Thanks, Sam.

The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.

WORD

Become a visionary seeing is believing.

Discounting the fact that this valley has the lowest annual precipitation of all of the deserts of North America, the difference in the impact of albedo alone on the amount of increased solar radiation absorbed by the surface should be immediately obvious.

Then factor in all the additional water being evapotranspirated into water vapor by the reduction of that albedo.

As you can see, this water vapor isn’t condensing in the immediate vicinity, this latent heat energy is being carried by the winds to impact the regional climate and increase the overall impact of the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the rest of the North American continent.

Incidentally. This little water vapor factory never shuts down, but is altering the climate of North America year round as it is home to much of our wintertime supply of fresh vegetables.

And if you take a look just north of this Green Giant valley you’ll notice another little man-made climate changing influence, The Salton Sea.

This 376 sq. mile lake is the largest in California, not a permanent natural feature the Salton Sea is a man-made whoops, constantly replenished by the agricultural runoff of those hundreds of thousands of irrigated acres.

Ho, Ho, Ho as they say on the valley.

Maybe it’s time to think frozen, before there’s no ice left.

Incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 pales in comparison with the ability of agricultural irrigation to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

According to NASA water vapor is the climate change 800 lb. gorilla.

Don’t let the lie of the CO2 centric theory blind you to the actual cause of anthropogenic climate change.

Sometimes no Peace.

Great article.

I’d ‘5’ this if it was a blog…

And I really don’t care if Monibot is a ‘scruffy fat bastard…’ I care that he is right about that garbage documentary…

5 links LuckyHenry. Got time for a lesson in climate change?

Anybody? Is peer review on its way?

Or is it no longer PC to think.

What’s wrong with scruffy fat bastards?

We’ll all be there someday chaps.

i’ll never be fat..

I can always diet…....

That was a very good article. Thanks, Szamko.

nice

O.K.

How about an IPCC grain of salt from a real climate scientist?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

Doublethink my friends is the polarization of every issue, leaving the facts buried and unheard between two incomplete arguments.

We have our “right” and our “left” bought and paid for by the elite.

Each side chooses, seemingly ala carte, the issues of the times; building their platforms on dogma, never allowing the public discourse to rise to the level of a rational and logical debate to eventually arrive at honest and centrist positions on any public matter.

Most of the public, though never satisfied with the argument of one side or the other, is then forced to choose the lesser of the two evils; the sad fact of the matter being that there has been in reality but one evil, from which there is no real choice, throughout.

This is the ultimate propaganda tool, because the truth is lost in the white noise of useless and endless banter, while matters of substance are left unconsidered.

The media is neither liberal nor conservative, for all time swaying either to the right or to the left, serving as the loudspeaker for both, shifting its allegiance according to need preventing any substantial imbalance, forever maintaining the polarization and suppressing any attempt to educate the public of the true facts of any matter of universal concern.

Eventually, even the best minds of the public become closed to rational argument, to further debate and finding of fact, giving in to the comfort of the closure of polarization; having a stable and fixed position be it to the right or to the left, but without fail wrong.

Justice, then Peace.

“Doublethink my friends is the polarization of every issue, leaving the facts buried and unheard between two incomplete arguments.”

no it isn’t

Doublethink (includes quotes from 1984)

Just leave it to G W Hunta to teach us everything the climatologists don’t know.

Did you knwo that the Imperial Valley home of the Imperial Irrigation District, is resposible for increasing the evapotranspiration rate of the valley from its natural rate of less than 2 inches annually to an average of 70 inches per year?

This 70 inches of water over hundreds of square miles of Imperial Valley is taken up by the atmosphere in the form of water vapor that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. That’s 3.1 million acre/feet of water annually that goes directly to the sky, most of which formerly went to the sea in just this one single irrigation district alone.

Now why might this not be a politically popular topic of conversation for California agricultural interests? Everybody knows ExxonMobil has their market share to consider and gouges the public, allegedly for their own good. Higher prices to prevent shortages of supply!

How much do you spend on gasoline and energy total?

How much for food?

Doublethink as I linked it is exactly as I defined it and sound advice regarding this land use compromising the climate issue.

Try to open your minds a crack.

Peace,

sisyphus,

As one of the resident experts on “Peak Oil” and one who is painfully aware of just how little has been done to prepare for its impact, I don’t understand how the whole biofuel scam isn’t painfully obvious as a motive for the CO2 framework to address both dividing the remaining hydrocarbon spoils and maintaining the status quo regarding energy consumption, while tightening the screws of the poor and the already hungry of the world.

Gore and the IPCC position are in all honesty outside the mainstream scientific consensus, but the media is failing to convey this.

They are instead caught up in the polarization of the issue to the point of drowning out the actual consensus and rational debate.

I won’t waste your time repeating my argument, it is fairly well made in my blogs and comments, but I think it important that Gore’s political motives are examined and the CO2 centric theory exposed for what it truly is. Junk science.

As are the arguments of the other side, the global warming deniers who disregard any human influence whatsoever.

Greenhouse gases are increasing. This is impacting the climate which is warming. The cause is increased availability of water vapor, the most influential of the GHG’s.

The political agenda is protecting powerful agricultural interests with the goal of the targeted curtailing of economic growth, due to the geophysical constraints of peak oil, not the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.

The shift from food to fuel of the agricultural sector, immoral in my view, is being made in spite of the environmental impact it will have on the climate and more importantly the certain knowledge while embarking down this path that there isn’t sufficient agricultural land to both feed and fuel the world.

Peace,

Just leave it to G W Hunta to teach us everything the climatologists don’t know.

From a real climate scientist?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

I only pointed out that you misused the term “doublethink” GW.

Biofuels are a scam intended to provide hope, mainly to the western bourgeoisie, that this lifestyle and economic/state/etc system can continue, as well as a short-term feel-good economic boost for big ag and certain states, meanwhile civilization is collapsing just in everyone’s peripherals.

The fact that there even is an “agricultural sector” is immoral in my view.

Hmmm Peak Oil. I wonder if when man first started using wood for energy someone was running around yelling, “BEWARE PEAK WOOD!”

A crisis is the foundation for development.

sisyphus,

Alright, that covers the biofuels as a scam aspect.

How about the motive for the CO2 tax/carbon credit framework to address both dividing the remaining hydrocarbon spoils and maintaining the status quo regarding status quo energy consumption, maintaining agricultural production while tightening the screws on the poor and the already hungry of the world aspect?

I wonder if when man first started using wood for energy someone was running around yelling, “BEWARE PEAK WOOD!”

Ask the Haitians, Rwandans, or the Easter Islanders.

I’ve seen pictures of my hometown (Munising) in the early years of the last century as they were making the switch to coal from wood and from the look of the hillsides it was a long walk to the nearest tree.

Nobody needed to yell anything, it was painfully obvious.

I know the history of Easter Island relatively well and can understand your insinuation, but would ask if you could clarify that statement so I don’t assume.

They had stone statues, we had stumps.

Peace,

Nobody needed to yell anything, it was painfully obvious

my point was that I’m positive since the beginning of time people have been yelling “the end is near!” And while I do acknowledge that environmental change is a non-linear process(that is one small event can cause a large consequence), humans have proven to be an extremely adaptable specie capable of overcoming great uncertainty, and energy shortages in the past by resorting to new ideas, and resources.

For those who think peak oil is new need only to recall history, and those who think the battle is over once we find an alternative to fossil fuels simply haven’t been paying attention.

They had stone statues, we had stumps

meh?

If anything he is referring to their dedication of stone figures. They used up all the wood on the island in order to transport stone from one place on the island to the other which was a major catalyst for their extinction.

“I know the history of Easter Island relatively well“

Sorry for the throw-away response, NWO, I’ll elaborate.

I may be overstating the case, but as far as I know all three societies that I mentioned had huge problems with deforestation. Now, I’m assuming you know more about the history of Easter Island than I do, but I think there are a few different hypotheses about how the deforestation occurred, the most popular of which being Diamond’s. Hunt apparently thinks it was “Europeans and rats” – so I may be mistaken for including them in that list – maybe you can clear that up for me actually.

However, I’m more confident in my assertions that Rwanda’s topography and intense agricultural production aided in the resource limitation that was one of the factors in the country’s instability. I had the pleasure of talking to the Rwandan vice-president of UNICEF staff associations in Eastern and Southern Africa, Dr. Phocus Ntayombya, about the issue and how it pertains to resource management today – which is where I got that (He did his Phd in the same department where I currently work). What I’ve read since seems to support his claim.

Furthermore, Haiti is a pretty clear-cut case of deforestation (pardon the pun), which has increased not only environmental degradation but has helped facilitate political and social instability as well.

So I would contend that the reliance of any natural resource has the ability to lead to social instability (not to mention environmental destruction) if and when that resource is misused. Now I see your point that there are often alternatives or advancements, but in the case of the societies that I mentioned (maybe not Easter Island though), this was not enough to buffer said instability.

I’ll end with a caveat, as I know it seems like I’m oversimplifying the sociopolitical aspects of Rwanda and Haiti, because and I am – it would take a book-length answer to do this topic justice and I don’t have that much time or intelligence. But I think that there exists support for the argument that resource misuse plays a role in both nations’ sociopolitical condition.

We used up all our wood to fuel furnaces to smelt pig iron to build the iron structures of great cities far to the south of us.

Isn’t climate change denial great?

Peace,

Thx for the clarification, Tango. It’s coming up on 2:00 am though, and I have a tradition that I stop what I’m doing, roll a joint, and watch Poker After Dark. Helps me regulate my obsessive reading, and posting. :-p

Read what you wrote however, and certainly agree with this:

So I would contend that the reliance of any natural resource has the ability to lead to social instability (not to mention environmental destruction) if and when that resource is misused. Now I see your point that there are often alternatives or advancements, but in the case of the societies that I mentioned (maybe not Easter Island though), this was not enough to buffer said instability

Going to leave it at that, and will hopefully speak to you soon(probably Friday as I have a midterm tomorrow).

Denial or deal with it.

A trillion BTU/hr. is nothing to HO, HO, HO about.

H2O, H2O, H2O

Peace,

The Climate Science Weblog has clearly documented the following conclusions since July 2005

The needed focus for the study of climate change and variability is on the regional and local scales. Global and zonally-averaged climate metrics would only be important to the extent that they provide useful information on these space scales.

Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments, besides having major difficulties in terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on climate change and variability on the regional and local scales.

Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.

The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.

In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.

Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.

Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.

A vulnerability paradigm, focused on regional and local societal and environmental resources of importance, is a more inclusive, useful, and scientifically robust framework to interact with policymakers, than is the focus on global multi-decadal climate predictions which are downscaled to the regional and local scales. The vulnerability paradigm permits the evaluation of the entire spectrum of risks associated with different social and environmental threats, including climate variability and change.

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.

These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate.

The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

hold on you people think global warming is a myth eh?

No, I don’t think it is a myth, I simply know that anthropogenic changes in the hydrological cycle are the primary human influence on the climate.

I’m not in favor of radical alterations in energy policy to limit atmospheric CO2 emissions and I’m against the use of agricultural food products for use as biofuel.

I am for the gasification of coal to pipeline grade natural gas and improving the efficiency of home and business heating and cooling by virtue of geothermal heat pumps as well as converting the transportation sector from liquid fuels to ultra efficient CNG/plugin/hybid technologies.

Shifting land use patterns to mitigate agricultural evapotranspirative forcing and eventually offsetting this impact with direct solar to electical generation or heating to bring the anthropogenic alterations in the climate energy budget into balance.

Peace,

Truth

“hold on you people think global warming is a myth eh?”

YOU PEOPLE?

oh no he din’t.

I think him did!!!