Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... cord_N.htm

Any comments?

jmc wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... cord_N.htm

Any comments?

2010:warmest year ever since records began according to ground station records.

The article also notes that NOAA's ground station estimate is almost an entire degree higher than satellite data. I'll panic when the changes fall outside the error bars, and when different methods(ground and satellite) differ by a full degree, I don't accept error bars any tighter than that.

Statistics are like bikinis: they can be very revealing but they often hide the most interesting points.

Fact is, these studies vary so wildly that they're near useless. Most of the studies I've seen say the Earth has been cooling for the last eleven years. Most of these studies are so politically oriented that you just cannot trust them at face value.

IMHO, the arguments for AGW are very poor, especially since CO2 is less a greenhouse gas than water vapor. The science just doesn't seem to be in favor of what is politically correct and the fact that places like NOAA rely upon public funds (and all the people who work there!) is not conducive to honesty in reporting.

jmc wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... cord_N.htm

Any comments?

Yeah, it's printed in USAToday, so it's automatically crap.

I'm with bcglorf.

There is the moderating influence of the Heat->more cloud->reduced warming cycle.

And with significant heating from the Earth's core, which we know varies, blaming it without batting an eye on greenhouse gases is pretty sleazy.

Also in the news yesterday, the thermosphere has collapsed for the last couple of years to lows not seen in decades, if ever. The cause is unknown, but it is interesting that the speculation is that excess CO2 in these rarified outer layers is causing increased radiation, and thus cooling the thermosphere.

The effect is good news for craft in low earth orbit, as a puffed up thermosphere decays satellite orbits quickly. The effect is usually due to UV radiation from the Sun, but the observed collapse is about six times more severe than the Sun's recent quiet behavior can explain.

Soooo, CO2 can cool the atmosphere?!! Depending on where you are?

Arkansas also just had it's hottest june since they started recording.

Well, with station siting like this, it's perhaps not surprising. Just why would you expect a large expanse of asphalt in AZ to be the temperature of the surrounding desert? And with a firepit close by, to boot.

Also, we're badly behind the expected levels of sunspot activity, Antarctic ice extent is considerably above normal for this time of year, and Australia and Mexico seem to be having much colder weather than normal, and ice melting in the Arctic seems behind schedule.

In fact, signs seem to be pointing towards cooling, not warming.

BTW, I'm a believer in AGW - Ruddiman's paper on the subject was convincing. What's also interesting is that we'd apparently be nuts-deep in a scheduled (well, cyclical) ice age if it hadn't happened. (Page 3, Fig. 1, Graphs A&B)

Don't know about you, but if it comes down to FUBARing the world economy to possibly stave off a degree or two of warming, when it looks like we're getting ready for a multi-decade cold snap, I'll watch what the global warming activists do. If they start to behave like there's a crisis, then I'll believe there's one. If not, if they keep jetting around the world to conferences here and there, and building energy-hog mansions, then I'm all for keeping things the same.

JLawson wrote:Well, with station siting like this, it's perhaps not surprising. Just why would you expect a large expanse of asphalt in AZ to be the temperature of the surrounding desert? And with a firepit close by, to boot.

Also, we're badly behind the expected levels of sunspot activity, Antarctic ice extent is considerably above normal for this time of year, and Australia and Mexico seem to be having much colder weather than normal, and ice melting in the Arctic seems behind schedule.

In fact, signs seem to be pointing towards cooling, not warming.

BTW, I'm a believer in AGW - Ruddiman's paper on the subject was convincing. What's also interesting is that we'd apparently be nuts-deep in a scheduled (well, cyclical) ice age if it hadn't happened. (Page 3, Fig. 1, Graphs A&B)

Don't know about you, but if it comes down to FUBARing the world economy to possibly stave off a degree or two of warming, when it looks like we're getting ready for a multi-decade cold snap, I'll watch what the global warming activists do. If they start to behave like there's a crisis, then I'll believe there's one. If not, if they keep jetting around the world to conferences here and there, and building energy-hog mansions, then I'm all for keeping things the same.

Ann Althouse recently wrote a column in which she pointed out, (and I am paraphrasing) "If you believe in global warming then why are you so fat? "

Actually, she's a lot more polite than me. This is what she actually said.

1. Your weight should be at the low end of normal, indicating that you are not overconsuming the products of agriculture.

She lists several other points which should be de rigueur for global warming believers.

The title of the piece is "If you really believed in global warming you would turn off the air conditioner. "

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/if ... lobal.html

Diogenes wrote: Ann Althouse recently wrote a column in which she pointed out, (and I am paraphrasing) "If you believe in global warming then why are you so fat? "

Actually, she's a lot more polite than me. This is what she actually said.

1. Your weight should be at the low end of normal, indicating that you are not overconsuming the products of agriculture.

She lists several other points which should be de rigueur for global warming believers.

The title of the piece is "If you really believed in global warming you would turn off the air conditioner. "

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/if ... lobal.html

I read that article - she was rather biting in her critique of the AGW crowd. And appropriately so, I think...

Tom Ligon wrote:The effect is good news for craft in low earth orbit, as a puffed up thermosphere decays satellite orbits quickly. The effect is usually due to UV radiation from the Sun, but the observed collapse is about six times more severe than the Sun's recent quiet behavior can explain.

Craft yes. Orbital debris?

Betruger wrote:

Tom Ligon wrote:The effect is good news for craft in low earth orbit, as a puffed up thermosphere decays satellite orbits quickly. The effect is usually due to UV radiation from the Sun, but the observed collapse is about six times more severe than the Sun's recent quiet behavior can explain.

Craft yes. Orbital debris?

The same, only less.

Overestimation of the effects of exoatmospheric drag, solar light pressure etc etc on smaller items and fragments is what led to the current mess. No one believed that the small stuff could stay on orbit for even a fraction of the time it now obviously does.

We tend to design spacecraft to be voluminous in order to house the gear to get work done and we tend to design spacecraft to be light in order to get more spacecraft into orbit with each launch.

Design work on debris... not so much

I was thinking about orbital debris staying up longer even as I wrote that.

Yes, exactly.

All this proves we've still got a lot to learn about how this planet operates. In the meantime, I just got back on line after a rare Manassas power failure, and it is not even mid-day yet. About to go up to the cabin where they are planning to put wind turbines on the ridge (silly, but whatcha gonna do?)

Come on Rick and company, get Polywell running. Regardless of the cause of the heat, I wanna crank up the AC!

So what is the consensus of the folks on this board as to why the notion of human induced global warming is being pushed despite all the apparent evidence against it?