Does not compute

Dennis Howe, Golden

Published September 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 15, 2008

5:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Dennis - any citations for your allegations??? That would really help here.

"Since 1998, atmospheric temperatures have seen a slight decline. Since 2003, upper-level ocean temperatures have been in decline."
September 15, 2008

6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Dennis et al, 1998 was an anomaly. In that year the strongest El Nino phenomena in a century took place, causing temperatures to spike. Even though subsequent years were slightly cooler, the temperature trend is still following an upward curve. Here is what Nasa Goddard says:

"2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year with 1998"

For the complete news release go to

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...

Jan. 16, 2008
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

Still from animation showing the temperature anomaly for 2007. Image at right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Credit: NASA. View Temperature Anomaly Video (MPG) or "Earth's Temperature" Web short.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

Yes Houston, we do indeed have a problem (Houston, in fact, has more than one at the moment).

This same bit of urban mythology seems to surface every week or so because people are reading the same cherry picked data and reading the same misleading "science" on conservative websites which are encouraging doubt in the process of Global Warming. These sites have an agenda to provide confusion on this issue. It is always better to go to legitimate scientific journals and to the actual press releases put out by climatologists such as those at NASA Goddard.
September 15, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

timflh401 writes:

Ah Dennis, the left has found another study that refutes your facts. According to them, you must be wrong. There is no room for discussion in this matter.
September 15, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

timflh401 - that should read: "... that refutes your ASSERTIONS or CONCLUSIONS."

There is always room for discussion where facts are in doubt, or where interpretations can legitimately vary. Why do you conclude that there is no room for discussion??
September 15, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

What part of discussion don't you understand? Greenleaf just succinctly laid the evidence before you, including his assessment of what's going on. If you have a counter argument, other than some vaguely resentful remark about "the left", then make it.
September 15, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

timflh,

Nice hit and run post my friend. You must be new to this forum. Frequent readers and posters know that I constantly post on environmental issues and am always up for a good discussion whether with people who agree with me, have questions or who think I'm full of it, as you obviously do. I challenge you to come forward with something that supports your statement or be prepared to be dismissed as one who lacks the courage of his convictions or the facts(?) to support your argument.
September 15, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

anderson,

How are you buddy? Thanks for the support!
September 15, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

greenleaf, I'm fine thank you. I appreciate your putting this issue into words that even non-scientists can understand, backed by solid, verifiable evidence.
September 15, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

timflh401 writes:

OK, here are a few arguments that either global warming is not an issue or that if there is such a thing, it is anthropogenic. These articles may go further than I would go. I concede that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere more than would be done absent mans’ behavior. I am not sold on the idea that it is having any effect. But say it does, what is the solution? The energy industry is acting as fast as possible given its regulatory and financial constraints. I am in than industry in a legal/regulatory capacity. I sat through the Colorado Conservation Voters love fest last week and listened to the extreme voices demanding instant change. You need to talk to the rate payers and the regulators to make change now. I made the reference to the left because that is an extreme left leaning group and they would not listen to any opinion but theirs. I speak from experience in many forums, not just making vague remarks about the left.

http://gwperplexed.niof.org/skeptics.htm
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info...
http://www.global-warming-and-the-cli...
http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008...
http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/war...
http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_79975...

I could continue ad nauseam but the point is, there are facts that support both sides of this argument.
September 15, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

timflh401,

Thanks for returning to the forum, my friend. I'm sorry if I was a little testy with you but it drives me a little crazy when I put the effort into a posting and have it dismissed in one or two critical lines with no effort made to properly refute my statements. You didn't say precisely but it appears that you may be an attorney. I am a college trained environmental biologist who owns and operates an environmentally sensitive landscape firm. I pride myself on being in contact with other botanists and horticulturists as we try to understand Global Warming's effects on the plants that we work with.

I did examine the sites you have presented. The first I will counter with the following site which counters all of the points yours presents.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Your second site mentions the Heartland Institute: Here is an overview courtesy of Wikepedia:
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."[11]
September 15, 2008

5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

tim cont.,

Wikepedia cont.: In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list, writing that "They [the scientists] have no right—legally or ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography." The Institute did rename the list from its original title (chosen by its public relations department) to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares", to clarify that the scientists in question do not doubt global warming. Ultimately, the Heartland Institute concluded that "... the point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis."[12]

[edit] Tobacco

The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.[13] In 2006, the Heartland Institute began a formal partnership with the National Organization of Tobacco Outlets to advocate for legislation favorable to the tobacco industry.[14] Given the close financial and organizational relationship between the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights described the Heartland Institute as "an active partner of the tobacco industry".[15]

Heartland has been criticized for employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.[16][17] The Heartland Institute disputes this criticism, stating that "no one on Heartland's board of directors works for a tobacco company (Roy Marden retired years ago) or for an oil company (Walter Buchholtz was on the board but no longer is)."[18]

Unfortunately, this appears to one of many industry strawman organizations set up to confuse the general public and distract from a very important debate. They set themselves up as experts and cherry pick and distort data to suit their agenda.This isn't science, it is a cynical misrepresentation of real science and the scientists themselves.
September 15, 2008

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

tim #3,
The last of your sites is a piece written by John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel.

The following is an excerpt I wrote to another poster regarding Mr. Coleman:

"As for John Coleman: People accuse Al Gore (somewhat rightfully I might add) of being a shameless self-promoter exploiting a story, well I contend that the founder of the Weather Channel wrote the book on those subjects. His bachelor's degree in 1957 wasn't even in meteorology ( it was journalism). The man isn't even a scientist. Even if he was a meteorologist, a 50 year old degree in an applied science wouldn't make him a credible critic of theoretical sciences such as climatology and glaciology in the modern age of computer models and rapidly evolving science.

"He started the Weather Channel as a way to sell ad time and keep his tired comedy act going- but was later FIRED FROM THE WEATHER CHANNEL! THE CHANNEL HE HELPED START! Because the Weather Channel was sick of his antics.

Then John Coleman got hired by Chicago's Channel 5, because they thought it would boost ratings (it didn't) and they fired him after 6 months.

"John Coleman is "famous" for popularizing the term "thorms" and "thowers" to represent thunderstorms and thundershowers."

I'm sorry tim, but the sites you present are all written by non scientists and misrepresent factual data. Some have an industry bias or a libertarian bias. As a scientist I prefer to present actual scientific journal reports from NASA Goddard, NOAA, NCAR and the science journals Science and Nature.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2...

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/cli...

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/200...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/...

I believe that the quality of sites written by and for the actual scientific community trumps your highly biased sites. What do you think tim?
September 15, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Greenleaf,

Any idea how much longer our tomatoes will be safe in the garden? The plants are heavy with second crop, but I'm worried. I am thinking this bunch will make it. Most are full size and slowly turning from hard green to hard yellow.

I don't believe man is responsible for global warming. We are responsible to do our best to leave little sign of our journey. That is all we can do.
September 15, 2008

6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

p-myers,

How are you my gentle friend?

A frost or freeze could come at anytime. Ripening ceases at temps much below 50 degrees. We can only hope for seasonable and above temps, but any tomatoes that have turned even slightly yellow are committed to ripen. If a hard freeze is predicted, bring them in vine and all and place them in a dark place to ripen. Most will!

While I disagree that man has no responsibility in Global Warming, I heartily endorse your last comment: " We are responsible to do our best to leave little sign of our journey. That is all we can do." Amen my friend. Regardless of what anyone believes we all need to make a good faith effort to do no harm for those that follow us.
September 15, 2008

8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Castle writes:

DENNIS HOWE, are you actually mocking and questioning the Owl Bore and the Church of Our Lady of Global Warming? You will surely freeze in Hades for that.
September 15, 2008

10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

greenleaf,

Thanks. I'm ready for freezes. Got a clear tarp and a crock pot. Cover using a hoe held upright with a cinder block to tent the tarp and a crock pot to provide heat and steam. Come really cold weather I move the potted ones to the porch. Have 12 heirloom plants courtesy of my mother who doesn't remember their name but they look like green peppers with their lobes. Look like they weigh a good pound each too.

Kept tomatoes ripening all the way to Christmas one year.

Not so sure about gentle. That's just the easy way to do things. Just like my approach to the GW dilemma. I wanted solar panels in the 80's. Now I look forward to them costing about the same as skylights.

When I was five years old, my father was a salesman for a heating and cooling distributor. He took me with him. Back then a car A\C was virtually unknown below the twenty thousand bracket. He and I would arrive for his appointments cool and clean while the other sales reps got sweatier and messier as the day went on. The late afternoon appointments had sales reps in coats and ties with big sweat marks on the coats. My Dad was fresh as he could be.

Technology is like that. What is rare becomes common and the common becomes trivial. Prices go down as technology solves problems as difficult as keeping computers cooled (think vac tubes) or as simple as substituting stamped plastic for metal parts in some electronic applications. The savings enabled others to build on these changes. GW will fall or fail, depending on your viewpoint, to this kind of thinking.

I expect to see a new fuel for cars within two decades without federal funding, and within four decades with federal funding. The market rewards the practical. Government rewards the best sales presentation.
September 16, 2008

3:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shadow writes:

Once again Greenleaf at least backs his opinion with basis of some studies. Always interesting reads.

Although I too am a non believer in the human created global warming myth. I will continue to plant my garden to the recomendations of the Farmers Almanac rather then those who pray at the alter of global warming. The track record of the Almanac is by far more acurate then the others predicitions.
September 16, 2008

5:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

p_meyers,

Actually, it sounds as though I should be asking you questions about tomatoes. You have some great ideas!

By gentle, I am referring to the way you speak to posters with whom you disagree. You always seem calm and respectful. I never hear sarcasm or a raised "voice" from you. You also reveal your human side more than most with tales of family and yourself. Its refreshing and ,well, its very gentle!

You are obviously the kind of person people regard as a good friend and neighbor. I enjoy our conversations.
September 16, 2008

5:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Shadow,

I have come to accept that some will never accept the reality of Global Warming or our part in causing it until its too late to do anything about it. While that saddens me, I have to accept that fact. Some who doubt sincerely believe that their reasoning on the subject is sound. I can respect sincerity. I can respect that from p_meyers, you and many other posters who at least make an effort and who don't resort to insult. I do ask that people respect my sincerity as well. My motivation is a genuine concern for the natural world that we are all dependent upon. I worry for my children and grandchildren and for yours as well. They deserve to inherit a world from us that will sustain them. I am determined to do my part. My postings are part of that effort.

I come from 10 generations of farmers in this country and who knows how many in Germany and Switzerland. My Uncles and Grandfather swore and planted by the Almanac. They also cared deeply about the land. I can do no less.

I know you disagree with GW, Shadow, but I appreciate that you at least read my postings and enjoy them at some level. Thank you for that and your comments. Beware though - I am trying to win you over to my side of the debate, but I will always try to do it respectfully and with the latest, best science I can find. I promise! Later my friend.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Does not compute

Dennis Howe, Golden

Published September 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs