This reminds of an exam question back when I was in public school. The question was:

"How does lightning contribute to the fertilization of vegetation?"

I could not remember the nitrogen fixation path so I wrote:

The lightening flashes, the thunder cracks... which scares the cow... which fertilizes the vegetation.

I was hoping for a partial credit... but received none. GK

There are always potential surprises and underestimated feedbacks that could result from global warming, as paleoclimatic evidence suggests. Any new hypothesis should be treated with skeptism, until it can gain sufficient evidence to support it.

In other news, a survey indicates that economists strongly agree with the scientific consensus and support emissions reductions. Someone might want to tell Senator Inhofe and his band of global warming deniers, who spread creative tales of economic gloom and doom at the thought of gradually reducing emissions.

"Researchers who deal in cold numbers rather than warming climates believe the "significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action," a new survey finds.

In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-03-economist-climate_N.htm

MarkBloom
In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-03-economist-climate_N.htm

------------
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

You mean the same economists that predicted the current/recent global economic mess, the same economists that predict exactly what people are going to do based on economic policy (but unfortunately the people never seem to cooperate), the same economists that predicted the unemployment rate would be over 10% now because the government did such a fine job with the stimulus, the wonders of Keynesian economics, Alan Greenspan economics, and unfortunately I don't have enough time left in my life to keep giving examples.

Oh yeah, those economists. I'm sure all the joint agreements to curb economic growth will work out just fine, and the planet will once again become a wonderful verdant pleasure paradise full of happy happy people growing veggies, wearing fig leaves, walking to work out in the fields, with the PERFECT temperature, not too hot, not too cold, but just right.

And all because we have climate agreements to curb that nasty growth hormone, energy. Oh those economists, thank goodness for those rascals.

Well I guess we'll just have to pass legislation backed up by fines to put a stop to this outrageous disregard for the earth by the thunderstorms! Nature is wrong here and it's up to us to put it right!
It's not the slippery slope of insanity we're on, we've arrived at the bottom.
I fear for us as a species...

There are always potential surprises and underestimated feedbacks that could result from global warming, as paleoclimatic evidence suggests. Any new hypothesis should be treated with skeptism, until it can gain sufficient evidence to support it.

As, "paleoclimatic evidence suggests?" What exactly does it suggest other than it was a lot warmer at times when there were no human emissions of CO2 that could have caused that warming? And given the latest fiascos coming from the denro community, the palaeoclimatology crowd are the last people that I would have thought the warmers would talk about. First the bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies were determined to be useless. Next we found that the Polar Ural set did not show any warming. Now we find that the Yamal proxies that have the basis of so many studies were cherry picked samples out of a larger set that does not show any warming either. Isn't it time you moved on to something that wasn't as obviously wrong or fraudulent?

G Karst,
I'm not sure that I can quite imagine a schoolboy so spontaneously creative, but, since it was scatalogically inspired, maybe that makes sense.
In any event, even if it was a more recent epiphany, it is a very sensible description of, at least part of, the nitrogen cycle.
Does the next post from MarkB put you at all in mind of your humorless examiners?

My apologies to MarkB!
It's clear from Mary's response that he is an amusing person.

How are we gonna tax the lightning ? asked Al Gore.

Having to defend my profession from both the above blogs I refer to the article itself.

"The survey approached the 289 economists who had published climate-related studies in the top 25 economics journals in the past 15 years. About half, 144, responded, and 75% agreed or strongly agreed on the "value" of greenhouse-gas controls."

This is a very small and very biased sample and only half even responded. One quarter apparently disagreed with the notion of any kind of controls. What kind of economist studies climate change and responds to a survey from a liberal public policy school? Probably those who get funding for such studies and we know where the funding comes from.

Separately, on the lightning. Years ago when I first heard of the co2 problem I thought global warming would likely increase clouds and rain and rainstorms (since warmer air holds more water vapor) and these would have a cooling or, heaven forbid, negative feedback effect. But more recently it seems as though the theorists believe there will be less storms--something about temperature gradients. So what is the answer here? Does global warming create more lightning or less?

The science of lightning is in it's infancy along with tornado developement.So to link lightning with AGW is ludicrous!

I ran across this very enlightning and honest article,here's just a sample.

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas — population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes — that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods. Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and — without waiting for its confirmation — started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Read here>http://cobourgskeptic.com/

More thunderstorms as a positive feedback in the AGW debate. I would be laughing on the floor if it were not the fact that NASA should be shut down.

Wow... so many people prooving how poorly educated they are.

Lightning is one of the main source (if not the main) to produce (create) Ozone at a higher altitude.

It is the nature's way to transform methane to ozone. Most lightning occurs inside a storm (cloud to cloud), the added ozone tends to show up several miles high rather than near the earth's surface, so it doesn't add significantly to ozone pollution at ground level.

This is very basic knowledge and as been known for many years. I've learned that in the 80's and it was already an old news. Other study made in the 90's went the same way, with additional findings prooving the theory and also that the Ozone created at those altitude is transported around the globe and help to close/repair the Ozone layer hole at the poles.

Looks like lightning is hitting the ETS in Australia. Climate debate has finally come out of the cupboard;

www.twawki.wordpress.com

Lightning travels at the speed of light.
Thunder travels at the speed of sound.

Lightning is to thunder, as understanding AGW is to denying AGW.
Some see the light, others wait for the sound.

GKarst-

I never got credit for funny answers when I failed to study properly either.

BTW- Lightening means "to lighten", lightning is the meteorological word for atmospheric electrical discharge. 10% additional deduction from your grade.

signed 'The Professor with no sense of humor'

Mary-

"Oh yeah, those economists. I'm sure all the joint agreements to curb economic growth will work out just fine, and the planet will once again become a wonderful verdant pleasure paradise full of happy happy people growing veggies, wearing fig leaves, walking to work out in the fields, with the PERFECT temperature, not too hot, not too cold, but just right."

Why not relax and 'lighten up'?
Only people complain about 'temperature', it is a comparative term. It is much, much 'colder' in outer space, the Universe is not a 'warm' place. We are lucky to be living in a 'warm' anomalous place. The rest of the Universe really wants us to 'chill out'. ENTROPY = Equilibrium
Most of the Universe is hovering very close to absolute zero.
signed "Shiny Happy People"

"You mean the same economists that predicted the current/recent global economic mess"

Most of the economists (yes, there were a few) that did foresee our recent economic collapse were those of the Keynesian bent. I can't even recall one of the neoclassical, supply-side, tax-cuts-are-the-solution-to-everything economists predict the crisis. Those who did warn of this impending crisis were told not to worry, that the all-knowing market knows best, that it is rational and efficient, that it's always an accurate assessment of value.

So much for that theory. But hey, it still sounds good, so let's keep chanting it!

Chris:

You have it all wrong. Al Gore has no intention of taxing lightning. However, it just so happens that there is legislation pending that will require installation of massive lightning rods of a specific design around the country. It is purely coincidental that Al Gore happens to own 20% of the firm......

Economists studied the effects of global warming on homeless people.

It was found that 100% of homeless people feel wetter during stormy weather.

94% of the homeless note increased flatulence and methane discharge when they find fresher food in dumpsters and a full 74% note increased CO2 output (and smell) when sleeping head-first in a sealed box.

Conclusion: Economists can make numbers anything, even if its completely meaningless.... like global warming.

Mary:
MarkBloom
In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-03-economist-climate_N.htm

------------
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

You mean the same economists that predicted the current/recent global economic mess

-------------

Mary,

If you want to be an expert on the economy, you have to listen to economists. Its the same with science. Not sure what your point is exactly but your sarcasm is dually noted. 94% is an extraordinary figure. Not sure exactly how they came up with that number but no doubt its another "conspiracy" right? For one of those who claim to be the Keepers and Protectors of the economy, you have very little reverence for your own clergy. So who should you be listening to? Or do you just kinda come up with stuff "on the fly"?

Oliver | November 7, 2009 12:40 AM

"scatalogically inspired"

That is, without a doubt, the most polite way of saying "full of sh*t" that I have ever heard!!!

idecline | November 9, 2009 3:04 AM

"10% additional deduction from your grade"

Rats! You have irreversibly altered the time-line and before my very eyes... my clothes turned to rags. GK

I'm a bit confused about ozone.

Big panic because of a hole in the ozone layer and that's going to have a dangerous effect because of UV radiation. Now lightning creates ozone and that's bad because it acts like a greenhouse gas.

It seems to mean that the science for global warming is following the same lines as the food science. What's good one week is bad the next.