The Facts Are In... The Models Were Wrong

Yeah.

I just wanted to put it up, because models are predictions, policy has been set based on those predictions, and the fact that the predictions were wrong, is, well, a fact.

Facts are good....even if they arrive late.

You would get a lot more accomplished if it would be looked at controlling polution, plus if the "GW, flag waving fanatics leading the Climate change parade", would get on board, they accomplish much more for their Climate Change cause with only a fraction of effort.

Of course, some wouldn't be happy because it will effect their bottom line ^{(Politically and $$$$$$ but mostly $$$$$$$$$)} base on creating Climate Change Fears. But I can live with that.

Well, it's a shame to see all of this effort put into relatively harmless CO2, while we simultaneously receive images of the Chinese choking on soot, and not able to breath in their cities.

...all of which comes full circle and floats back to the US west coast.

I suggest you don't use the word harmless for CO2 ............ The flag waving tromboners leading the GW Parade will jump all over that.......

I suggest consider using the term for CO2 as being a Greener and more environmental friendlier gas as opposed to Methane. they tend to fall and swallow for that hope and change bs, ahhh..... stuff

Rereading your post tells me that maybe you are considering temperature data (either surface or air or something) and the use of fossil fuels to be a "model".

I was not thinking of it in that way because I was expecting a "computer" model, simulation, or mathematical expression.

I would say that the two data sets you are citing represent a correlation and a very loose one at that, not even a remotely complete mathematical model of the system.

That is just it,

a "computer" model or simulation, is only as good as the program that was written to generate it..

You can make the simulation or computer model to match any projection no matter what historic data that's used.

I myself, look at trends and stop there. (ever though some computer models use it. I think the end result is still a projection based on the program, get sticky and possible bias)

"In layman's terms it means we do not yet understand what is going on and why."

I think the scientists have a very good understanding of the effects of Atmospheric Composition and Planetary Albedo on the average temperature of the biosphere.

There are lots of intelligent folks that base epochal events on a decade or so of data to support their agenda. This really isn't a scientific debate - its a political one, which means its a business deal.

Perhaps the real agenda is how to make some money off the deal without having a negative impact on other revenue streams.

"The facts are in ---------" you betcha.

How twisted and wrong headed has statistical collection become? There are companies that filter statistics to support what ever agenda has a check book.

I had a conversation with a farming couple a few years back dealing with the art of framing persons or things in any desired light. I was told - "The truth doesn't matter; its what you can get people to believe that matters." I would say that could be considered a truism; and as such applicable to the political/business debate in which we are now engaged.

Yeah. To understand the nature of the global warming debate, it's important to consider the cure(s) that's being offered.

Global cap and trade, along with carbon exchanges that would be run by Goldman Sachs, and a couple of other mega banks.

On the newly set up CO2 market, trillions of dollars would begin trading hands, with the people at the helm, skimming off billions for facilitating the trades.

The CO2 limits, along with enforcement, would be overseen by a small cabal of UN connected people, and once implemented, would give them control over all global manufacturing and energy production.

By varying CO2 limits, it would enable them to redistribute vast amounts of money from richer nations to poorer nations, or anywhere they wanted.

There's one minor problem......

None of this will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...only who will be allowed to create it, and how much.

I don't see how we can ever get the models right.

The ice core data show that, even without human influence, the earth goes through massive and drastic climactic changes, including temperature and CO2 levels. Historically, warm places get cold, dry places get wet, and vice versa; glaciers form, melt and reform...

It's always gonna suck to live in some places, but nice to live in others; it's just that those places don't remain static, and never will, which most likely explains the migratory nature of humans, as well as other species. The choice will always be, to adapt or relocate.

If the earth follows the same repeating trajectory that the ice core data show, it is about to enter a cold snap that will last for thousands of years. To me, that sounds really uncomfortable.

There are two hurdles to doing this.

1. Identifying all the significant factors that are responsible for controlling the climate.

2. Having the computing power to perform the calculations.

The second one is the easy one. If we don't have it now, we will very soon. Moore's Law, if it continues to hold, predicts we will attain the combined computing power of every human being's brain that has ever lived by 2050 to 2060. That's going to be overkill for the job at hand, but will change us in unimaginable ways (that's another topic altogether). A no-brainer if I may use a pun.

The hard part is determining all the relative factors that control climate. However, that will only get better with time. How much time I do not know, but there will always be people that don't like the answers.

However, I feel the whole thing is kind of mute as we are already moving from a Type 0 society to a Type I society on the Kardashev scale. That will take care of the problem as we transition from our current inefficient energy source profile to better, larger, and more sustainable energy sources. Necessity is the mother of invention.

mute moot.

Absolutely, but regardless of how powerful our computers, they will always be limited by the data that's put in; and there are things, (that I think), will never be able to be accurately predicted...such as future sunspot activity, which affects our climate, but is tough to nail down.

And you're right, we will constantly be getting better at energy production and storage, but we don't know how much better, therefore, we won't have that data to feed into the models.

In an effort to prove AGW, all current models assume that we will continue burning fossil fuels at an accelerating rate, and they are still wrong.

You guys are missing the point, and attacking the messenger.

Sorry for the caps, but here's the message, and the message is a fact:

THE CLIMATE MODELS WERE WRONG

If you want to start a hate thread on Spencer, do it in the OT section.

Climate trends are not established in decades!!!!

a Few years ago when it was called GW, and the data was set forth from that we are getting warmer, and they show a 100 year trend as proof, The skepitical or I should say people with more common sense indicated you can't use a 100 year trends, and that data from longer terms does not indicate GW.

Well, now it's appeared that the short term trends it does indicate so, and is a reversal that long term trends are required.

I have got into debates, mostly with the extreme fanatical GW groups, because they love to force their ideas down your throat, not because it was true or not, I myself believe climate was getting warming, but I played the devils advocate just on the basis I just don't tolerate being a liberal force fed minion.

Although I think this subject is completely out of place here, it is certainly sorting out some things about people who post here. The cognitive dissociation is incredible.

Why is it, that now that we know that warming has stalled, and we know that the computer models were wrong, that the people that told us all we were going to die, are angry?

Shouldn't this be good news?

I don't get it. We've come to find out that global warming is nowhere near the predictions, (good news), and some of you guys are so mad you can't see straight.

"Global warming has stalled" because Atlanta had two ice storms in one year?

Even you have admitted that global warming/cooling is not subject to the whims of man or nature, and now you are telling us that it is flipping? Really?

Don't make me feel like I'm hitting myself in the head with a hammer.

It's now GW, or now CC, the weather are going to be extremes, cold, heat, heavy rains, lack of rain ( drought), hurricanes, etc,.......

That's not what we were told, when we were told that human generated CO2 was destroying the planet.

It doesn't matter...the computer models were wrong. We have to undo everything that was based on them...or at least a lot of it.

This is the same answer to post #10. There's nothing to flog or argue about.

The computer models were wrong. It's a cold fact. There's no fight.

Your responses are based in emotion, and as Mr Spock would say, illogical.

Climate change or not, the human race may not part of the post climate change debate when its all said on done (i.e. extinction) ........ and I'm alright with that.

Now controlling polluting the environment, that I care about. That is a discussion I'm sure can be more reasonable discussed.

Here's a well done paper by a long-time researcher into atmospheric science. I can't link the paper directly since it's a .pdf, but if you follow the link below you can find the paper I'm mentioning, indicated below the link. It's about 1/3rd of the way down the list of publications.

Dr. Gray discusses the 'warming of the oceans' that has become the latest excuse for the lack of surface temperatures climbing as predicted over the past 15 years. He points out that the warming they are talking about is not due to AGW, but rather it's part of the natural climate oscillation that has been known for decades.

Dr. Gray has shown that the actual warming ought to be around 0.3 C, not 3.0 C, and he explains the flaw in climate models.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications.html

Gray, W. M., 2012: The physical flaws of the global warming theory and deep ocean circulation changes as the primary climate driver. 7nd Annual Heartland Conference on Climate Change.

There's lies, damn lies, statistics and propaganda.

We're on another flogging exercise here, and I'm not wasting time looking for rebuttals.

well, did Dr. Gray have

• any past taxes due?
• Was arrested?
• had a Scandal affair?
• Believes in the devil?
• Took a ride to Jupiter on an alien craft?
• lit a doobie but never inhaled?
• played with matches as a child?
• .....?

If you don't know any of this Stay tuned, we'll soon find out,....... and more.

I think you're focusing too much on whether these theories are correct or not and not on the implications of burning fossil fuels for energy....Burning anything is pretty much destruction of resources, inefficient, wasteful, polluting, and eventually ends in crisis as finite resources begin to run out and demand outgrows supply......Most of us here have lived with the volatility of the energy markets over the years....a gas or oil shortage is as crippling as any natural disaster....Electric propulsion is the way of the future, and clean, safe, complete life-cycle, nuclear power, is the most reliable option....With hardened nuclear facilities of advanced design we can stabilize the energy markets for the first time, ever.....

Not at all.

I'd love to see fossil fuels go away forever. We should never stop working toward that goal...using methods of science, not politics and coercion.

"I'd really like to know what the drivers were, before humans were involved."

That should be obvious to you.

Surely you weren't taken in by all those lies, were you?

Nope. I can't figure it out.

I can understand the warming trends, and I'd assume that it relates to our position relative to the sun. But I have no idea what would cause CO2 to spike, directly after a cold period.

I would think that the warming would bring about more plant life, and CO2 would drop, not increase.

Care to clue me in?

I think it has more to do with changes in the core than we may think. I've not studied it in detail and have neither the time nor energy to.

It sounds like a worthwhile avenue of study.

The main field of Earth's magnetic field is generated by flows of liquid iron in the outer core. Earth's magnetic field protects us from cosmic radiation particles. Therefore, understanding the processes in the outer core is important to understand the terrestrial shield.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145248.htm

I have to wonder if our position with respect to the sun affects geological activity within the mantle (gravity kneeding the mantle and increasing the activity) thereby increasing the production of volcanic activity which could change the CO2 levels quite abruptly, as could wildfires caused by drought conditions.

All of that CO2 came from somewhere.

....and then went away.

It's quite a mystery, considering the regularity of the ice core data.

the constant is the carbon.......

Carbon has multiple ways of being naturally sequestered. Carbonates in the ocean, and photosynthesis on land (and the ocean too). but those processes take a finite amount of time to ramp up and down. so there is hysteresis in the system.

Surely you weren't taken in by all those lies, were you?

I don't think he voted for him.... I think Kram votes conservative......

Perhaps those cycles were a result of variation in the rate of photosynthesis. Where there is a lag between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the resulting increase in the rate of photosynthesis. Imagine what a photosynthesis doubling rate of a century would do to atmospheric composition.

I am bewildered how smart people can believe the atmosphere is so large that human activity has little or no effect on composition. Even more so on how those same people fail to see the relationship between atmospheric composition, thermal conductivity, and opacity. Just how HUGE is it? So HUGE that just one significant volcanic event can have quite significant effects on global climate for some number of years.

I find it almost frustrating that the focus is always on emissions with little attention paid on the effect human activity has on albedo and rate of photosynthesis.

Even a small increase in global average temperature has a significant impact on water vapor volume; and as such a very significant impact on the thermal capacitance of our planet as reflected in the related phase energy.

It reminds me of our historic blunders regarding the "inexhaustible" supply of virgin timber and ocean fish stocks.

The Anthropocene is here; the evidence is everywhere. It began in earnest with the Columbian Exchange and accelerated during the Industrial Revolution. The evidence of peer reviewed research to support this reality is overwhelming.

The planet may survive, but humanity may not be a part of it, maybe that's what pisses some people off.

You haven't seen anything about CO2 output of a volcano because you will not look. The USGS provide a good start. If you prefer a simplified explanation from a college (South Dakota State University?) professor's web page you now have it.

Thanks for verifying my statement. This is what I wrote:

That's correct, but I haven't seen anything that points to the CO2 output of a volcano, disrupting long term planetary climate. It's always the particulates.

From your link:

The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect).

It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space.

"I'd really like to know what the drivers were, before humans were involved."

Interesting graph indeed. The divergence between the two variables, carbon dioxide and temperature, the last 1,000 years seems quite apparent. Perhaps the Anthropocene started well before the Columbian Exchange. I stand corrected.

There are certainly many variables that are much more constructive to consider than the myopic focus on man's contribution to atmospheric composition.

Perhaps asteroid impacts, the relationship of perihelion passage to tropical year, the thermodynamic and kinematic forcing within earths internal structure that might occur during geo-magnetic field reversal, possible correlation of volcanic activity to those induced changes to earths internal structure, and orbital perturbations derived from a bary-centric solar system are better related to your inquiry.

Intuitively, given a stable solar constant, the two most influential variables in defining the average temperature of the biosphere would be atmospheric composition and surface albedo; and I don't believe it is reasonable to assume human activity does not have significant impact on both.

"The facts are in --- " ; ya just gotta love it.

All of the ice core data show the same peaks and valleys, and regular, (large), swings in both temperature and CO2 levels.

You know what really sucks?

We are approaching the end of one of those drastic, (natural), increases, which started before we could possibly have had anything to do with it, and any data that exists that might explain it, has been lost in the fear mongering white noise of a political agenda.

Are there sources out there that remove humans from the equation, and focus exclusively on the rhythmic, natural cycle?

It's difficult to find anything that isn't politically motivated.

I found this link on the Carbon Dioxide / Oxygen cycle that focuses on natural forcing and dampening effects.

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

"The Climate Buffer

Because of the role of CO2 in climate, feedbacks in the carbon cycle act to maintain global temperatures within certain bounds so that the climate never gets too hot or too cold to support life on Earth. The process is a large-scale example of LeChatelier's Principle. This chemical principle states that if a reaction at equilibrium is perturbed by the addition or removal of a product or reactant, the reaction will adjust so as to attempt to bring that chemical species back to its original concentration. For example, as carbonic acid is removed from solution by weathering of rocks, the reaction will adjust by producing more carbonic acid. And since the dissolved CO2 is in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to replace that removed from solution by weathering.

some examples:

If CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere because of an increased rate of outgassing, global temperature will rise. Rising temperature and more dissolved CO2 will lead to increased weathering of crustal rocks as a result of faster reaction rates (temperature effect) and greater acidity. Enhanced weathering will use up the excess CO2 thereby cooling the climate.

If global temperature cools as a result of some astronomical forcing or tectonic/ocean circulation effect, the lower temperatures will result in lower rates of chemical weathering. Decreased weathering means less CO2 being drawn from the atmosphere by weathering reactions, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere to increase temperatures.

If more rocks become available for rapid weathering as a result of mountain uplift the enhanced weathering will draw down atmospheric CO2 and decrease global temperatures. But the decreased temperatures will slow reaction rates, thereby using less CO2, thus allowing temperatures to moderate. "

____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps another self regulating process may involve Equatorial and Polar thermal gradient, that in combination with Coriolis Force, drives both macro scale horizontal atmospheric convection and the oceanic conveyors?

Is it possible that as the equatorial / polar thermal gradient decreases the thermal transfer rate between the equatorial regions and polar regions slow; allowing the ice packs to rebuild and thus increasing planetary albedo?

____________________________________________________________________

Is it possible that the extreme events are not internally cyclic but a result of Asteroid Impact or Orbital Perturbation?

Thanks.

I thought I had read that the ice core samples indicate that the temperature increases came before the CO2 level increases.

At any rate, if I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like there's a good possibility, that, within the natural cycle, (which kind of resembles a pendulum), the earth itself may compensate for human contributions of CO2.

I suggest P Z Myers as an antidote to this crap.

Of course the models were wrong, except from the standpoint of luscious appearance.

This just in...

A new model is predicticting the demise of species, and forced migration that will come from future global warming.

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/node/013944/maps-show-expected-redistribution-global-species-due-climate-change

This came out 3 days ago, and it's exactly the type of nonsense that needs to stop, unless they are clearly presented as fictional scenarios...not solid science.

Politicians see these models, and see nothing but opportunity.

By the time this argument is settled, we'll all be dead anyway.

Our grandchildren will all be suffering from Acute COPD and the population of China will have been decimated by famine and air pollution.

That is, if Yellowstone doesn't erupt first and kill us all.

we all gotta die of something.

I prefer old age.....

Close.

Our grandchildren will reach puberty at the age of 8, they will all be obese and have type II diabetes and ADHD, they will all be scared to leave home, because of all the bullies and mean people....

...but they'll be warm.

Help, help the Great Lakes are freezing over. We must be heading for an ice age next month.

Settle down,..... How many times do we have to tell you that you can not predict after one years worth of data...... :P

Just came across this. Thought it might interest some here.

Stronger trade winds explain warming 'hiatus'

Nature Climate Change.

Wired?

Couldn't you find an article in Rolling Stone?

The second link is indeed, very interesting, and it reveals the glaring bias of climate scientists.

They start with science....

A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.

And finish up with complete, baseless speculation, in hopes that the models will be right again....someday.

This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

This just reeks of desperation.

AGW is real, and it's going to wipe out the planet, but the stupid wind ruined our models.

C'mon.

The first link is simply hack journalism. Why bother with the link?

The second is the nugget. Now, I wonder what has caused the trade winds to increase?

In reference to your second link. Who are these people?

Just to the right of the article on the warming hiatus, is this:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html

They have created more panic inducing models, which directly contradict the "Hiatus" study. Both published in Dec of 2013.

I think I found the connection. They site the work of none other than Michael Mann.

"Who are these people?"

So, I should review their CV and ask for references before I link to them?

The post seems to be having the desired effect. You're thinking, I think.

Gavilan is adding some good stuff.

Yeah. If you follow the bread crumbs, it leads back to the same people that were involved in climategate.

The article in the first link seems to present assumptions as facts. How do they know the trades winds will die down by 2030? How do they know the trade winds from hundreds of years ago? The 1940's? Yes...I can believe data exists from that time frame....and while they may have temperature data from a few hundred years ago (based on trees and such), do they have trade wind data from 1000 A.D.? 1200 A.D.?

It's just more of the same AGW propaganda they have been saying for the past 20 years...."Temperatures are going up because of humans, we have to go back to the stone age or we will all die...trust us....sure it's not happening now...but in 25 years it will....really this time we are correct".

And it also begs the question of the accuracy of those very old records too. And for that matter the accuracy of today's records as well. There have been hundreds of documented instances of the NWS monitoring stations sited near things like air conditioner condenser units and next to blacktop parking lots and all sorts of things that will cause the readings to vary greatly from the ambient. One, the one outside Professor Gray's lab in Colorado, is IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT! People who have gone to the NWS monitoring sites to look at how the stations are sited have invariably found something wrong with the siting of the station in almost every one they visit. When we are talking about trend slopes of a couple of degrees it really doesn't take much inaccuracy on either end of the timeline to throw the slope off badly. Mann's answer is to "massage" the numbers but the question then becomes, massage in what way? and how much? when you start massaging numbers, your data is no longer valid. FULL STOP. THERE is the problem.

Agreed.

The United States represents a few percent of total planetary surface area.

Since epochal trends can't be measured within the time frame of existing human science; does it matter where some dummy puts their thermometer(s)?

The only accurate measure would be reading the IR signature of the planetary disk, from space, for some number of decades or centuries, factor out the noise from volcanic activity, and apply Stefan - Boltzmann Law.

I ask the same questions over and over .

Does human activity effect atmospheric thermal capacitance, thermal conductivity, or opacity to IR?

Does human activity effect planetary albedo?

Does human activity effect photosynthesis rates?

A yes to any of those questions means we do have effect on the temperature of the biosphere.

Do you think the US is alone in it's inability to maintain accurate weather stations?

First off I confident that the USWS maintains very accurate records; but what difference does that make?

Does where the thermometers are located make a difference? Not if one is measuring over all global temperature trends. However, those who claim temps are increasing are using these temp sensors to make that claim. Why is that not valid? Because in some cases the sensors were initially installed in a clear unobstructed area....later that area developed and now the sensors are in parking lots and sitting adjacent to heat producing equipment (air conditioners, etc.).

Years ago I read literature on the requirements for taking such temperature measurements....they were very strict and made logical sense defining (if i recall correctly) things such as distance from heat sources, distance from shade sources, sensor calibration frequency, etc. What Rorschach was referring to were sensors in direct violation of the temperature gathering methodology making conclusions drawn from such data invalid.

Just threw it into the mix, to see the reaction.

No apologies for the source.

This thread and others like it astound me, some members seem to decide the unknowable truth or not of the AGW theory, solely on whether they love or hate the proponents or opponents of the theory (mostly based on who they hate). This is completely irrational, it removes the subject from the scientific area to the political.

I am a father and grandfather and, as such, I am concerned because our activities must have some effect on the normal temperature fluctuations, I just don't know how much.

I get "upset" when I see kramarat and his fellow travellers waffling on about the "model is wrong, we must throw it away", reminds me of the "Intelligent Design" people who claim that the theory of evolution is incomplete, therefor is wrong. Bull. The climate models are similar to our weather models. Weather forecasts used to be much less accurate than they are today; bigger, faster computers allow for more data points and more accuracy but they are still far from perfect, should we throw them away? No, of course not, we keep improving them.

Global warming is a catchall phrase covering the components of increased energy, we have had greater than usual storms in summer and in winter, and my dim memory of the black arts of thermodynamics says that that increased organization requires more energy. Again, as long as we use a scientific basis, we don't know if it is or if it isn't, as distinct from people who "know" based on what someone else says.

(This follows a timeout.)

Weather forecasts used to be much less accurate than they are today.

That's correct, but we don't pass draconian laws, based on erroneous weather forecasts, do we?

I think theories are just fine, and climate scientists should keep playing with their models.

But we know now that the models were wrong, therefore, we must NEVER present them as fact, and write laws around them.

It's fun to plug in different data sets, and see what the computers come up with...but that's where it has to end. We cannot use computer generated possibilities, (which we know are flawed), to set a global political agenda. It's a dangerous game that is controlled by a select few, and it must be stopped.

Not sure how the theory of evolution vs intelligent creation fits here, but both rely on a miracle. One just involves a random, one time miracle of chemistry and physics. Nobody knows how it occurred, and it can't be repeated.

You did present an interesting thought experiment though....

Just imagine if humans reacted to, wrote laws, etc., in response to every weather forecast. And each time, we were told that if we do as we're told, we can change the outcome.

People would go insane, and it would never work.

The key is, to convince us that if we follow the dictates of government, we will affect the disaster that will come after we are all dead and gone, stop AGW, and protect future generations. But nobody will be around to see if they were right.

The only guarantee we have, is that future generations will live under the thumb of government. It's not worth the risk.

I think it's more imortant to insure the freedom of future generations.

It wasn't anyone on CR4 that politicized it - that was done a long, long time ago by - politicians.

However, I get your point, but the "increased storms" theory as a single data point is no less irrational than the politics of love-hate you despise.

Good point.

I think we sometimes give ourselves way too much credit.

This most certainly wasn't the launching pad for the AGW agenda. Not even close.

I'm just glad that the models turned out to be wrong. That should be good news for everybody. Our demise will not be here as quickly as we were told, and maybe not at all...at least not from AGW.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on war and human aggression killing more people in the next 100 years, than CO2 or another degree of warmth.

Well, that was always a way to control over population. Nothing new.

Problem defined:

Obama: Figure out how to satisfy US water needs

"Even if the U.S. takes immediate action to curb pollution, the planet will keep getting warmer for a long time to come because of greenhouse gases that already have built up, he said."

There you have it. The planet will keep getting warmer. Let's throw more money at this.

Folks, I'm all for curbing pollution, but for health reasons, not to save the earth.

The earth has done fine without us for the 6,000 years it's been in existence. The earth will out live us all.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The 6,000 years part was just to see if you are paying attention.

Are those Earth years or galactic years?

California has already come up with a great way to reduce water usage...

They're putting a $60 billion high speed rail, directly throught the central valley, shutting down much of the most fertile growing region in the country.

Between that and the steady population decline, they should be okay.

Bill Nye the science guy is on Meet the Press this morning.

His message?

Without mentioning the fact that we are in a natural warming cycle, he says that Antarctic ice has shrunk since the introduction of the steam engine, therefore, man is causing global warming.

This is all in reference to the president's climate change initiative, which he will likely bypass congress on, and use executive orders to "get it done".

It's looking like it won't matter that the models were completely wrong; they simply won't be used in the furthering of the agenda.

Kudos to the members that said that the models don't matter. You were right.

Don't go too near the edge of our 6,000 year old earth, or you will fall off.

Do you actually DENY that the ice is melting?????

If I were you, I'd find a new place for my head, because all the sand will be wet before long and you will drown.

Forget the models, look out the window.

Do you deny that animals and plants are moving farther up mountainsides to survive the imaginary heat?

Political agendas aside things are warming up.

There is no imaginary heat. I've repeatedly posted the ice core data, that show beyond any doubt, that we are in a heating cycle.

Here's an interesting piece from Algore:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/books/review/the-sixth-extinction-by-elizabeth-kolbert.html?_r=0

It demonstrates perfectly, why we shouldn't turn to politicians to explain science to us. Climate change has made Algore rich beyond his wildest dreams.

I notice that he has a great concern for our food crops, and plant extinction, but fails to mention the fact that we are spraying the planet with millions of tons of Roundup.

I wonder if Monsanto is in his investment portfolio? Probably.