Posts Made By: Dave Snope

Couple of interesting points on the TLS plots:

About those two warm spikes: Satellite measurements of the lower stratosphere (TLS) reveal two marked warm periods (as much as 1.5oC warmer), caused by sulfuric acid aerosols deposited in this layer by the eruptions of El Chichón in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991.

On the negative trend: These two warm periods are concurrent with a strong cooling trend over the 19-year period that has been attributed to ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere... The TLS channel shows a negative trend, and along with the ozone depletion factor, indicates that we aren’t getting much heat transport from the troposphere into the stratosphere.

The trend looks flat for the last 15 years. Is that from ozone control, solar activity, no greenhouse change, or is it just too short a period to draw any conclusions from?

Couldn't you make a taxonomy with categories on positive behaviors? This one is just cold and nasty and could give a person some wrong ideas about Pasken if they don't know what a warm fellow he really is.

Would love to see your definition of "anti-science". That's a charged phrase.

That's an awesome photo! Great job.

A key takeaway being that the EPA knows how to regulate behavior and get funding, not how to understand science. Reminds me of when I was studying Superfund sites in college, and later when I lived near one, an early lesson was that the EPA was a political org focused on sustaining itself and growing it's power, rarely taking the path that was scientifically and economically sound.

Our source notes that the EPA may not have the expertise to evaluate many of the comments, as they are more charged with dealing with the effects of global warming through regulation rather than determining the true nature of the cause. Our source says members of the workgroup complained to other EPA staff that they don't understand these issues, much less how to relate the scientific studies identified in Carlin's report to the IPCC report.

Then of course you have to bury all of the modern data so the cap and tax bill can get passed before the truth comes out. As Lord Monckton said about climate change, "The truth will eventually prevail". But when, and will it prevail in time before the economy are wrecked further?

References for statements:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/kerry_panel_loo.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/surge-in-global-temperatures-since-1977-can-be-attributed-to-a-1976-climate-shift-in-the-pacific-ocean/

Wow, that's huge news for the people of this planet because all the dire predictions of famine, drought, pandemics, and natural disasters are wrong. A billion people will not be displaced! It's the story of the century.

So we'll see this on the front page of the NT Times today, right? Brian Wilson will lead with this on the nightly news tonight, right?

I thought the story was about to finish with "Oh, and you should have seen the donut rack on his girlfriend. Just how many donuts does one guy need?"

Must be Friday.

Another one, over water this time


http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/image/115805186

If that poor creature needs help, the best thing we can do is be scientifically objective about the issues surrounding it. NPR seems utterly incapable of that. It's all about greenhouse gases. No mention of ENSO cycles affect on western mountain precipitation cycles, no mention of habitat change, no mention of cattle grazing's deleterious effect on exposed pika populations, no mention of more roads and more road kills and in general more human ingress into it's habitat. No mention that the protection and/or population growth of eagles, hawks, weasels and martens are affecting pika populations. A look at all of the factors could lead to intelligent and immediate actions to protect the animals. It's been done successfully with many other species. Fortunately there are wildlife scientists who understand the issues, but NPR does the nation and the pika a disservice by focusing entirely on greenhouse gases.

And the notion that natural gas extraction near the Rockies could be hugely affected because they are close to the pika habitat, vs. the far away polar bear habitat ... priceless.