usclimateaction.org is on the terrorist group watchlist, so what is your big plan, cypress? Going to start using the tactics of your heroes, Muslim Terrorists? Suicide bombings, kidnapping and extortion and rape and starvation. These are the weapons terrorist assholes like you use. So, are you going to blow yourself up for Mother Gaea? Be sure to tell us so we can all laugh at your dead ass, as all your family is thrown in jail for aiding and abetting your anti-human terrorism.

Fuck you, environazi asshole.

Cypress,

Your response,

You change, or we change it for u.

is about as rational as handing a set of car keys and a ten dollar bill to a 6 year old who announces he’s hungry for a Happy Meal.

I have suggested a nuclear winter approach. Not too different. Mine sounds like more fun though.

When is someone going to ask, how does paying money to the government fix the aledged climate problem?

And shouldn't we ask — Can you prove that AGW is real? If not STFU.

Ah yes, the problem with the missing 'hot spot'.

Global Warming is the liberals substitute for religion.

Will,

Great analogy! A flawless comparison on so many different levels.

So how long do you think it will be before we can expect human sacrifices from the Shamans?

Ah yes, the problem with the missing ‘hot spot'.

So the polar caps, and Greenland are melting because it is getting colder? That seems odd.

It's not so much what buzzardbreath doesn't know (though that is a rather voluminous subject), as the things that he knows that just ain't so.

as the things that he knows that just ain't so.

So you are saying they are not melting? Just trying to decipher your sarcasm. Is that what your contention is? That the polar caps and Greenland are in fact not melting.

Global Warming is the liberals substitute for religion. Since they are making it up as they go, rationality is not to be expected.

Will, Agreed.

Buzz:

So the polar caps, and Greenland are melting because it is getting colder? That seems odd.

The southern pole isn't melting, actually it's gaining ice, including sea ice.

For all the fluttering of your liberal hearts over the loss of that ice bridge, there is currently 15% more sea ice around the Antarctica than the 30 year average… and we're getting ready to go into the Southern winter.

<img src="http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png"&gt;

That extra ice mass is big enough to fit California and Texas together inside of it.

There's something called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has been draining the sea ice out of the North polar icecap. So it's not so much just melting as it is that the ocean circulation patterns aren't favorable to maintaining multiyear ice.

Watch it here. Notice the yearly outflow of ice along the coast line of Greenland? That's from the NAO. When it flips sign (as it doe periodically) expect a build up of ice again.

You may not be aware of it, but this isn't the first time the Norhwest Passage has been open in the summer. It appears to happen every 50 years or so… it may happen with increased frequency if the Earth continues to warm, but not everything that happens is the humans fault. We are just evolved primates, not some kind of god like beings.

As to Greenland, it's melting along the coastlines and gaining ice in the interior. Exactly what's predicted by global warming models (warmer surface temperatures mean that lower altitudes warm and lose ice, higher altitudes warm enough for more precipitation to occur, but don't warm enough to cause melting.) The net effect currently is a negligible change in ice mass, with the models predicting it will actually grow as the Earth warms (assuming no scifi runaway warming scenario).

Funny the alarmists never mention that isn't it?

Oh, and the rising sea levels? Due 70% to thermal expansion, 30% to decreases in ice coverage, with much of that ice coverage coming as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age. Do we really want to return to that "normal"?

As to Greenland, it's melting along the coastlines and gaining ice in the interior.

Your argument is compelling, as usual, although not all together correct from what I have read. Either way I wouldn't be buying Florida beach property.

Sorry I meant to say the net anthropogenic forcing was 0.1 C not 0.2 C.

0.3 C is enough of temperature shift to go from an ice age to our current relatively warm planet. And even the classic greenhouse gas effect (which is virtually unassailable) would give at least a 1.5C change with a doubling of CO2. Something to think about.

Holden said:

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

If we're going to argue (as I often do) that the global climate models are poor enough that we can't see where we're going, then perhaps a better analogy is we're "in a car with bad brakes driving on a windy road in the mountains in the fog." We can't tell if there's a curve up there or not.

With temps raising with green house gases, as your graph shows, why would you argue with trying to reduce them? Especially being it would take years to even slow down, let alone reverse the current trend of ever higher concentrations.

But if flooding is just one byproduct of climate change and stronger storms, and abnormal rain/drought conditions also predicted, it only makes sense to me, being oil is finite to at least start renewable energy policy. What could it hurt to invest in the future of our planet. It has to be done sometime.

Buzz:

But if flooding is just one byproduct of climate change and stronger storms, and abnormal rain/drought conditions also predicted, it only makes sense to me, being oil is finite to at least start renewable energy policy. What could it hurt to invest in the future of our planet. It has to be done sometime.

I agree with the latter part of this, it's my opinion that the drought conditions predicted are just wrong: the data say the opposite, the South East US is supposed to be getting drier, it's not, it's getting wetter. The droughts of the SE you hear about are actually due to a dearth of tropical cyclones since 2006. We get on average about 12" of rain a year from them, and quiet hurricane seasons means 25% less rain.

The other shortfalls in water have to do more with increased consumption of water by a rapidly increasing population (iDino would be delighted to know that the prospect of high paying jobs in the South is drawing immigration from the Northern states), and when you have a relatively minor hick up (like 36" of rain instead of 48"… some drought), the weakness in the available water resources gets exposed.

Other than that, we've actually be getting increased rain fall with the warmer temperatures (something again predicted by mesoscale weather models), though this is opposite of what coarse-grained and inaccurate global climate models would have predicted. (As I said, we know the models are wrong, that doesn't mean they are usable, it just means you have to know what they are good for, and many quasi-scientific types aren't adept enough at the science to know which is which).

All that, yes we need to look for alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power and clean coal plants. And yes even CO2 sequestration technology. If I had more time, I would be working on that one personally.

I'm not as alarmed as some people because I know a few amusing quirks of the models, such as their forecast models for CO2 production don't include economic shifts associated with rising energy costs:

It's like this, cheap gas comes from light sweet crude, and there are limited amounts of that around. Heavy sour crude is much more plentiful… and expensive to distill. Shale oil is even more plentiful (maybe 90% ? of the worlds oil reserves are in shale oil) and even more expensive to produce.

My prediction: We will quit using petroleum as an energy source long before we run out of it, simply because the free market will drive us to other and cheaper sources of fuel.

This reminds me of the rainmakers in the 19th century.

Obama is clueless and dangerous. We cannot afford 4 years of this man, none the less 8.

It's fun to contrast stories like these with this.

This reminds me of the rainmakers in the 19th century.