

EDIT: Make that definitely got the facts wrong. The idea that the earth has increased its distance from the sun sufficiently to create a measurable climate change in a mere 2000 years is balderdash. That any scientist would present a hypothesis like that to account for a set of data as anything other than wild conjecture is also balderdash. In short, as is usual for the tabloid press, which is what the Daily Mail represents, this is worthless.

It is relevent because it shows the earth warms and cools naturally and that we really do not understand why. The Daily Mail is merely reporting the study, they didnt conduct it. If this study showed the opposite it would be blared on all of the Democrat Media complex outlets ad nauseum....

Wild conjecture would aptly describe the statements from the IPCC over the years that have been walked back and proven wrong again and again.

Originally Posted by Weave

It is relevent because it shows the earth warms and cools naturally and that we really do not understand why.

First, no, it doesn't; second, THAT is irrelevant even if it did.

Weave, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject, I suggest not using the British equivalent of the National Enquirer as if it were a good source of scientific information. Just a suggestion, and you may waste your brain as you see fit.

Sadly neither Weave nor Brian attempted to find and read the actual study, instead choosing to squabble over the usual political divides.

The paper (published on Nature's climate change web site) can be found here, or if you happen to be a .pdf-hater the web copy can be found here.

But seriously guys, this study wasn't that hard to find. Now that we have that out of the way, we can get back on schedule.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, no, it doesn't; second, THAT is irrelevant even if it did.

Weave, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject, I suggest not using the British equivalent of the National Enquirer as if it were a good source of scientific information. Just a suggestion, and you may waste your brain as you see fit.

Brian just because the article was from the Daily mail doesnt mean the study is invalid....

Even the Enquirer gets it right sometimes...Remember John Edwards....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One reason it's being ignored is because it has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the global warming we are experiencing now, no logical bearing on the discussion AT ALL, and no relevance in the slightest to anything going on at this time, and no interest to anyone except climate scientists and then only to a small fraction of them, and anyone bringing up this study either doesn't begin to understand the idea of AGW and what is or is not relevant to it, or else is lying.

That's setting aside the fact that your source here is the Daily Mail which means the facts reported are very likely wrong.

EDIT: Make that definitely got the facts wrong. The idea that the earth has increased its distance from the sun sufficiently to create a measurable climate change in a mere 2000 years is balderdash. That any scientist would present a hypothesis like that to account for a set of data as anything other than wild conjecture is also balderdash. In short, as is usual for the tabloid press, which is what the Daily Mail represents, this is worthless.

The Milankovitch Cycles are a well known long term climate change forcing factor. The orbit and axial tilts of the Earth does indeed change with significant effects on the weather. However, the time scale for such shifts is in the 100,000s to 1,000,000s of years. The forcing shifts due to orbital factors are very very slow as compared to human CO2 induced shifts as to normally be considered insignificant in a time scale of centuries.

There are shorter term shifts in temperature such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, but these may be more local effects and from causes other than orbital shift. From the Little Ice Age Wiki article...

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population. Lower CO2 atmospheric concentrations found in Antarctic ice cores may have resulted from the colder global climate.

The orbitally induced shifts are also much more significant near the poles than towards the equator. The article referenced by the Daily Mail used Scandinavian data. This is wise if one is looking for the largest possible temperature change from orbital shift. When one is way up north a small difference in the amount of light makes a big difference in how much ring a tree can produce during the summer growing season. Still, what is true way up there can't be trivially extrapolated to the Earth as a whole.

The Daily Mail does seem to have induced a good deal of spin to their report on the article.

One of Realclimate's recent articles reviews the article in question here. Of note...

Long-term orbital forcing over the past 1-2 millennia is also minimal for annual, global or hemispheric insolation changes, and other natural forcings such as volcanic and solar radiative forcing have been shown to be adequate in explaining past long-term pre-industrial temperature trends in this case (e.g. Hegerl et al, 2007). Esper et al’s speculation that the potential bias they identify with high-latitude, summer-temperature TRW tree-ring data carry over to a bias in hemispheric temperature reconstructions based on multiple types of proxy records spanning tropics and extratropics, ocean and land, and which reflect a range of seasons, not just summer (e.g. Hegerl et al, 2006; Mann et al, 1999;2008) is therefore a stretch.

Indeed, there are a number of lines of evidence that contradict that more speculative claim. For example, if one eliminates tree-ring data entirely from the Mann et al (2008) “EIV” temperature reconstruction (see below; blue curve corresponds to the case where all tree-ring data have been withheld from the multiproxy network), one finds not only that the resulting reconstruction is broadly similar to that obtained with tree-ring data, but in fact the pre-industrial long-term cooling trend in hemispheric mean temperature is actually lessened when the tree-ring data are eliminated—precisely the opposite of what is predicted by the Esper et al hypothesis.

Realclimate does say that the article in question is interesting in developing new methods for analyzing tree ring data. The article isn't dismissed in total. It will be part of the conversation. The Daily Mail spin on it isn't consistent, however, with how some of the professional climatologists are reading it.

Thanks to Copperfield for the link to the original study. Weave, I suggest you read that (preferably with your blinders off) and then get back to us. It's interesting, but of course it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thanks to Copperfield for the link to the original study. Weave, I suggest you read that (preferably with your blinders off) and then get back to us. It's interesting, but of course it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yeah read it. It shows that temps were warmer 2000 years ago than today, without "AGW". Also confirms the Medieval Warm period, an era denied by many climate scientists. It also show other many decade long warm periods. Which brings us back to the the important argument...what caused the planet to heat and cool...is it natural or man made....I dont claim the study is conclusive but does bolster the idea that warming and cooling has natural causes and the AGW theory is bunk....or at best deserves much, much more debate...the science is FAR from settled.