Brett, you shouldn't comment on a female's weight, even a female TS. Her name is Fay, not fat :)

Reply: Veets, it was a typo. You should know me better than that! Thanks for pointing it out though.

Here an article worth reading...
Global warming stopped in 1998
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

Anyone have a current lake level link of Okeechobee? This should top it off nicely I would think..

well done brett.you deserve a break,cheers

Yes, the planet has kept warming since 1998

http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

There was discussion in a recent series of posts about an experiment with two jars (one with liquid water and another with gaseous CO2). As an engineer who made an A in college thermodynamics, am I off-the-wall to suggest that the experiment should have been based on jar filled with:

- absolutely dry air with natural CO2 content of about 386 ppm (as a fraction, 0.000386)

and..

- air with about 70% relative humidity (about earth average) and no CO2.

The previously mentioned experiment makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Debate?

James Hansen and Al Gore don't do debates, but Gavin Schmidt does. See for example,
http://www.crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part1.html
(this is part one of a ten part video)
where Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, and Philip Stott debate Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville.

Traditional debate isn't very suited for scientific questions, and modern TV-style so-called debates are even less suited. Yet something on this order is needed. The IPCC is one-sided. Most websites are one-sided. See for example,
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
This would be a fine structure for a series of debates, but there is no counter-point here.

My proposal is that Brett takes one of these topics every Friday and we can debate it in this blog. It would be even better if only researchers could comment, but that isn't going to happen. Then the debate points could be summarized into a web page. It would be good if Wikipedia could do this, but it is controlled by the AGW mob.

Another set of debate topics is how the AGW mob discourages debate and censors the information flow.

Welcome back folks to the #1 show on the radio, its live with Josh, today we have a few guest and we'll have callers calling with some questions that boggle their mind, so sit back, relax and enjoy.

Josh: Would everyone please welcome to the show, Poem. So why do you think global warming exist?

Poem: Because it is getting warmer and t

Josh: Thanks for stopping by, watch that first step on the way out, lets get to the phones lines,

Caller: Uhhh...hello,ummm do you think if John McCain gets elected there will still be major hurricanes like there has with Bush?

Josh: All my gosh, major hurricanes have happened since the beginning of time, only recently have been named and only recently had as this many coastal targets to cause destruction too, so its an act of mother nature and nothing else, no one person or group of people can cause weather to happen, next...

Caller: You say your temps have been lower this year than in the past ? years, how has August so far been in your area?

Josh: Well, so far most, not all, mornings this August have started off in the 40's, the past 6 days 42,43,43,44,45,46...upward trend there huh...but this is suppose to be the hottest time of year, but as data gets twisted it will still turn that way I'm sure. next

Caller: Have you heard that putting air in your tires could be equivalent to drilling for more oil?

Josh: Yes, sounds pretty. Really what a solution.Next..

Caller: Hey Josh, I here near where you live there is going to be a huge coal project, do you have any clue of how big a project this is and how much coal is involved?

Josh: From what I hear it is a 25 year 7 day a week operation and as far as the amount of coal, no clue, Kinda doubt anyones positive, but to estimate it at 25 years tells ya something. time for a commercial break, be right back after these messages..

Hellow...this is T Bone Steak, please foller my lead in alternative energy, only you can prevent forest fires..

Josh: Welcome back, want to start off by getting people to remember alternative energy while may help here or there at a minimum is mostly political and money driven, same people complaining about big oil, really for the most part are trying to sell their product, not unlike any competing supplier of a product, so before you buy, learn the facts from front to back, clear to the alternatives beginning, umm we have a few more callers so lets get to the phone lines as time is running short,

Caller: Hello Josh, great to talk with you

Josh: Thanks

Caller: I just want to know why people harp on the areas that are warmer and ignore the areas that are cooler

Josh: Fits their agenda, promotes everything they want, have no clue what their ultimate purpose in this is besides power, but really I doubt they have a clue. Next..

Caller: I started going green and also several friends have too and the cost of it is higher and we can't afford it. Shouldn't going green be cheaper..

Josh: Should be, its heavenly, natural, pleasant sounding to the ears, but as you get deeper and deeper there is someone there going one one thousand, two one thousand and so on, what makes this world turn can not be done by alternatives in the near to mid term even, you eat, thats a process to plant,grow,ship, you drive, thats a process in a number of ways, you have a roof over head, provided likely by an evil logger who destroyed the forest, you drive down roads and shop, how did these roads and structures appear, from man using the things around him, and oil, wood, coal, as in electric, electric poles, wood, some metal ones, electric wire, dozers, excavtors, etc,etc, we use oil and do not have alternatives to replace it, no matter what pretty story gets told. next

Caller: Whats your take on meat consumption being at to high of a rate and the land and water usage it takes.

Josh: It takes land and water, people eat beef, uhhh...if someone has the land and willing to put up with the hard times and make it work to make themselves a living they should go for it, and as more drop out they will probably unfortunately raise there prices and be better off, the ones that do stick with it, if buying beef is not your thing, get your hunting license. next

Caller: hi, I have not bought in to this here global warning thing, I mean the earth has been cooler, been warmer and there is proof and evidence of this, proof that co2 has been higher, has been lower, what is the alarm, is the middle not a good place to be?

Josh: Middle is a great place to be in this case, you are right on and continue to enjoy your daily life as you wish and drive your Hummer if you so wish, don't let the alarmist be a dictator in your life, this is not suppose to be a communist country even though they would will try tax you for everything if they could, why, makes someones pocket fatter, and gives someone a so called job for doing nothing and taking money from a person who earned it,.uhhhh I'll have to leave it at that sorry we ran out of time and didn't get Harry G. on the program today, I'm sure he enjoying the company of his Virginia family and getting ready for steeler season, until then all, laugh, have fun, turn of the gloom and doom news turn on your radio to eibnetwork and drive like you have somewhere to go, until I'll see you on the radio.

paulm. Interresting they have no temperature diagram, but link Real Climate articel this year, which have a diagram of sea temperature that ends 2003-2004, although the Argo project show decreasing sea temperature the sast 4 years.

According to all temperature data we have decreasing temperature in the atmosphere for the last 10 years (the GISS data may not be equally obvious, but has also decreased), and the sea temperature shall have a delay if the driver is a difference in the atmospheres SW radiation, or?

Due to the Hadley CRU data or UAH we now have the same global temperature mean value as in the 80s. Correct me if I'm wrong.

PaulM: Your linked article has some significant problems, the least of which is...

The three links I tried to the ocean heat content references did NOT work. I gave up after three and closed the webpage. There's no reason for me to think about commenting about a skeptic bashing article when the data isn't there.

Regards.

I believe lake okeechobee is still two feet below normal. The run off from Kissimmee has not got there yet though, so we'll see. The Orlando area has a seen a ton of rain. I know we have seen our fair share here in Jax

In case it was missed on the other thread:

For all of the Wind Energy Advocates (oops sorry, is that a lable?) out there. Chew on this:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/5947095.html

It seems a few of the tree hugger/anybody but Bush crowd out in Oregon, who are so pro-environment, have a problem with windmills as alternative energy. Seems they can be hazerdous to your health. Does old T-Boone Pickens know this??? I laugh at these people LOUDLY. Here's hoping they get what they deserve.

Go Green? Go AWAY!

Who says that Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of humor? First we have an August 14 report from the Lithgow Mercury in Australia announcing a Climate Torch relay to draw attention to the importance of global warming:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/19/australians-freeze-carrying-global-warming-relay-torch

PaulM:
All of the skeptic arguments never touch on one single fact. Surface temperatures have been rising
since the beggining of the Industrial Revolution, and they have never gone down in any significant way. Also, as seen in the famous Keeling graph, CO2 and temperatures mirror each other. This a undisputed fact that AGW skeptics can't deny. I am also a skeptic, one who does not believe in short term anomalies as fact. Also if one lives in Tibet, I don't expect a heat wave either. I don't wish for it to get warmer, but it is , and then we will have sea levels rise. We better get ready for this. Better safe than sorry!
Thanks, KIPP

Here's another site with some debating points:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

For the past couple weeks I have purposely watched the regional weather map for my state several times a day. I know it is only weather, not climate, but the fact that it has been wrong almost every single day is extremely frustrating if not infuriating. In the back of my mind, I keep thinking how is it that I should have any confidence that those that call themselves experts regarding climate change are any different than those that forecast daily weather. This is not a slam because I realize that weather involves so many variables, but the real question for me has to be what level of confidence do I have regarding either weather or climate change based on the fact that all the experts are repeatedly wrong or at the very least untimely with their predictions, or refusing to really debate the issues.

"I can't remember the last time we had a string of days in the low 60s, or even the upper 50s, in January. It's been at least 5 or 6 years around here."

I'm sorry, I just had to point and laugh at another one of Oznop's ludicrous comments, quoted above.

January 2006 was the warmest January on record across the United States. And it was the third warmest January in Pennsylvania. Every single state in the lower 48 was way above average. See the link:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/jan/01Statewidetrank_pg.gif

But, hey, according to those who are delusional, it's been "5 or 6 years" since we had warm temps in January.

Poking fun at Deniers is just becoming too easy.

looks like August is going to be well below
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
600 and 400 mb
People at the Blackboard were maintaining that because July was back at +.3C, The warming had returned! LOL

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.21.2008.gif
looks like cooling oceans spreading north as well!

Paulm

The article says we know the earth is still warming because the oceans are getting warmer.

The only problem with that statement is that the oceans are cooling.

Reply: It depends what ocean and where in that ocean you are talking about, it is not all that clear cut.

Global warming skeptics like to leave the impression that the science is 50-50, while it's really 99-to-1.

Coal and oil interests have funneled millions to dozens of individual global-warming skeptics as part of an effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," according to industry memos first uncovered by former Boston Globe journalist Ross Gelbspan.

I know it was a typo Brett, just tryign to add a little humor to what the typo resulted in!

Reply: Gotcha.

The three links I tried to the ocean heat content references did NOT work. I gave up after three and closed the webpage. There's no reason for me to think about commenting about a skeptic bashing article when the data isn't there.

The only broken link I found was to a realclimate archive ("The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations..."), and it resumed working a moments after I checked it. I had no problem finding the link by navigating the realclimate archives in the meantime. I read the entire New Scientist piece and followed all the links I could find, and had no problems. I wonder if perhaps there might have been some problem local to Bob's access point to the web.

I appreciate how limited Bob's time is. At the same time, I am somehow not surprised that he apparently chooses to avoid the well-articulated presentation offered in paulm's link. It is truly sad when a research contributor of Bob's caliber is reduced to casting about inaccurate editorial commentary like "skeptic bashing" instead of addressing the substance he seems so intent on avoiding.

If Bob finds weaknesses in the material presented in the cited link, I for one would far prefer Bob to either identify those weaknesses or move on to the next comment.

Oh Andrew NOT AGAIN !

You push out the some old clap trap every time. Give us the evidence, man.

Your slight at Joe is totally unwarranted. He is one of the most trully honest guys in the game and as for money, count Gore, Soros, every government in the developed world as providing money for climate alarmists. Even today they are demanding $Bn's of "or else".

Quite frankly your outbust is nothing short of disgusting and totally libellous, take care my friend.

This morning I received a letter from my bank inviting me to invest in a new 'global warming' account that is forecast to yield growth of up to 75% over 6 years:

"With the demand from the [UK] government for organisations to reduce their carbon footprint and the rising prices of fuel, the growth of alternative 'environmentally friendly' energy providers offers great potential for investment returns. This product's perfomance is related to companies at the forefront of technologies aimed at reducing global warming and offering alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. So you can save the planet whilst your savings grow."

Do you think the existence of schemes like this will have an influence on the direction climate research takes in the future?

Regarding:

...Coal and oil interests have funneled millions to dozens of individual global-warming skeptics as part of an effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," according to industry memos first uncovered by former Boston Globe journalist Ross Gelbspan...

I used to work in the energy business for a privately held company and retired last year (other than being a member of the trade associations, we did not spend money on these types of issues). I keep hearing these same types of comments, over and over again. This is an old argument to stifle debate. So what if energy companies spend a several million on global warming issues, it amounts to the royalties and speaking fees that Al Gore earns (from you) spreading his agenda. Energy companies are working on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon sequester. Maybe it won�t work, but they are spending money on a variety of unproven technologies and doing research. How much do extreme environmentalists spend on this issue? Nothing, they spend their money spreading disinformation and filing lawsuits.

Fossil fuels is a finite resource, usage will start to decline, maybe decades from now, or a century (a short time as far as the earth is concerned), but it will happen! Man made greenhouse gases will decline with it, though population growth will continue to be the ultimate problem nobody wants to deal with.

It is a well known fact that alternate energy cannot come close to meeting the