Boise News

They should have called in one of their anti-global warming "scientists" like Fred Singer to testify. Totally believable.
He built a satellite in 1950 something so he is like a totally credible scientist and stuff. He also hangs out with some weathermen (not in that way, gross ;). He used to work for the tobacco people and wrote some papers about secondhand smoke being healthy. He also doesn't believe there is a hole in the ozone layer, though he hasn't brought that up since 1990 or so.
Like two years ago, he totally denied that global warming existed, and has the data he invented to prove it.
Come to think of it, he now believes global warming might be happening, though humans don't have the slightest thing to do with it, and it is going to be totally cool...I bet he'd even sell the Idaho State Legislature on some awesome pineapple plantation project and talk them into selling the beachfront condos that will pop up in Boise.

Kinda cold up in "Ya sure, Ya Betcha" land.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021101041.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Record Cold for Northern Minn.: 40 Below


By JEFF BAENEN
The Associated Press
Monday, February 11, 2008; 4:21 PM

MINNEAPOLIS -- It lived up to its name: The temperature in International Falls fell to 40 below zero Monday, just a few days after the northern Minnesota town won a federal trademark making it officially the "Icebox of the Nation."

It was so cold that resident Nick McDougall couldn't get his car trunk to close after he got out his charger to kick-start his dead battery. By late morning, the temperature had risen all the way to 18 _ below zero.

"This is about as cold as it gets, this is bad. There's no wind _ it's just cold," said McDougall, 48, a worker at The Fisherman, a convenience store and gas station in the town on the Canadian border. "People just don't go out, unless you have to go to work."

Residents of the area use electric engine block heaters to keep their cars from freezing.

"You plug in your car, for sure, and you put the car in the garage if you can," McDougall said. His garage is full of other things, so he had to park outside _ a "big mistake."

The previous record low for Feb. 11 in International Falls was 37 below, set in 1967, said meteorologist Mike Stewart at the weather service in Duluth.

The temperature also fell to 40 below in Embarrass, 80 miles southeast of International Falls. That's just one degree above the all-time record in Minneapolis, 250 miles to the south, that was set in January 1888, the weather service said.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

Taking advantage of the green trend in Idaho may be the only way to stave off the collapse of the economy due to reductions in high technology businesses. The warning signs at HP and Micron need to be heeded. What business owners and entrepreneurs are learning is that green makes green. Prepare to see areas requiring new building codes requiring greener structures, more renewable resources, solar panels and economical energy usages.

As for being 40 below zero? Who gives a dang? Individual numbers and localized trends are NOT climate, they are weather. An increase of 1-2 deg C is not enough to have a great effect on local weather patterns, but the global changes due to that are extraordinary. We're talking extinctions here, people. Believing Mr. Science Moore up there is just absolute folly and is the cause of where we are today.

Take a look at Arctic ice thaws and the increase in albedo as an indication of the real repercussions of climate change. A sudden increase in albedo for an area as large as the Arctic during a time when the wobble of the earth is exposing the north pole to more solar radiation and you have a recipe for rapid change to the ocean currents and wind currents.

Craig (and Marion, now I guess): I continue to be amazed with your ability to post day-by-day weather events as your "evidence" to counter the significant information from climate scientists and researchers. By the way, we've hit 40 plus in Missoula for the past five or six days, so that must prove, beyond a doubt that...

Wow Marion, such gross ignorance of how greenhouse gases work. Let me see if I can explain in small enough words:

Solar radiation is made up of short wavelength energy, the kind that usually gets radiated back based on 2 things: ozone and reflectivity of the ground (snow provides a high reflectivity). That energy is essentially gone from the equation. That leaves the energy that does make it through the atmosphere, where CO2 is absolutely useless in blocking short wavelength energy. This energy is converted to heat by the albedo of the earth, such as how a dark car gets hotter than a white one. That energy also gets radiated upwards, but it has a longer wavelength, of which CO2 is not invisible, it traps the heat, causing the lower atmosphere to heat up.

And Marion, I think it is your burden to find proof that anyone of scientific background has EVER used a hot day to justify the science of global warming. Come on, one link?

Hey Mr. Moore Science, what do biofuels have to do with Global Climate Change? Other than an attempt to adjust to alternative fuels, one attempt that really didn't work? Peak Oil also has nothing to do with global climate change, but it has a lot to do with biofuels.

So are you just trying to change the subject to one where you think you can win so everyone will forget about the absolute amazingly worthless post you made above?

Pointless copy and pasting again, I see? Is that to shield you from the harsh criticism that your posts usually deserve? Again, local weather patterns are not climate, they are local weather patterns. Long term effects of global warming/climate change take place on a globewide area, requiring more than just localized information. The reduction in glaciers, the reduction of Arctic sea ice, the rapid calving of massive icebergs in the Southern Hemisphere, those are more indicative of the rapid changes in our climate.

And for every single link you can post, I can give you ten more from actually reputable sources that are backed up by other studies and climate models.

Oh, maybe you can tell me about temperature monitoring stations that are situated in city centers or too close to HVAC systems?

Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody's doing anything about it, are they? We all care a lot about today's weather, and we notice. Especially when it's 40 below, or 120 above. However, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." I haven't been to Greenland, or the N. Pole lately, but I understand from people who have, that things are changing there in a Big Way, moreso than gee didn't we have a cold winter/hot summer/whatever this year.

What perplexes me is how to make sense of scientific criticism, and to know what's credible and what's noise. http://www.ipcc.ch seems to be the best place to look, but committee consensus is no guarantee of accuracy. Measuring and understanding our planet's "climate" is one of the most difficult scientific problems imaginable.

Nevertheless, we have to make decisions without complete data in this and many other circumstances. In the realm of engineering, a technique called Failure Mode Effects Analysis is used as a way to combine an estimate of the likelihood of a "failure" happening, its detectibility, and the consequences if it does. The worst sort of failure is one that has non-negligible probability, poor detectability, and dire consequences.

Hello Global Warming.

For such failures, it's important to find mitigation, whether through reducing the probability they'll occur, increasing our ability to detect that they'll occur (assuming detection can help us prevent them or protect ourselves in some way!), and to reduce the damage if the failure does happen.

To the extent that decisions are made for political, rather than valid scientific/engineering reasons, the project is in trouble. C.f. Challenger disaster, and the role of "management." (I bring in engineering rather than just science because for practical purposes, engineering = science + economics, and economics matters a great deal for this issue.)

We're the management this time around. So good on Kate Kelly for getting the Idaho Legislature to talk about this.

P.S. What in the hell does Roundup have to do with this issue, and why does Sen. Schroeder think it's droll to bring toxic chemicals to work? It's against the law, among other reasons why it's stupid.

Nobody is doing anything about it? The weather will continue and the changes it goes through will be subtle at times and extreme at others. However, plenty of people are still doing things about the weather. South American countries are stopping the overwhelming clearing of the tropical rain forests, scientists are finding species of grasses and other plants that can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere at rates higher than indigenous species. Studies of alternative fuel sources, such as algae farms, are abounding and appear to be both profitable and efficient. The solar energy businesses are ramping up and creating new technologies to take advantage of the green trend, technologies that reduce carbon footprints by large amounts. New technologies are being implemented in our personal vehicles, leading to increases in mpg which in turn reduces CO2 output. The problems of methane are being looked at as an opportunity for trapping and compression for use in energy creation.

So it's very hard for me to understand where you say that no one is doing anything about global warming/climate change. The scientists are doing their parts, measuring, modeling and trying to inform a public that reacts too much like Craig and not enough like Gore. The legislators are attempting to do their parts but are being stopped by confusion about consensus as well as the large lobbying amounts from oil and coal.

So what we're left with is educating the American and world population, providing the technological resources to implement green policies and allowing a worldwide "free-market" to provide solutions for affordable prices. Now that there is a competitive market for green technologies we're finally going to start seeing R&D;coming from the private sector in order for them to remain competitive on the global market.

As long as the green trend continues, we have a chance. The optimists within the climate fields continue to remind us that the models are imperfect and that the earth is a self-correcting system, as long as the effects are within certain boundaries. Is it too late, have we crossed those boundaries? Pessimists say yes, optimists say maybe and the deniers are too busy trying to choke down another bag of cheetos.

Jay, Jay, Jay, it was a joke, son. Since I eschew cliches, please use any citation of same as signal.

Jill, regarding bringing chemicals to work: at that big Corporate Cube Farm where I used to work, we were required to have an OSHA M.S.D.S. on hand, and duly filed before bringing a chemical on site. All personnel who were to use said chemical were required to read and understand said M.S.D.S. (I was the responsible party in many instances of specifying materials, and the procedures for their use.)

The rules differ for going to the Home & Garden store, buying all manner of seriously toxic substances and bringing them back to the comfort of your home.

The Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction over states and municipalities, but states are required to come up with their own regs, at least as stringent as the Federal ones. I don't have chapter and verse, but I'm sure it could be found.

It's perhaps a trivial matter, but it shows poor judgment and ignorance of the law on the part of both the unnamed wag, and the Senator who went along with the joke.

I think the USFS is doing its part to combat global warming. By encouraging the forests to burn, canopy cover is vastly reduced, allowing reflected solar energy to bounce back into outer space off the newly canopy cleansed snowfields, which in turn cools the earth. Deforestation around the world would be a good thing in that all the heat trapped under the canopy would be allowed to radiate away at night, on lands equatorial to polar. You know how they say the desert is so cold at night. You would be cooler in Chicago in July. The only reason it doesn't work in winter at the poles is that there is no sunlight to reflect. In summer, it is a different story. There is sagebrush growing near Fairbanks in some tiny micro climate of cold and dry.

I just read in the Anchorage paper that the prediction is for the aged Arctic ice (3%) continuing to flow to the North Atlantic past Greenland as this winter's ice is so juvenile as to not be able to exist as the ocean currents (now being monitored by drift buoys) are strong and moving that way. So, there will be less reflective surface this summer, and more open water. (Is this ocean cold current water flow going to cool the tropics and kill the coral reefs?--or save them?) Polar bears will have to fish for salmon this summer, or exist off careless researchers. Now all the experts have to do is connect how ocean currents are the result of man's CO2 creation. I will tell you that Alaska is having great salmon runs, and the farther south you go on the West Coast, the more the fish runs are diminishing.

90,000 salmon, total, returned to the Sacramento-San Joaquin system, that has had 900,000 fish returns in the last 10 years. The Klamath had 80,000 return, and that system and watershed is tiny compared to the S-SJ. The Columbia was over 600,000 salmon and steelhead, and that is where all the litigation and force to remove dams is centered. It just must be that Idaho (user of 65% of irrigation water removed from the Columbia system) has 2 in the House, Oregon 5, Washington 9, Montana 1 and Caleeefornia 53....and all the CA congressmen/women/all other need to have a green voting record and water for their constituents, no matter who, which state, or what resource they have steal it from. So if California wants to take down dams on the Columbia at the Federal level, it will happen. If diverting water from those dams to Caleeeefornia is an option, no dam will be removed. If the Northwest delegation wants to have dams removed in Caleeefornia, it will never happen. Raw political power. And none of us can change ocean current cycling, and that is what is happening.

The ideal ocean and river conditions are favoring Alaskan waters, and far northern rivers have abundant anadromous fish returns at this time, salmon, chars, and other fish in numbers where they have been scarce. The whole of ideal salmonid sustaining systems has moved north at the expense of the southern limits of their habitat and greatest incidence of man made obstacles. Those obstacles will be removed, a day late and a dollar short, where they are most politically possible, not where fish would need them the most. Politics. And none of the candidates for President will care one iota about that issue. They are from far away, not invested, and have (bad pun) other fish to fry.

On the other hand, I would guess that some new fishery will emerge in the now open areas no longer covered year long with ice, and government will be so slow to acknowledge it, the overharvest will have occured before regulation and management might take place. Of course, it will not be stopped, as ocean resource agencies of the states only exist by selling licenses and collecting tonnage fees on the catch. No fishing, no agency. And, as the opportunities and available prey diminish, their costs of wages, expenses, pensions, all rise. Witness the over-exploitation of fish that never ceases, and the annual license and fee icreases. Over exploited or under-exploited, the least successful managers of anything are in charge, and we will get what trickles down after all the wheels in D.C. are greased, promotions made, and staff increased, and all those steps are followed at the State agencies.

All we can hope for is that the forests above the mean annual snow line, old or new, all burn, to radiate global warmth to outer space, and those growing snow fields will bring on the next little ice age, with the help, perhaps, of a convenient mega volcanic explosion somewhere that blocks the sun for a couple of years. Maybe one large enough to create a Yellowstone size caldera. You know, the things we can't control, other than people. But things that have a great long term benefit. Maybe salmon runs in San Diego streams once again, or into Baja. Great spring skiing. Lots of water for the Imperial valley potato and cabbage crop. The street kids of San Francisco playing a cutting edge (yep) game of ice hockey in the streets. Africa as a food exporter. A burkqua needed protection from the glare off snow and the cold temperatures. So many great possibilities to climate change that it boggles the mind. Maybe instead of just wind turbines, we can place mirrors on the land under them (most seem to be built in places with many more sunny days than cloudy days), and send some heat back to the sun. Far away, in time, we could become the shiny planet. Think of all the jobs it would create. Mirror cleaners and polishers, intallers, repairers, maybe some barbeque on the edges stealing a little of the energy. A whole new under-mirror ecoysytem of white, blind critters. Opportunity!!

Well, I'll throw this into the mix, even though a lot of folks do not seem to believe the sun has a lot to do with warmth.


http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

partial excerpt:
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm not going to comment about most of what has been said in this thread but will instead focus on Marion's most recent post regarding the solar cycle.

Here is a link to an actual scientific website that focuses on studying the activity of our Sun: NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory latest news release reporting on the start of the latest cycle in the Sun's magnetic field being observed last month.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMT1J3MDAF_index_0.html

There actually appears to be NO evidence that we are entering another period of minimal solar activity ala the "Maunder minimum." We are just at the low point from the end of one solar cycle and the beginning of the next cycle.

I highly recommend that all of you, for or against global warming, attend the weekly lecture series at the Urey Lecture Hall on Tuesdays at 7pm at the Univ. of Montana.

If you are going to debate the facts, it would benefit you all to know them first.

Check out this article for yesterday's lecture by Dan Fagre of Glacier NP:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/climate_change_impacts_more_than_glaciers_glaciers/C38/L38/

Cheers!

-brett

This should be fun, watching an astrophysicist explain science to a flat earther.

Certainly I hope I never have to resort to name calling to try to make someone believe as I do.
That being said, one thing never mentioned is the effect of drought and lack of snow on glaciers. I will be interesting to see what these look like by next spring.
If the growing season is longer, why do my tomatoes still freeze if put out before the end of May?

Thank you for that very informative reply Jay. It helped clarify things a lot. And yes, I did read it. They saw the new flare a month ago, certainly did not appear to warm up, or chnge much of anything, the bad winter continues.

Weather is not climate.

Repeat:

Weather is not climate. Until you can get that through your head your comments are worthless.

Yes, when compared against thousands of years of data showing that the current rise in global temperature is faster than any other time.

Climate is NOT weather. Climate has more to do with ocean temperatures, lower atmospheric temperatures and ground effects than any immediate weather event. Weather doesn't change climate, climate changes weather.

The disappearance of Arctic ice is the proof in the pudding. As well, the disappearance of that ice is a signal that we've already gone too far.

A good way to think about climate is like this:

Take the weather for the past 30 years, then combine it all. That's climate.

here's a link that should help you all. the key to a good debate is understanding each other.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html

Are you suggesting there are astrophysicists posting to this little forum?
I know there are several flat earthers...

Jed, 6degrees is our friendly local scientific brainiac. I don't think I got it wrong that he was an astrophysicist. He blogs here on the subject of astronomy:
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/author/irwinh/

I highly recommend.

flounder, I think Marion ran out of question marks.

I love it when people use the "it stands to reason" line without providing any of the actual reasoning. Marion, what you said makes absolutely no sense. There's no such thing as an ideal climate. I think what motivates most people concerned with global warming is not finding the ideal climate but rather trying to halt and reverse climate change for which we are largely responsible. If I believed that the warming we were seeing was not the result of human action, I'd probably be fine with letting it take its course, but the climate science suggests that we are largely responsible, and as such, we have an obligation to ourselves and future generations to do what we can to address it. There are many laws, fro the Civil Rights Act to the Endangered Species Act, that recognize past human wrongs and set about a course of action to right them. We need similar thinking, just on a much larger scale, to solve this problem. But it starts with accepting responsibility. Once we do that, it becomes an *obligation* to act.

As for halting energy production, ridding ourselves of agriculture, and other similar lines of propaganda that you and others seem to want to atribute to people concerned about human induced climate change, I think that's all really BS. I will speak for myself: 1) I don't think compact flourescent light bulds are the answer, but it doesn't hurt and their use saves me money; 2) I believe that we can solve this problem not by reducing energy usage but by changing the way we produce energy. This means that new coal plants should NOT be buit, but new wind, solar, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear, should be built, where appropriate; 3) I believe that what we can do as individuals is demand that our elected officials cease support for the status quo - and that means halting governemnt subsidies of the old energy industry and begin massive investment in new, clean energy. The change must be political in nature and this change must be demanded from us, citizens.

The bottom line is that what I demand is change, but I don't think this change is mutually exlusive to continuing to progress nor do I think this change will result in the loss of our high quality of life. What I do believe is that if we do nothing, the quality of life of our children and grandchildren will be in great peril.

If humans can change the climate at will by doing "xyz", how is it going to settle at the right place?
Even though you personally may be willing to allow windfarms and nuclear plants, doesnt' mean others will. Every lawsuit to stop power production delays availability by years. And environmental groups have stopped windfarms and will eventually stop ethanol production, definitely they will not allow nuclear to be used until we are in a critical situation that affects them personally. Youor own caveat of where appropriate is one of the problems. Fuel is where it is, you cannot pick and chose where oil can be gotten, or where wind farms will work, the natural source has to be in that location. Our kids are going to pay the price by either not having a source of energy available or having it priced to the point that they have to live in hovels with a tiny amount of heat that they can afford to buy. Solar power simply is not affordable for most of us.
It is fine to demand change, but change to what? A third world country that can only try to survive from day to day? Be specific instead of just demanding that someone make changes that will make life a utopia. Utopia does not exist.

Well, you could actually read my caveat of where appropriate to mean, in the case of wind farms, where it is windy, in the case of solar installations, where it is sunny, and in the case of nuclear, where there is adequate water and perhaps even adequate public support. I also think that we environmentalists should continue to question energy development, because there are always tradeoffs. But I implore us also to come at it from the stance of "how can we improve this project" as opposed to just saying "NO!" all the time. That gets us nowhere.

Our kids are going to pay a price. I'm not going to go so far as you, Marion, but inaction on our part will surely cost future generations. I do believe that the cost of inaction is far greater than doing nothing. And just because solar power is not affordable right now (it isn't for me as well, Marion), doesn't mean it will NEVER be affordable. One sure way to make sure it never gets affordable is to continue to subsidize the current, archaic system of power generation at the expense of other, cleaner forms. Since when is investment in new technology like solar and wind a BAD thing, and how is that going to make things MORE expensive for future generations?

I already told you above what change I am demanding (generally speaking, investment in and change to clean energy technologies). I demand change that aims to prevent us from reverting to third world living standards, and I also demand change that allows current third world countries to increase their standard of living in a way that does NOT force them to plunder their own environment.

Matt,
solar panels are on the verge of becoming much more affordable and much more common. Large companies like Applied Materials (AMAT) are switching semiconductor manufacturing technologies over to deal with the sudden demand for manufacturing tools for solar energy. During a time when most American companies are having issues with future semiconductor mfg tool sales, AMAT has revamped and received accolades for their move forward.

http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6531949.html

Just to clarify one point above, my Ph.D. is actually in Astronomy, not Astrophysics. My other five university degrees (hence the nickname) are also in scientific/technical fields, including a B.S. in Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences from MIT. As such, while I don't claim to be a climate expert, I do know a little about the science involved regarding the greenhouse effect.

I won't bother to debate Marion in this thread (everyone else is doing a bang up job of it) but suffice to say this is where I stand:
1) The current episode of climate change/global warming (over the last few decades) shows substantial evidence to be driven primarily by human-based activities;
2) Society should develop the political will to face this situation and address solutions to mitigate the potentially worst effects of AGW, such as investment in clean energy technologies to replace our reliance on fossil fuel energy sources;
3) We should encourage a greater reliance on energy efficiency, recycling and pollution reduction regardless of whether you believe the science behind AGW; and
4) Our fossil fuel based economy is going into the toilet. Investment in new technologies has the potential to reinvigorate the economy in a manner similar to how the computer revolutionized it back in the 80s and 90s.

So, unlike the doomsayers here like Marion, I believe that by embracing "green" ideas we can actually improve the overall quality of life for everyone and undergo a transformation that can lead to enhanced national security (less reliance on rogue countries that control most of the world's oil supply); improve the environment by cleaning it up and rekindle the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans with a new economic wave to pull us out of the recession that we are currently experiencing.

Jay, thanks for expounding upon the horrors of semiconductor manufacturing, the largest component of which is.... get ready.... sand (sue me for oversimplifying). I don't see too many rabid environmentalists protesting when I show up to my job at a large semiconductor manufacturing plant every morning.

Thanks Irwin. I'm really at a loss why what you wrote isn't the central theme of the presidential campaigns right now. Obama touched on it in his speech in Boise but it wasn't central. It dovetails nicely into the national security debate and addresses the dire nature of the economy in this country. I see that as the future.

The solar cycle and climate. See: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/

>>>>>>>>>>>
Sunspots are cross connected eruptions of the magnetic field lines, shown in red above. Sometimes they break, spewing tremendous amounts of gas and particles into space. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME’s) are some examples of this process. Sometimes they snap back like rubber bands. The number of sunspots at solar max is a direct indicator of the activity level of the solar dynamo.

Given the current quietness of the sun and it’s magnetic field, combined with the late start to cycle 24 with even possibly a false start, it appears that the sun has slowed it’s internal dynamo to a similar level such as was seen during the Dalton Minimum. One of the things about the Dalton Minimum was that it started with a skipped solar cycle, which also coincided with a very long solar cycle 4 from 1784-1799. The longer our current cycle 23 lasts before we see a true ramp up of cycle 24, the greater chance it seems then that cycle 24 will be a low one.

No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture. NASA GISS published a release back in 2003 that agrees with the commonly accepted idea that long period trends in solar activity do affect our climate by changing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

Some say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic dynamo.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Craig quoted: "...Given the current quietness of the sun and it’s magnetic field, combined with the late start to cycle 24 with even possibly a false start, it appears that the sun has slowed it’s [sic] internal dynamo to a similar level such as was seen during the Dalton Minimum...."

Extraordinary claim, and worth looking into, given that the Maunder Minimum was dramatic, comprising 70 years with almost no sunspots. I see that last April, NOAA forecasted ("on the very edge of what we know about the Sun," that far in advance) the new cycle to start in March 2007:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

Here's a nice article that gives a hint of where the MM rumors bubbled up from: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/02/15/100/?nc=1
Tad Cook concludes, "in fact there is nothing unusual about the current Solar Cycle minimum, and really no known method of predicting such a period."

Seems more prudent to go about our business as usual for a couple months, and check in with our favorite star then.

Tom, I agree. We can see things much more clearly with 20-20 hindsight. I said two years ago here that we need to prepare to adapt and survive in a world where change is inevitable. Whether the world warms or cools, we will be challenged.

Along the lines that Jay suggested above, it would be helpful to uncouple the discussion of various future power alternatives and living situations from climate change arguements. We don't need any more biofuels fisascos that now face us and rushed into production because of alarmism stampedes.

Tom, whether we go about our business for 2 months or 2 years and then check in with the experts, we will see today's events more clearly.

Anyone ever consider that the bio-fuels escapade was driven completely by profit mongering companies?

Well, I don't see them overproducing and then whining when they can't sell anything.

Plus their production doesn't take anything away from another industry, like corn production did.

I've seen the massive wind farms outside of the Joshua Tree area just east of LA, pretty impressive use of bad land.

Craig,

Just out of curiosity, how does the whining of the renewable energy industry regarding "massive" government subsidies compare to the whining of the oil and coal industry regarding their massive subsidies?

Craig -- you utterly ignored the question in your response to it.

This is a Big Picture thing. A Very Big Picture thing. ExxonMobil made $40 billion PROFIT last year.

The Bush/Cheney administration has been ALL about the oil and gas industry (I'm not so sure what they have and haven't done for coal), to the point of starting an unprovoked war of conquest to further industry interests. It's paid off BIG time, and mirable dictu, we are not closer to "energy independence."

Sharon,

When thinking about the positions of those members of the Idaho legislature who continue to deny global warming, I am heartened by the following quote from German physicist Max Planck (one of the key architects of quantum physics):

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.“

tom, I tried to answer 6's question the best I could. I don't defend the coal and oil companies. They can do that themselves. By the way do you know how much in taxes E-M paid? See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]
<<<<<<<<<<

Matt: Nope. Haven't noticed that connection, but evidently you have. Now use your advanced scientific method to prove that most of the people who don't believe in global warming also don't believe in global warming.

Oh, but the way did you hear about the 3 senators that had to make an emergency landing with their chopper yesterday in a blinding snowstorm in Afganistan where it never snows? Darn that global warming. No it's not a joke, it really happened, that global warming is spreading all over the place.

Yep, it's cold somewhere, so therefore global climate change or global warming (take you pick) is false.

The logic is impeccable people, can't you just see that????

Did you know it never snows in the Himalayas?

It's true, no really! Marion said so.

Which is really amazing, since the country where they are partly located has half of its landmass located above 2000m.

Oh, thats around 6,600 feet for those (like Marion) that get a little confused by the measurements that the rest of the educated world uses.

At those altitudes, one might assume that it would snow, especially since the poppy fields that Afghanistan produces requires large amounts of water that would normally be found as snowpack in normal countries, but Afghanistan isn't normal. It's part of that mysterious Middle East that is hot year round, even at altitudes over 12,000 feet.

Amazing little country, Afghanistan. It totally blew them away when it snowed.

Marion,

It "never snows in Afganistan" [sic]? Really...are you serious?

Ever hear of a little mountain range called the H-I-M-A-L-A-Y-A-N range? Well, the central highlands, which account for 64% of Afghanistan land area and are part of the Himalayan Ranges, rising above 21,000 feet.

The following information is from the National Climatic Data Center, which is run by the US Dept of Commerce. Here are excepts of what the NCDC says about the Climate of Afghanistan:

"The snow season averages roughly October-April in the mountains and varies considerably with elevation. The mountain valleys can experience, on average, 10 to 30 days per year with snowfall, but the higher passes receive much more snow. At an elevation of 11,043 feet, North Salang receives snow, on average, 98 days out of the year with depths reaching as high
as 177 inches. Snow has been observed on the ground there as early as August and as late as June."

Marion, you better contact those folks at the US Dept of Commerce and let them know all this information is wrong, because, after all, it "never snows in Afganistan" [sic], right?

D H Lawrence said John Thomas was a d--k

On the 11:00 pm news on the tube tonight: a records examination of hurricanes, and hurricane damage back to 1906 reveals the damage from hurricanes in dollars doubles every 15 years. Reason: more and more expensive buildings on the coast.

Oh, and the Natl Hurricane Center also noted that there is no statistical evidence that either the global climate change claim or the man made global warming claim has exacerbated hurricanes in numbers or force. Gee. There goes that theory that global warming has made for more hurricanes, and bigger, stronger storms. That has to be a wet blanket story for the GW bandwagon.

Bearbait, Dr. William Briggs points out an interesting non sequitor in the consensus bandwagon: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/20/an-excuse-i-hadnt-thought-of/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...Beck’s retort is

"There is indeed a lot of uncertainty in what the future will be, but this is not all because of an imperfect understanding of how the climate works. A large part of it is simply not knowing how the human race will react to this danger and/or how the world economy will develope. Since these factors control what emissions of CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere, which in turn influences the temperature, there is really no way for a climate model to predict what the future will be."

This is as lovely a non sequitur as you’re ever likely to find. I can’t help but wonder if he blushed when he wrote it; I know I did when I read it. This excuse is absolutely bullet proof. I am in awe of it. There is no possible observation that can negate it. Whatever happens is a win for its believer. If the temperature goes up, the believer can say, “Our theories predicted this.” If the temperature goes down, the believer can say, “There was no way to know the future.”

What the believer in this statement is asking us to do, if it is not already apparent, is this: he wants you to believe that his prognostications are true because AGW is true, but he also wants you to believe that he should not be held accountable for his predictions should they fail because AGW is true. Thus, AGW is just true.

Beck knows he is on thin ice, because he quickly tries to get his readers to forget about climate forecasts and focus on “climate sensitivity”, which is some measure showing how the atmosphere reacts to CO2. Of course, whatever this number is estimated to be means absolutely nothing about, has no bearing on, is meaningless to, is completely different than, is irrelevant to the context of, the performance of actual forecasts.

It is also absurd to claim that we cannot know “how the human race will react” to climate change while (tacitly or openly) simultaneously calling for legislation whose purpose is to knowingly direct human reactions.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Before giving up our sovereignty to the UN and investing something like 10-20 trillion dollars in fixes, shouldn't we have just a tad bit better grip on the issue? By the way, it looks like Mukluk Land is frozen solid. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg

What pathetic pap.