On Apr 11, 7:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects.. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability..

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica..

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not easy, Antarctica! So little data, so many interpretations of the
said slim data.

World Climate report would have it that there is no evidence of
melting, at least:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-warming...

Real Climate reflects the difficulties of interpretation on the
existing data and points, truly, to the fact that regional change is
not the same as Global change. I don't think I made that distinction
clear in my reply to you either, Ian. They also say that Antarctic
cooling doesn't in any way contradict global warming - some info on
Antarctic glaciers there, of which I'm sure you are aware Ian.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Iceagenow, tells, us, well, that the next ice age is coming......
("Sooner than we all think"!! And that, of course, Antarctica is not
warming (neither is Arctic ice disappearing!). *Never has, never did.
Just blips in a cooling trend. "We're all going to die, not in fire,
but in Ice and any day now, it will start!" They also tell us that
glaciers are growing "all around the world, including the United
States" (well that's quite true, but perhaps 90% of them aren't!)

I side with the GW Antarctica people and regional differnces in the
global warming trend. I trust the majority of scientists view that the
world is warming and will continue to warm - but the trend will not be
linear, either over time, or over the Earth's surface.

As for glaciers, most are melting as the temperatures rise, but a
minority are responding to changes in their environment, such as
increased snowfall. Some in Antarctica, may be extending due to either
increased regional cold and increased snowfall, or a combination of
both, but that is unlikely to last much longer.-

Let me see, read and believe a blog or the National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC). Your blog vs. the NSIDC? Hummmm...

Read this:http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Do you work for an oil company?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice one! You may have got me slightly wrong Eric! I agree with
everything the NSIDC has said in that report and it is not new to me.
They did say this:

"........ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate
change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica".

Parts of Antarctica are warming at different rates and some areas MAY
actually be cooling - data is so sparse that we just don't know about
all Antarctic areas, but that in no way means that GW isn't happening!
It is the fact that Antarctica may well have areas that are not
following the warming trend that allows blogs such as iceagenow and,
to a slightly lesser extent, worldclimatereport and lots of other
Internet global coolers to misrepresent the GW picture as they fix on
data which may be seen to back up thier argument whilst ignoring the
enormous weight of evidence, such as that provided by the NSIDC, that
does not back up their argument at all!

I think that is a Internet first for me - being asked if I work for an
oil company! Love it! You'll have some of my friends doing the old
ROFLMAO! Soon you'll be telling me I forecast a colder than average
winter in 2007-8!

*))

Paul

On Apr 11, 3:32*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not easy, Antarctica! So little data, so many interpretations of the
said slim data.

World Climate report would have it that there is no evidence of
melting, at least:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-warming....

Real Climate reflects the difficulties of interpretation on the
existing data and points, truly, to the fact that regional change is
not the same as Global change. I don't think I made that distinction
clear in my reply to you either, Ian. They also say that Antarctic
cooling doesn't in any way contradict global warming - some info on
Antarctic glaciers there, of which I'm sure you are aware Ian.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Iceagenow, tells, us, well, that the next ice age is coming......
("Sooner than we all think"!! And that, of course, Antarctica is not
warming (neither is Arctic ice disappearing!). *Never has, never did..
Just blips in a cooling trend. "We're all going to die, not in fire,
but in Ice and any day now, it will start!" They also tell us that
glaciers are growing "all around the world, including the United
States" (well that's quite true, but perhaps 90% of them aren't!)

I side with the GW Antarctica people and regional differnces in the
global warming trend. I trust the majority of scientists view that the
world is warming and will continue to warm - but the trend will not be
linear, either over time, or over the Earth's surface.

As for glaciers, most are melting as the temperatures rise, but a
minority are responding to changes in their environment, such as
increased snowfall. Some in Antarctica, may be extending due to either
increased regional cold and increased snowfall, or a combination of
both, but that is unlikely to last much longer.-

Let me see, read and believe a blog or the National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC). Your blog vs. the NSIDC? Hummmm...

Read this:http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Do you work for an oil company?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice one! You may have got me slightly wrong Eric! I agree with
everything the NSIDC has said in that report and it is not new to me.
They did say this:

"........ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate
change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica".

Parts of Antarctica are warming at different rates and some areas MAY
actually be cooling - data is so sparse that we just don't know about
all Antarctic areas, but that in no way means that GW isn't happening!

There is lots of evidence that GW is fact IS happening. Not everywhere
and all the time, but the *trend* everywhere and over time indicates
GW.

It is the fact that Antarctica may well have areas that are not
following the warming trend that allows blogs such as iceagenow and,
to a slightly lesser extent, worldclimatereport and lots of other
Internet global coolers to misrepresent the GW picture as they fix on
data which may be seen to back up thier argument whilst ignoring the
enormous weight of evidence, such as that provided by the NSIDC, that
does not back up their argument at all!

NSIDC uses the whole group of Earth observing satellites.


I think that is a Internet first for me - being asked if I work for an
oil company! Love it! You'll have some of my friends doing the old
ROFLMAO! Soon you'll be telling me I forecast a colder than average
winter in 2007-8!


Sorry, I guess. Perhaps you're a meteorologist? It is just that the
oil companies have deep packets and can afford their own scientists
making their own hypotheses. Often these don't match reality but
match what the oil companies want people to believe. I'd rather hear
from folks with no agenda other than science.

Eric

On Apr 14, 1:29*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:32*pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Apr 11, 7:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want .....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

On 14 Apr, 01:29, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:32*pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Apr 11, 7:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want .....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

On Apr 14, 6:06*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 14 Apr, 01:29, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 11, 3:32*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 7:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want .....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not easy, Antarctica! So little data, so many interpretations of the
said slim data.

World Climate report would have it that there is no evidence of
melting, at least:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-warming...

Real Climate reflects the difficulties of interpretation on the
existing data and points, truly, to the fact that regional change is
not the same as Global change. I don't think I made that distinction
clear in my reply to you either, Ian. They also say that Antarctic
cooling doesn't in any way contradict global warming - some info on
Antarctic glaciers there, of which I'm sure you are aware Ian.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Iceagenow, tells, us, well, that the next ice age is coming......
("Sooner than we all think"!! And that, of course, Antarctica is not
warming (neither is Arctic ice disappearing!). *Never has, never did.
Just blips in a cooling trend. "We're all going to die, not in fire,
but in Ice and any day now, it will start!" They also tell us that
glaciers are growing "all around the world, including the United
States" (well that's quite true, but perhaps 90% of them aren't!)

I side with the GW Antarctica people and regional differnces in the
global warming trend. I trust the majority of scientists view that the
world is warming and will continue to warm - but the trend will not be
linear, either over time, or over the Earth's surface.

As for glaciers, most are melting as the temperatures rise, but a
minority are responding to changes in their environment, such as
increased snowfall. Some in Antarctica, may be extending due to either
increased regional cold and increased snowfall, or a combination of
both, but that is unlikely to last much longer.-

Let me see, read and believe a blog or the National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC). Your blog vs. the NSIDC? Hummmm...

Read this:http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Do you work for an oil company?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice one! You may have got me slightly wrong Eric! I agree with
everything the NSIDC has said in that report and it is not new to me.
They did say this:

"........ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate
change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica".

Parts of Antarctica are warming at different rates and some areas MAY
actually be cooling - data is so sparse that we just don't know about
all Antarctic areas, but that in no way means that GW isn't happening!

There is lots of evidence that GW is fact IS happening. Not everywhere
and all the time, but the *trend* everywhere and over time indicates
GW.

It is the fact that Antarctica may well have areas that are not
following the warming trend that allows blogs such as iceagenow and,
to a slightly lesser extent, worldclimatereport and lots of other
Internet global coolers to misrepresent the GW picture as they fix on
data which may be seen to back up thier argument whilst ignoring the
enormous weight of evidence, such as that provided by the NSIDC, that
does not back up their argument at all!

NSIDC uses the whole group of Earth observing satellites.

I think that is a Internet first for me - being asked if I work for an
oil company! Love it! You'll have some of my friends doing the old
ROFLMAO! Soon you'll be telling me I forecast a colder than average
winter in 2007-8!

Sorry, I guess. Perhaps you're a meteorologist? It is just that the
oil companies have deep packets and can afford their own scientists
making their own hypotheses. *Often these don't match reality but
match what the oil companies want people to believe. I'd rather hear
from folks with no agenda other than science.

I have only one comment, that on oil companies. The truth about oil
companies is an interesting one. They recognize themselves that oil
has a finite life and are diversifying themselves at quite a rapid
rate. BP is putting solar panels on the roofs of its garages. Gimmick
you might say. Not entirely, oil companies are positioning themselves
for technological change and want to ensure a foothold in any new
technology.

Yes, but some have to fail, that is the nature of business. Right now
they are in a prevent failure mode my making sure that oil still gets
used more than it should. And they own enough politicians to prevent
the government to really push for new forms of energy.

Sure the oil companies know the future means change, but they are NOT
about to lead the way.


It is important to realize this. If the green movement plays its cards
right it could have the oil companies on board!

Nope. Oil works off profit not benevolence.

It should be accepted
though that in the short and medium term furure there will be a need
for petroleum products. This is where BP is coming from.


Oil companies have their own armies and fight their own wars. The main
reason why the UK went into the Iraq war with Bush and the US was to
assist BP interests. Don't kid yourself.

Are you aware of the 1953 coup in Iran and who was there to reinstall
the shah?

On 15 Apr, 15:51, Eric Chomko wrote:

I have only one comment, that on oil companies. The truth about oil
companies is an interesting one. They recognize themselves that oil
has a finite life and are diversifying themselves at quite a rapid
rate. BP is putting solar panels on the roofs of its garages. Gimmick
you might say. Not entirely, oil companies are positioning themselves
for technological change and want to ensure a foothold in any new
technology.

Yes, but some have to fail, that is the nature of business. Right now
they are in a prevent failure mode my making sure that oil still gets
used more than it should. And they own enough politicians to prevent
the government to really push for new forms of energy.

Sure the oil companies know the future means change, but they are NOT
about to lead the way.

Every company is out to maximize its profits. However I was listening
on an article on oil company finances. A high price of oil benefits
them, but only up to a point. If you look in more detail at the
balance sheet you will find that considerable provision is made for
the writing down of assets. High oil prices benefit producer
countries. Oil companies to some extent but the added value you get
from such activities as refining and transport can get squeezed.
Exploration costs are going up relative to finds. This is basically
what is meant by "peak oil". There is more oil - true, but it is is
smaler and smaller quantities and is less and less accessable. There
comes a point where investment in alternative energy is more cost
effective than further exploration.


It is important to realize this. If the green movement plays its cards
right it could have the oil companies on board!

Nope. Oil works off profit not benevolence.

Yes but we can make it worth their while to invest in alternative
energy.

It should be accepted
though that in the short and medium term furure there will be a need
for petroleum products. This is where BP is coming from.

Oil companies have their own armies and fight their own wars. The main
reason why the UK went into the Iraq war with Bush and the US was to
assist BP interests. Don't kid yourself.

Are you aware of the 1953 coup in Iran and who was there to reinstall
the shah?

This I know is talked about a lot by the left. The fact is that oil
producers need to sell their oil as much as consumers need to buy it.
The Shah BTW was NOT a fan of cheap oil. Oil is a sticky black
substance. The only thing you can do with it is sell it. I do not
approve of Western (particularly US) foreign in the Middle East.
However to say that it is motivated by oil is erroneous. As I say oil
is bought and sold in Rotterdam. Who owns the oil, in the sense of who
is in power, has very little effect on the price.

In fact the interesting question is what would happen if (or should I
say when) solar power arrives. It is already growing at 50% compound
each year. William Mook will destroy Saudi Arabia. You cannot face
Mook without Wahhabism and with all your population (I am referring
here to the women) working. You don't need women when a sticky black
substance bubbles out of the ground. In fact Wahhabism is only
possible in a country that does not have to run a normal economy.

The post oil Middle East is the really interesting thing.


- Ian Parker