Post by: RNKIII on October 12, 2007, 07:49:09 PM
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: Gregg on October 13, 2007, 02:08:55 PM
Post by: RNKIII on October 13, 2007, 02:53:43 PM
Originally created with a focus on 'peaceful endeavors', over time the area(s) for which the prize(s) are awarded have been widened to cover a broader range of fields.
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: krissel on October 13, 2007, 08:37:36 PM
There are three of people who supposedly are off the street giving their view of how it works for them.
Has anyone seen any of these ads on TV? I haven't.
Post by: RobW on October 13, 2007, 08:49:06 PM
QUOTE(krissel @ Oct 13 2007, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not to change the subject, but while there I noticed the link to the 'new' iPhone ads.
There are three of people who supposedly are off the street giving their view of how it works for them.
Has anyone seen any of these ads on TV? I haven't.
There are three of people who supposedly are off the street giving their view of how it works for them.
Has anyone seen any of these ads on TV? I haven't.
I've seen the one on the left--Doug "Mankind". Haven't seen the others as of yet.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 13, 2007, 10:00:03 PM
I'm not sure it was supposed to be humorous but the whole idea seemed rather far-fetched! Maybe I'm just being full of sour-grapes! I can't seem to get my old Moto phone to break! I've dropped it into my fish pond at least twice, the front LCD is completely blank, etc. But all the scratches do make it easier to grip in a mud fight...
Post by: krissel on October 13, 2007, 11:34:49 PM
Just saw the third (4 in 1) ad on SNL.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 24, 2007, 11:06:34 PM
Post by: sandbox on October 25, 2007, 05:21:06 AM
American Scientists
there's a hole in the bucket
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill
Post by: RHPConsult on October 25, 2007, 10:36:13 AM
Prof. William Gray, now retired, was for years the nation's leader Hurricane Predictor (in all the papers). He was kind enough to send me a 40+ page paper of real-climate science – a thousand years ago, I was a faculty member @ Colorado State University – when I requested his appraisal of Inconvenient Truth, and its manifold super-heated claims and assertions.
The abstract of that critiquei s as follows . . .
QUOTE
PERSONAL COMMENTS ON AL GORE’S MOVIE AND BOOK TITLED AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
By William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
ABSTRACT
By William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
ABSTRACT
I differ with former Senator/Vice-President Al Gore’s views that the recent causes of global temperature rise are due to human-induced fossil fuel increases. I believe that the global warming that has occurred over the last 30 years (~ 0.4oC) and the last 100 years (approximately 0.7oC) is mostly of natural origin. This warming is mostly due to natural alterations of the global ocean circulation and global rates of rainfall which are not directly related to fossil fuel emissions. The increases in atmospheric CO2 and methane that we have seen in the last 30 years (approximately a 15 percent increase) are not by themselves capable of producing the global temperature increases that have occurred over this period. The many General Circulation Model (GCM) simulations of CO2 doubling that have been run and which predict human-induced global warming amounts of as much as 2-5oC are flawed. These models project human-induced global warming amounts that are 5-10 times greater than those that will likely occur. The Gore scenario is based on a vastly oversimplified and incorrect view of a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
Those cool words are more representative of real science than the hyperpassionate mix of true-believer-journalism + quasi-religious-politics which is what one, apparently needs these days, to impress the Norwegian Parliament.
Should anyone be interested in Professor Gray's full critique, I have it in pdf. PM me. It ain't "exciting"; it's just real science, rather than the junque variety.
Post by: Paddy on October 25, 2007, 12:59:38 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...04/gray-on-agw/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
This is an interesting subject - though I very much doubt that either side here will convince the other of anything. Considering that none of us are climate scientists, it's basically down to a case of who you choose to believe; the majority view or the minority view - and apparently, how big you believe that majority or minority to be.
So carry on arguing if you must - but keep it out of the political realm (which may prove difficult) and keep it polite. We all know the rules.
Post by: sandbox on October 25, 2007, 02:02:08 PM
While I understand your reluctance to accept that 6 billion people could have any effect on this planet, many reports prove otherwise. Al Gore deserves his award, he's put a lot of time and effort into it. He created something besides a Turd Blossom.
Sorry, I may not hold Dr. Gray in such reverence as some, but I've been playing with Hurricanes since 1985 and I can't remember one year that his crystal ball was correct, not one. He predicts and then changes his predictions and get close…but no cigar. Not that it would make a difference to someone sitting at 5000 ft. above sea level, but for my money I'd just a soon bet on the accuracy of reading sea turtle migrations to predict hurricane activity as I would on Gray.
If you will only accept US scientists try Jim Hanson, another controversial figure.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
To remove the retired and controversial I'll settle on Bob Correll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell
Put all these opinions aside and just do your own snooping. I see coral reefs turning white, I see glacier that both you and I have walked on….gone. We may be the only ones here that know the difference between a glaciers and snowfield, by just walking on them.
We had fires here just as your experiencing them on the left coast now, earlier this year. This is happening around the globe. In 1993 when I was working at White Sands you could watch the desert expanding right in front of your eyes. I saw the same activity in the Sonora desert and the Mojave.
Take a drive up Mt. Shasta.
There is no way to separate what is naturally occurring from what is man made, but they both exist, and both need to dealt with. We need to manage both and we need to do it now, not argue who or what is responsible. Even those who don't have two brain cells to rub together would realize that auto emissions can kill you. They can comprehend that darker colors are hotter than lighter or reflective colors. They can feel the cooler temperatures in the forest, on the grass compared to on the road. This isn't rocket science, this is common sense. We do have an affect on the climate and I don't need a weatherman in Colorado to tell me which way the winds blowing.
QUOTE
Advance of Whitney Glacier
In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.[5] The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall. Increased temperatures have tapped Pacific Ocean moisture, leading to snowfalls that supply the accumulation zone of the glacier with 40 percent more snowfall than is melted in the ablation zone. Over the past 50 years, the glacier has actually expanded 30 percent, which is the opposite of what is being observed in most areas of the world. Researchers have also stated that if the global warming forecast for the upcoming next 100 years are accurate, the increased snowfall will not be enough to offset the increased melting, and the glacier is then likely to retreat.[6][7] Note that both these references make the claim that the Whitney Glacier is now the only glacier in the world known to be larger than it was in 1890, but this is erroneous. For example, several glaciers in Alaska, most notably the Hubbard Glacier, are larger now than in 1890.[8] However, Hubbard Glacier, along with a few other notable glaciers whose termini are at sea level, is what is known as a "calving glacier". "Glaciologists often point out that glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate. This paradigm should not be applied to calving glaciers. During most of the calving glacier cycle, the slow advances and relatively rapid retreats are not very sensitive to climate. For example, the calving glaciers that are currently growing and advancing in the face of global warming, were retreating throughout the little ice age. Calving glaciers become sensitive to climate only late in the advancing phase, when the mass flux out of the accumulation area approaches the mass lost by melting in the ablation area and losses due to calving can no longer be replaced. No reasonable change in climate will change this imbalance and stop the advances of these few glaciers".[9]
In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.[5] The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall. Increased temperatures have tapped Pacific Ocean moisture, leading to snowfalls that supply the accumulation zone of the glacier with 40 percent more snowfall than is melted in the ablation zone. Over the past 50 years, the glacier has actually expanded 30 percent, which is the opposite of what is being observed in most areas of the world. Researchers have also stated that if the global warming forecast for the upcoming next 100 years are accurate, the increased snowfall will not be enough to offset the increased melting, and the glacier is then likely to retreat.[6][7] Note that both these references make the claim that the Whitney Glacier is now the only glacier in the world known to be larger than it was in 1890, but this is erroneous. For example, several glaciers in Alaska, most notably the Hubbard Glacier, are larger now than in 1890.[8] However, Hubbard Glacier, along with a few other notable glaciers whose termini are at sea level, is what is known as a "calving glacier". "Glaciologists often point out that glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate. This paradigm should not be applied to calving glaciers. During most of the calving glacier cycle, the slow advances and relatively rapid retreats are not very sensitive to climate. For example, the calving glaciers that are currently growing and advancing in the face of global warming, were retreating throughout the little ice age. Calving glaciers become sensitive to climate only late in the advancing phase, when the mass flux out of the accumulation area approaches the mass lost by melting in the ablation area and losses due to calving can no longer be replaced. No reasonable change in climate will change this imbalance and stop the advances of these few glaciers".[9]
QUOTE
Summary
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0·5°C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions. Climate change will affect human health in many ways—mostly adversely. Here, we summarise the epidemiological evidence of how climate variations and trends affect various health outcomes. We assess the little evidence there is that recent global warming has already affected some health outcomes. We review the published estimates of future health effects of climate change over coming decades. Research so far has mostly focused on thermal stress, extreme weather events, and infectious diseases, with some attention to estimates of future regional food yields and hunger prevalence. An emerging broader approach addresses a wider spectrum of health risks due to the social, demographic, and economic disruptions of climate change. Evidence and anticipation of adverse health effects will strengthen the case for pre-emptive policies, and will also guide priorities for planned adaptive strategies.
Back to top
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0·5°C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions. Climate change will affect human health in many ways—mostly adversely. Here, we summarise the epidemiological evidence of how climate variations and trends affect various health outcomes. We assess the little evidence there is that recent global warming has already affected some health outcomes. We review the published estimates of future health effects of climate change over coming decades. Research so far has mostly focused on thermal stress, extreme weather events, and infectious diseases, with some attention to estimates of future regional food yields and hunger prevalence. An emerging broader approach addresses a wider spectrum of health risks due to the social, demographic, and economic disruptions of climate change. Evidence and anticipation of adverse health effects will strengthen the case for pre-emptive policies, and will also guide priorities for planned adaptive strategies.
Back to top
Prof Anthony J McMichael PhD
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/a...xt#bibliography
I see the health effects on the elderly and the death tolls are rising, but if a report will be more convincing… http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007-10-23-10.asp
QUOTE
September 2007 is Eighth Warmest on Record for Contiguous United States
Drought Worsens Across Southeast and Tennessee Valley
Temperatures in September 2007 were the eighth warmest on record, hot enough to break 1,000 daily high records across the United States, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The heat also helped spread the worsening drought to almost half of the contiguous U.S., with conditions across the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Tennessee Valley hardest hit. The global surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for September, and the extent of Arctic Sea ice reached its lowest amount in September since satellite measurements began in 1979, shattering the previous record low set in 2005.
Drought Worsens Across Southeast and Tennessee Valley
Temperatures in September 2007 were the eighth warmest on record, hot enough to break 1,000 daily high records across the United States, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The heat also helped spread the worsening drought to almost half of the contiguous U.S., with conditions across the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Tennessee Valley hardest hit. The global surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for September, and the extent of Arctic Sea ice reached its lowest amount in September since satellite measurements began in 1979, shattering the previous record low set in 2005.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../sep/sep07.html
The resent ability for oil companies to venture into the arctic ought to be a clue.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
http://nsidc.org
American scientists are all onboard, accept maybe those bought by Exxon/Mobile.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 25, 2007, 03:27:44 PM
QUOTE
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0·5°C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions.
Might I suggest a good text on multivariate analysis. "Will change" and "Partly attributable" do not a conclusive argument make.
And, please examine a text on the philosophy of science, especially any reference to the validity of such characterizations as . . . near unanimous scientific consensus. . . especially when the consensus is politicized "science". Also see: DDT
I'm sorry you do not respect Professor Gray. Many of his academic and professional colleagues do, have, and will. The very fact that his views have excited further criticism demonstrates that real "science" is never settled, it is subject to continuing debate. That's why is called "science" and not doctrine.
And, oh yes, perhaps the northern hemisphere might actually benefit (after a number of centuries) were more of Canada (not to say, Siberia) to became arable. Isn't it curious that the Antarctic ice cap is growing, while its counterpart – a few thousand miles up the road – has been shrinking . . . recently.
Post by: sandbox on October 25, 2007, 05:48:39 PM
For me the answer to all these questions is yes and thus Dr. Gray's opinion that the change in global climate is not a byproduct of human activity is a stretch. Tree Ring and Ice Core samples expose the history of this planets weather systems and the content of its atmosphere for thousands of years. There is no time in history that this planet has had such high levels of greenhouse gases elevated in such a short time.
To the point of Gray's contention with the world is that he refuses to accept the viability of computer modeling. He insists that CO2 does not mix with water vapor and hold heat in the atmosphere. His arguments on modeling made some sense 15 years ago, but the models used today are spot on. High atmospheric testing and satellite imaging has proven the fact that CO2 and water vapor do in fact mix at high altitudes and hold heat. Clouds are hard to predict still, because they reflect light as well as hold heat.
Dr. Gray has only offered sour grapes since the mid nineties when his funding dried up and no one would pay him for his opinion. He was well paid during the Bush 1 administration but after Hurricane Andrew his opinion lost it's glow.
So now at close to 80 years old he rattles on with less and less support as time goes by. His own students and colleagues think he lost it. Like MIT professor Richard Lindzen or Jerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So what we have in my view is NASA, NOAA, AMS, NCAR, and most universities in the US and everyone outside the US disagreeing with Gray, and I should take his position seriously? I think not. He had his day, he did a good job in the 50's through the 80's but his model never included what we see today.
i think I'll add this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...04/gray-on-agw/
by the way Dick, Gray's 2006 paper was so absurd that it didn't even warrant a peer review.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 25, 2007, 07:07:59 PM
Gray disputes the model, not the modeling process.
6 billion temps of 98.6 deg F. . . . .Good heavens, SB, have you ever flown over, sailed across, the Pacific? Are you actually asserting that human body temps will trump the effects of an ocean that covers 1/3 of the earth to a mean depth of I know not how many 1000s of feet!
Post by: krissel on October 25, 2007, 08:47:13 PM
As a result, I caution that listing an article by it's title can be totally misleading.
This link is about whether the glaciers on Kilmanjaro are shrinking due to global warming:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...l/assetid/55553
However, if you actually read the 8 page article you will come across the following:
QUOTE
When pieced together, these disparate lines of evidence do not suggest that any warming at Kilimanjaro's summit has been large enough to explain the disappearance of most of its ice, either during the whole 20th century or during the best-measured period, the last 25 years.
QUOTE
If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro's ice, it could only have joined the game quite late, after the result was already clearly decided, acting at most as an accessory, influencing the outcome indirectly. The detection and attribution studies indicating that human influence on global climate emerged some time after 1950 reach the same conclusion about East African temperature far below the peak.
QUOTE
Any contribution of rising greenhouse gases to this circulation pattern necessarily emerged only in the last few decades; hence it is responsible for at most a fraction of the recent decline in ice and a much smaller fraction of the total decline.
So the article actually gives global warming a pass in the shrinkage of the glaciers.
I recall back in the 60's reading a scientific article about how Long Island (NY) was losing coastline at the rate of about a foot per century due to the rise of water levels. Oddly, just the other day I saw a program that said the very same thing. No change in 40 plus years?
On the other hand, the mere fact that 6 billion people are on the earth is cause enough for us to be worried about the consequences of human activity and repercussions to the planet. There was a Harvard study a couple decades ago that said the Earth could support about 2 1/2 billion people at a moderately comfortable lifestyle. Well, we're way over that limit now.
Can we, as consumers of 25 % of the world's energy continue in our wasteful activities? And how long do those in third world countries stay quiet as they watch those who 'have' live the good life?
I think the argument over whether Al Gore and his minions are absolutely correct or not is irrelevant. The global warming argument has been used as ammunition for various groups to attain their goals and likewise rebuffed by those groups who fear restrictions placed because of the resultant fears.
As far as I'm concerned the real discussion should be on population control and resource conservation.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 25, 2007, 09:24:47 PM
Remember when the Club of Rome (1970) solemnly and ominously declared (not "predicted") that all the world's oil would be exhausted by 1984? One of our sons was an undergrad at the University of California Santa Cruz, where one of his liberal arts professors intoned that theme on a regular basis as, I guess, revealed truth.
A couple of years ago, at a client's management meeting, the Chief Scientist from Chevron estimated that already discovered reserves will provide enough oil for the world's growing population until 2090!
Knowing a little about human problem-solving, I would, however, "estimate" that entrepreneurial capitalism will have long since innovated alternate forms of personal transportation not using internal combustion engines, or petroleum-based fuels . . . if governmental bureaucrats do not appear at their respective thresholds "to help".
Read the story of the difference in paperwork (and creativity) at Kelly Johnson's Lockheed Skunkworks and at "traditional" aircraft manufacturers, where legions of cost accountants were engaged in staying ahead of government auditors, rather than building airframes. Surprise, surprise.
Oh yes, and let's not forget, the best birth control is a rising standard of living . . . as a cause, rather than as an effect.
Post by: sandbox on October 26, 2007, 10:08:13 AM
What the Swiftboat Al Gore crowd wants to do is let industry continue to do as they please without citizen or their representative government interceding, but if history has taught us anything it's that industry serves itself first and has never accounted for environmental concerns unless forced by government or there was a profit to do so.
Time and time again it has been concerned citizens and a responsive government that has stopped water, air and ozone pollution. It is demonstrating itself today in the recall of toys, designed by OUR industry and manufactured to Spec by other nations. Smaller government translates into less observation and more poison and pollution which serves the needs of the bottom liners at any cost.
Greed has gotten us to this point of pollution, well known in the 60's and 70's when the first air pollution controls were installed in vehicles, long over due and rejected by industry for years with lies about efficiency and cost prohibiting expenses. Not unlike they demonstrated with CFC's and air conditioning system.
Any article on global warming that does not consider natural causes is being disingenuous to its readers. Of course there are natural cycles and of course industry will do what it can to exploit as much as it can from a planet that for to long has been more than willing to give, but, at 6 billion and growing, with an emerging population wanting to be as wasteful as our own, this planet will be in peril if left up to Swiftboaters to steward.
Here you go Dick, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/scndkili.htm maybe these guys will be more convincing.