Redstate

when I was young I worked on a ranch in Texas, I can't imagine doing that kind of work in the bitter cold. Heck, I couldn't do ranch work now, too old and stiff.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Brought to you courtesy of the Ethanol program.

That at some point prior to our use of fossil fuels there was a perfect temperature ?

Spring hasn't sprung. That isn't a daily blip.

Just to bring the pertinent info to the forefront

"Temperatures in Boise during April averaged 4 degrees below normal, according to the National Weather Service."

That's the month of April. Not the 1st. Not the 30th. Not the 15th.

But lets just say you have a comparable warm month somewhere in the world this year (You don't because this year is already quite cool: Just an I told you so to our AGW cultists on the sit). But lets say you did would the economic impact from warmer weather be positive or negative ? Well for the people in Idaho, Kansas and cattle country in general it certainly would have been positive. For anyone in the north parts of the country their fuel bills would have gone down. So what you get is economic benefit from warmth and economic pain from cold.

Now let me ask, "You obviously all the important information from the post and didn't even try to read it. Should your posting on this topic be taken seriously ? Especially when this constitutes a pattern for you ?"

to you. It seems to come naturally.

what the effects will be you are willing to force everyone to act.

P.S. Yes the cold year has nothing to do with global warming. The fact the world hasn't warmed for the past ten years has nothing to do with global warming and the fact that it currently isn't predicted to warm for the next 20 years has nothing to do with global warming.

Well except for the fact it has moved the goal posts so far away nobody making the predictions will ever have to deal with their being wrong.

Show me one post where I suggested any actions for GW.

I don't recall suggesting any actions than to keeping an open mind about a potential problem that could negatively effect our way of life.

I don't share your certainty that man is incapable of destroying our garden of eden.

I don't buy the idea that massive pollution into the skies have no possible long term impact.

"I don't share your certainty that man is incapable of destroying our garden of eden."

You need to show me where I have said that. Just a hint I have said the exact opposite on specific issues, AGW just isn't one of them.

"I don't buy the idea that massive pollution into the skies have no possible long term impact"

You define a few parts per million of CO2 an inert gas vital to life as massive pollution ?

Hmmmm indeed.

Carbon dioxide is as critical as Oxygen for life on this planet.

Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are the three most important elements in organic chemistry. All sorts of products are sold with the "organic" label while Carbon is now somehow some kind of toxin.

Mercury is a toxic substance, and in 2012, our homes will be filled with the stuff.

Liberalism . . . is just doesn't make sense.

It's the amount of CO2 that's the problem. Not only does it help the atmosphere retain heat and the lower the ph levels of the oceans, but as the amount of CO2 increases, O2 (oxygen) decreases. Having said that, Carbon Caps and CFL bulbs are dumb ideas.

Unexpected Growth In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Science Daily, October 23, 2007

The research by the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) shows that improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled since 2000 after improving for 30 years, leading to the unexpected growth of atmospheric CO2.

Dr Pep Canadell, said “Fifty years ago, for every tonne of CO2 emitted, 600kg were removed by land and ocean sinks. However, in 2006, only 550kg were removed per tonne and that amount is falling.” The study found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17%, while the other 18% came from the decline in the efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks which soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. The study also states that global CO2 emissions were up to 9.9 billion tons of carbon in 2006, 35% above emissions in 1990 (used as a reference year in the Kyoto Protocol).

---

Expanding oxygen-minimum zones in the tropical oceans
Science, May 2008

Oxygen-poor waters occupy large volumes of the intermediate-depth eastern tropical oceans. Oxygen-poor conditions have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems because important mobile macroorganisms avoid or cannot survive in hypoxic zones. Climate models predict declines in oceanic dissolved oxygen produced by global warming. We constructed 50-year time series of dissolved-oxygen concentration for select tropical oceanic regions by augmenting a historical database with recent measurements. These time series reveal vertical expansion of the intermediate-depth low-oxygen zones in the eastern tropical Atlantic and the equatorial Pacific during the past 50 years. The oxygen decrease in the 300- to 700-m layer is 0.09 to 0.34 micromoles per kilogram per year. Reduced oxygen levels may have dramatic consequences for ecosystems and coastal economies.

---

Oxygen as an indicator of Global Change
Australian National University, 2008

Over the last few decades very accurate measurements of the oxygen vs nitrogen concentration have been made. These ratios expressed as parts per million (per meg) have changed (relative to an air standard) and are indicative of seasonal and long term changes in the atmosphere. The experiment is possible based on the valid assumption that the N2 concentration is unchanged in the atmosphere. The strong diurnal cycle and a natural easonal cycle. However, there is a striking decrease in the O2/N2 gradient and this is due to fossil fuel burning. With ~21% O2 in the atmosphere there no concern that the oxygen will run out, however, CO2 levels have doubled and this leads to significant changes. This may not sound much but CO2 concentrations are higher today than they have been in the last 120,000 years.

(There has been) a 100 meg decrease in the O2 / N2 ratio over an approximate 7 year period - that translates into a 3 ppm decrease in the overall concentration of the oxygen in the atmosphere (0.0003%) - equivalent of 3 x 109 tons of O2 (9.4 x 1013 mols ) every year that are consumed due to consumption of fossil fuels.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

But it is just the start of a research topic.
Not a conclusion in itself. We have had higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we do now so on the face of it, it isn't an ocean killer.

What it actually will do is certainly worth knowing.

But it will be a disrupter. The real argument is what will be more expensive (for both the short and long term) - staying with, or getting off of, c02 producing fuels and their supporting technologies? A fair economic assessment can not be made by those who dismiss global warming.

Effects of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification on Living Marine Resources
Scott Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, May 10, 2007

Changes in total biological productivity are only part of the story, as most human fisheries exploit particular marine species, not overall productivity. The distributions and population sizes of individual species are more sensitive to warming and altered ocean circulation than total productivity. Temperature effects arise through altered organism physiology and ecological changes in food supplies and predators. Warming and shifts in seasonal temperature patterns will disrupt predator-prey interactions; this is especially important for survival of juvenile fish, which often hatch at a particular time of year and depend up on immediate, abundant source of prey. Temperature changes will also alter the spread of diseases and parasites in both natural ecosystems and marine aquaculture. Warming impacts will interact and perhaps exacerbate other problems including over-fishing and habitat destruction.

Food-web interactions are often complicated, and we should expect that some species will suffer under climate change while others will benefit. Broadly speaking though, warm-water species are expected to shift poleward, which already appears to be occurring in some fisheries (Brander, 2006). Biological transitions, however, may be abrupt rather than smooth. Large-scale regime shifts have been observed in response to past natural variability. Regime shifts involve wholesale reorganizations of biological food-webs and can have large consequences from plankton to fish, marine mammals and sea-birds. Thus, rather subtle climate changes or ocean acidification may have the potential to disrupt commercially important species for either fisheries or tourism. Decadal time-scale regime shifts have been documented in the North Pacific, and in the Southern Ocean observations show a large-scale replacement of krill, a food source for mammals and penguin, by gelatinous zooplankton called salps.

A number of other factors also need to be considered. Species that spend part of their life-cycle in coastal waters will be impacted by degradation of near-shore nursery environments, such as mangrove forests, marshes and estuaries, because of sea-level rise, pollution and habitat destruction. Rainfall and river flow perturbations will alter coastal freshwater currents, affecting the transport of eggs and larvae. Some of the largest fisheries around the world, for example off Peru and west coast of Africa, occur because of wind-driven coastal upwelling, which may be sensitive to climate change. Warming will reduce gas solubility and thus increases the likelihood of low oxygen or anoxia events already seen in some estuaries and coastal regions, such as off the Mississippi river in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Knowing that their hard work will never be read again.
And not really caring as long as it can get approved by their thesis committees.

I will once again point out a reading comprehension issue. The piece you quote at such great length has no actual conclusions just qualified possibilities.

May

Increases the Likelihood.

These are weasel words. Their presence means the author doesn't want to make a statement because he will be crucified for it. I know this for a fact because I have been the author of enough reports where I have done exactly the same thing.

And finally CO2 in the atmosphere has much less affect on oxygen content of the waters in the gulf than does runoff from midwestern farms carrying fertilizer.

Wasn't biofuel/corn ethanol supposed to fix this problem ?

And so we track year over year changes to see where things are headed - like the increase of lower-oxygenated ocean waters

Jumbo Squid Following Low-Oxygen Zone
Christina S. Johnson, California Sea Grant (NOAA), January 28, 2008

“The low-oxygen domain has grown a lot in the Gulf of California over the last 50 years,” said Stanford biologist William Gilly, citing one piece of evidence for the theory. More significantly, there is evidence that the oxygen-minimum layer is shoaling, becoming shallower, in the California Current, said NOAA oceanographer Steven Bograd, who has analyzed changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations in CalCOFI data.

“There has definitely been a pretty significant decline in dissolved oxygen content from 1984 to 2006,” Bograd said. “We see it pretty much at all depths.” Off Monterey, the oxygen-minimum zone begins at about 500 meters depth and extends to about 1,000 meters. Bograd estimates that oxygen levels at 500 meters, the deepest the CalCOFI data goes, have dropped about 10% – 20% since 1984...

Some global warming scenarios predict a revved up microbial loop in the eastern Pacific Ocean, in which upwelling occurs in short 1–2 day bursts, said Stanford postdoctoral researcher Lou Zeidberg, explaining the link between climate and the squid. Under these conditions, surface algae tend to become food for microbes at depth. Less algae is consumed by zooplankton and small baitfish, which is why global warming could lead to lower fish production off California. Because bacteria’s metabolic processes require oxygen, enhanced bacterial activity further reduces the oxygen content of water beneath the photic zone, where algae grow. In other words, the oxygen-minimum layer shoals, exactly what has been observed in CalCOFI data of the California Current...

We have no direct evidence the squid is impacting fisheries,” Field said. But, it is reasonable to assume they could – or are. Adult jumbo squid off California can weigh 30 kilos. The animals reach this super-size in about a year. “You have a new predator on the block that is pretty awesome,” Gilly said. “They have huge energy requirements and they are starting to eat things that people care about.”

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I ask because I want to know if I am arguing with someone who's only ability is to use google or if there is a reasoning person at the other end of your screen name.

So far you have completely failed to pass the Turing Test.

I addressed your concern about "possibilities" and "maybes" with one concrete example of a change in giant squid range that supports the research. I'm not claiming that it is conclusive proof, but it's not the kind of pie-in-the-sky conjecture you seem to think it is. Furthermore, the shoaling of low-oxygen ocean waters off the california coast can not be explained by fertilizers (see below). Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

Pacific Northwest hypoxic events unprecedented
Oregon State University, February 14, 2008

The rapid and disturbing shift of ocean conditions in what has traditionally been one of the world’s more productive marine areas – what’s called the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem - has garnered much attention in recent years, also raising questions about whether it has happened before, and what is causing it.

“People keep asking us, ‘Is this situation really all that different or not"’” Lubchenco said. “Now we have the answer to that question, and it’s an unequivocal ‘yes.’ The low oxygen levels we’ve measured in the last six years are abnormally low for our system. We haven’t seen conditions like this in many, many decades, and now with varying intensity we’ve seen them in each of the last six summers.”

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I am not going to go further afield especially since this is becoming a discourse on critical thinking.

From your link.

It’s less certain why this is happening, but the events are completely consistent with global climate change, the OSU researchers say.

and five paragraphs down

Hypoxic conditions in ocean waters – often popularly called “dead zones” – are usually associated with serious nitrate loads or other nutrient pollution, such as in the Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay. Pollution-caused hypoxic zones are found with much less frequency in regions where significant upwelling occurs – a process that is usually beneficial to productive marine food webs.

“Coastal upwelling ecosystems occupy only about 1 percent of the ocean surface area, but they produce about 20 percent of global fishery production,” Lubchenco said. “These areas have historically been highly productive. The appearance or increase in severity of hypoxia in these ecosystems would be cause for concern.”

And a little further down

“The Namibian system in the past decade seems to be seeing lower oxygen levels and more frequent hypoxic events than it had previously,” Barth said. “Historically it has even more extreme upwelling than we have in the Pacific Northwest, and more frequent marine life die-offs.”

Francis Chan, a marine ecologist with OSU and PISCO, conducted a survey of all known records of oxygen levels on the Oregon continental shelf over the last 60 years, with measurements taken by research cruises and ocean-going vessels from more than 3,000 stations.

“The data make it pretty clear that the recent conditions are unprecedented during any period that has been measured,” Chan said. “We’re now seeing very low-oxygen water, lasting for long periods, and closer to shore than at any time in more than 50 years.”

So what do we have here ?
1. An event the researchers first state they have NO IDEA WHY ITS HAPPENING but is consistent with climate change. Well and good it is also completely irrelevant. My flushing the toilet is completely consistent with climate change, our having this discussion is completely consistent with climate change.

2. Our unprecedented observation is from the last 50 years with only 60 years of data. If this happens every 70 years or somewhat longer we would never know now would we ?

3. No link or me causal chain is presented to how global warming would be causing this.

So what you have presented is noise. Garbage. Some researcher wanted to get more citations for his work so he tossed in the hot topic. Maybe he is trying to tap into the current fad for catastrophe I don't know. What I do know is this does not make any kind of point related to the topic.

Change happens, the world is always changing in many ways. You can't stop the way to deal with it is to make it work for you.

And No, you have not presented a concrete anything or addressed possibilities or maybes.

---

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I am not going to go further afield especially since this is becoming a discourse on critical thinking.

From your link.

It’s less certain why this is happening, but the events are completely consistent with global climate change, the OSU researchers say.

And five paragraphs down

Hypoxic conditions in ocean waters – often popularly called “dead zones” – are usually associated with serious nitrate loads or other nutrient pollution, such as in the Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay. Pollution-caused hypoxic zones are found with much less frequency in regions where significant upwelling occurs – a process that is usually beneficial to productive marine food webs.

“Coastal upwelling ecosystems occupy only about 1 percent of the ocean surface area, but they produce about 20 percent of global fishery production,” Lubchenco said. “These areas have historically been highly productive. The appearance or increase in severity of hypoxia in these ecosystems would be cause for concern.”

And a little further down

“The Namibian system in the past decade seems to be seeing lower oxygen levels and more frequent hypoxic events than it had previously,” Barth said. “Historically it has even more extreme upwelling than we have in the Pacific Northwest, and more frequent marine life die-offs.”

Francis Chan, a marine ecologist with OSU and PISCO, conducted a survey of all known records of oxygen levels on the Oregon continental shelf over the last 60 years, with measurements taken by research cruises and ocean-going vessels from more than 3,000 stations.

“The data make it pretty clear that the recent conditions are unprecedented during any period that has been measured,” Chan said. “We’re now seeing very low-oxygen water, lasting for long periods, and closer to shore than at any time in more than 50 years.”

So what do we have here ?
1. An event the researchers first state they have NO IDEA WHY ITS HAPPENING but is consistent with climate change. Well and good it is also completely irrelevant. My flushing the toilet is completely consistent with climate change, our having this discussion is completely consistent with climate change.

2. Our unprecedented observation is from the last 50 years with only 60 years of data. If this happens every 70 years or somewhat longer we would never know now would we ?

3. No link or me causal chain is presented to how global warming would be causing this.

So what you have presented is noise. Garbage. Some researcher wanted to get more citations for his work so he tossed in the hot topic. Maybe he is trying to tap into the current fad for catastrophe I don't know. What I do know is this does not make any kind of point related to the topic.

Change happens, the world is always changing in many ways. You can't stop the way to deal with it is to make it work for you.

And No, you have not presented a concrete anything or addressed possibilities or maybes.

You must have skipped over this part from my previous post:

"Some global warming scenarios predict a revved up microbial loop in the eastern Pacific Ocean, in which upwelling occurs in short 1–2 day bursts, said Stanford postdoctoral researcher Lou Zeidberg, explaining the link between climate and the squid. Under these conditions, surface algae tend to become food for microbes at depth. Less algae is consumed by zooplankton and small baitfish, which is why global warming could lead to lower fish production off California. Because bacteria’s metabolic processes require oxygen, enhanced bacterial activity further reduces the oxygen content of water beneath the photic zone, where algae grow."

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Is that a prediction that isn't observed isn't validated.

"Some global warming scenarios predict a revved up microbial loop in the eastern Pacific Ocean"

Vs

We have no idea why the dead zones are occurring.

But nice chain of rationalization. Note: Rationalization not reasoning.

So what you have presented is noise. Garbage. Some researcher wanted to get more citations for his work so he tossed in the hot topic.

Yeah, not real data - like how cold it was in Boise.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

No that would be like the cold damaging the crops

You see cold weather causes crop damage.
Cold weather forces ranchers to feed their livestock rather than letting it graze.
Cold weather raises food prices.
Cold weather kills people.

Noise is something like this

I saw a flock of birds drop from the sky, that is not inconsistent with global warming.

Do you see the difference ?

Yes

No

In your case probably no.

You make a post every week pulling out some random "noise" and using it to ridicule the idea that we can impact our climate. Then a bunch of people take your random fact and use it as proof GW doesn't exist.

Of course, you NEVER logically slap any of them. So if you use faulty logic and agree, it's fine. If you use faulty logic and don't agree, well, the person is dumb.

It's comical.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I have seen your posts for the past month. They have been consistent in their lack of facts and their reliance on emotional appeal. I have as yet to see you respond to the topic at hand or make an actual case for your position.

Down below you ask, Don't you think we can fill the skies with pollution. You might as well ask can we fill the air with methane by farting ?

You take an emotional Image and then expect people to fall down sobbing, "We can't let it happen", "HERE TAKE EVERYTHING JUST SAVE US"

SORRY I AND MOST CONSERVATIVES ARE JUST NOT THAT STUPID.

My own opinion is that global warming is still up in the air, but everytime I see tactics your side uses, its one more black stone in your bag.

"My own opinion is that global warming is still up in the air, but everytime I see tactics your side uses, its one more black stone in your bag."

I agree with you. I'm up in the air on GW. I think it's a potential threat to our way of life and deserves careful study.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

You may yet be an exemplar for another.

1. This blog entry had nothing to with weather or not AGW exists or doesn't.

The Results of Global Cooling for those that can't remember

Just in case you missed the title

Or the summary

Just a reminder for all the people out there who worry about the strange and bizarre ways global warming may hurt us. Cold temperatures really really hurt. They screw up food production. They freeze the poor to death. In the worst cases they can render areas unlivable.

Greenland was once green and fertile now its not. That isn't global warming at work. That is global cooling from a time when the land was more hospitable.

So this is about proving AGW doesn't exist or about questioning the consequences of stopping it ??

Reading is fundamental.

2. Every week I pull a random fact to disprove AGW ? Well no I don't. But don't let anything like checking the facts bother you.

So you don't read and you aren't concerned with facts. Very good you are a liberal.

the water hazard of acidic oceans. Try to kick that ball now, Charlie Brown:D

1) Obviously, a short-term weather pattern says little about a multi-decadal climate trend. However, when we constantly read in the popular press (allegedly quoting "scientific experts") how every weather event is evidence of Global Warming (now being called Global Climate Change), many of the posters here like to poke fun by employing the same logic in reverse.

2) First problem comes with definition: how do you define climate warming, since temperature patterns vary over all the earth. And just like water flowing down a stream, you're going to have eddies and upriver flows at certain locations (not to mention turbulent regimes where it is exponentially more difficult (requiring much longer measurement periods) to measure flow. Thus, to define a single global temperature average over the earth's surface over a specified time period (ex, Jan-Dec) requires major assumptions and simplifications regarding temperature collection and weighting of measurements.

3) Given the sausage-making process involved in creating a worldwide temperature, you find yourself with a rather large uncertainty value associated with this temperature. To reduce this uncertainty required multiple measurements i.e. over many years, say at least 50-100 years before one could hope to begin to elicit even the glimmer of a trend from the uncertainties in the values.

4) The problem, of course, is that we don't have close to 50-100 years of temperature measurements with a precision that matches today's precision, not to mention that our data set today far execeeds in density the data set before satellites, etc. Thus, past temperature data requires a lot of interpolation and even higher uncertainties. And don't even get me started on proxy data, tree-rings, etc.

5) Next you've got to filter out known oscillations in the data set that have nothing to do with human activity. Since things like El Nino vary greatly from cycle to cycle, you have to do a lot more hand-waving to determine just how much of a correction factor to introduce.

6) Then, as other have repeatedly pointed out, in addition to the malleability of a "global temperature" the goal posts keep moving when the hindcasts are applied to current data, and predictions don't pan out, requiring constant reworking of the model and new predictions. It starts to sound like the efforts of various cults to revise their predictions regarding the Second Coming when He didn't...including claims of invisible Comings that only believers can understand.

7) This leads to fitting the data to the theory rather than the reverse, which is where the prostitution starts to come in.

8) The consequence is that we have alarmist narratives garbed in the robes of science about an impending disaster who's date keeps getting extended further into the future. Prevention will cost huge sums, but there's no way to know how much impact your efforts may have changing climate since we can't accurately quantitate climate change now. On the other hand, there will be economic costs right now as business and individuals are taxed (directly or indirectly) and money expended on "mitigation" projects of uncertain utility. Meanwhile, resources are being diverted from solving other human problems such as starvation, poverty from lack of capital investment, epdiemics and disease and health care, etc. These are very real areas of need that will have to be ignored to spend money on CO2 reduction, etc.

9) While it is true that vested interests have attempted to come up with economic analyses of the impact of "green" efforts, these analyses to date have been shallow and driven by the need to justify a program rather than to dispassionate analyze. For instance, the ethanol debacle was eminently predictable by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of basic economic theory, yet this was completely overriden by the prostituted-science evoked "crisis" that gave cover to politically-favored leeches sucking more from the U.S. citizenry, overriding reason in the process.

And Rightly So!

I think that sums it up very nicely.

I agree with every point you make.

But I have one small quibble. Even 50-100 years of data is simply too small of a sample to mean anything. A partial blink of the eye for even the time the Earth has been habitable by big mammals. To say nothing about the entire period of time since the Earth's atmosphere became fatally polluted with oxygen.

And the fact remains, that cooling is far more dangerous for far more people than even a few degrees warmer.

What I was trying to say was that if you want to try to tease out a 10-year trend, you'd need at least 50-100 years of data to damp out enough noise that you might start to discern a genuine signal.

However, in talking about AGW (or is it now AGCC?), the proponents are arguing for a much longer progressive rise in global temperature, trying to say that their 100+ years graphs represent a meaningful signal - and to do that, they would need at least 500-1000 years of comparative data, which as I noted they can't come close to compiling without introducing various historical temperature proxies, which exposes a whole new analytical minefield and new uncertainties.

As others have pointed out in previous posts, I really question the ability of the AGW proponents to tease out a statistically significant rise in "global temp" of a fraction of a degree per decade, given the comparatively enormous measurement uncertainties of the huge amount of data that forms the basis of their models.

And Rightly So!

ScienceDaily (Apr. 19, 2008) — The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

This March wasn't even the second warmest March in the last 10 years. See real data here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g3.htm

I think its important to know that many of the scientists who came up with this data went to Ivy League and other universities - which means they have been indoctrinated to push a leftist agenda. This data is obviously garbage and Joliphants stuff about Boise take precedent.

Just doing the heavy lifting for you guys - save you a post - kidding :)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/mar08.html

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hadcrut_mar08.png

You chose the data set that consistently reports the largest positive anomalys.

And your original post is about the temp in Boise for the past couples of months.

Funny guy.

Pot meet Kettle.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

That isn't what the original post was about.

It wasn't even about Boise per se. It was about the desirability of warmer temperatures vs cooler temperatures.

But hey eat some sushi it may help.

Is nature designed for all the cars on the road? All the power plants? All the coal plants in China?

Is it possible to man to pollute the skies?

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

At about 400 Parts per Million ?

That is what we are talking about here the current concentration of CO2 is less than 400 parts per million.

Just what is it you define as polluting the skies.