Originally Posted by Penfold

" ...... Anyways he does not believe global warming to be a valid theory and inspite of him being the leading meteorlogical authority in the world; ...."
Your colossus may have been a legend in his own lunchtime, but I have no idea of whom you speak. Need I point out the obvious, that a weatherman is not a climatologist?

He is the premiere climatologist of this century.
Algore isn't even a weatherman.

The fact that you don't know of his existance and that I can't remember his name gives credence to the idea that personal smearing works best of all.
[Bill Clinton really made that work BTW.]

Don't worry. I don't believe this guy was an ID'ist.

"Need I point out the obvious" you couldn't hold a candle to this guy - you don't have a clue who he is - and less of a clue about what he knows and understands.

Because he does not agree with you - you say - "need i point out the obvious"... Obvious what ?

Originally Posted by Smallax

He is the premiere climatologist of this century.
Algore isn't even a weatherman.

The fact that you don't know of his existance and that I can't remember his name gives credence to the idea that personal smearing works best of all.
[Bill Clinton really made that work BTW.]

Don't worry. I don't believe this guy was an ID'ist.

"Need I point out the obvious" you couldn't hold a candle to this guy - you don't have a clue who he is - and less of a clue about what he knows and understands.

Because he does not agree with you - you say - "need i point out the obvious"... Obvious what ? knuckledragger!

You'd think someone would remember the name of 'the premiere climatologist of the century'.

Might you be wrong?

Originally Posted by Smallax

He is the premiere climatologist of this century.
Algore isn't even a weatherman.

The fact that you don't know of his existance and that I can't remember his name gives credence to the idea that personal smearing works best of all.
[Bill Clinton really made that work BTW.]

Don't worry. I don't believe this guy was an ID'ist.

"Need I point out the obvious" you couldn't hold a candle to this guy - you don't have a clue who he is - and less of a clue about what he knows and understands.

Because he does not agree with you - you say - "need i point out the obvious"... Obvious what ? knuckledragger!

We have only your word that this person exists. According to you he is qualified in meteorology. A study of weather. Weather is not climate.
His introduction to the discussion is a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority".

If he really were the "premiere (sic) climatologist of this century", then his name would not be so difficult to recall.... Al Gore presented a documentary, and made no claims to being a climatologist.

I haven't followed the debate, except that your questioning who the premier climatologist of the century is. A search brought up Prof. Hubert H. Lamb, the premier European climatologist of the 20th century. It goes on to say that Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’ an article by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson

(Full text of article from Summer 2000 21st Century)

Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences. Here's the whole article:

No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

I don't know if this is the same guy smallax is referring to, I just post it for its informative value regarding the oceans temperature change. Smallax will have to say if this is the gentleman he's speaking about.

Here's a list of his publications: Publications list for Lamb, H.H

One particular phenomenon not being caused by climate change (and ocean temperatures will take a lot longer to change than air temperatures simply because the oceans are a massive heat sink) does not mean that climate change is not occurring. You linked to Lamb's publications (looking at the list I'd guess he's retired) but failed to look at their source - the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which, as you will note, is pretty firmly convinced about the case for man made climate change. On their front page is the link the the UK Metereological Office website, not exactly a radical green organisation, who present the facts and myths about climate change.

EDIT: Professor Lamb actually passed away 11 years ago, which would suggest he is not able to comment on recent climatological observations, and while there is a natural cycle of ocean temperatures which he modelled, eventually ocean temperatures will be altered by human activity, initially downward as the ice caps melt, then up again as the world continues to warm.

Some inconvenient facts... For deniers.

"The last 12 months have been the coolest since 2000, according to an analysis by Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The meteorological year - which runs from December 2007 to November 2008 - was 0.42C warmer than the global average temperature between 1951 and 1980.

Nasa's calculations agree closely with a similar analysis by the UK Met Office which was released officially this morning, but reported by the Guardian earlier this month. According to Met Office figures for the last 11 months, the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. That makes 2008 the tenth hottest year on record.

Climate scientists had predicted that 2008 would be relatively cool compared with recent years because at the beginning of the year there was a strong La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. .... "

Coolest year since 2000 but trend still shows global warming | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Dr. William Gray, which was considered one of the world's "most famous" hurricane experts, in Discover Magazine September 2005, but probably not anymore.

Here, in a different magazine, Capitalism Magazine, he is responding to the link between global warming and hurricanes that was made by the Chicken Little alarmists after Katrina.

Gray: ... I mean we have had global warming. That's not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular. And we've had, at least the last 10 years, we've had a pick up in the Atlantic basin major storms. But in the earlier period, if we go back from 1970 through the middle ‘90s, that 25 year period – even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down.

Now, another feature of this is that the Atlantic operates differently. The other global storm basins, the Atlantic only has about 12 percent of the global storms. And in the other basins, the last 10 years – even though the Atlantic major storm activity has gone up greatly the last 10 years. In the other global basins, it's slightly gone down. You know, both frequency and strength of storms have not changed in these other basins. If anything, they've slightly gone down. So if this was a global warming thing, you would think, "Well gee, all of the basins should be responding much the same."

Originally Posted by Smallax

Has anyone seen the PBS episode, maybe it was NOVA or some such thing, but, it was about the deep sea vents that spew out a constant stream of super hot water?

The last one I saw was significant in that this fellow designed a special craft to go under the Arctic glacier, down into the depths and record the temperature of the vent and perhaps - take a sample as well. Tricky operation. Would be fun to watch it again.

Previously, when filming this subject matter, they were sampling these hot water vents to discover the type of lifeforms there might be in such a dark and hostile environment. Different locations however, as these vents are everywhere and are a worthy study of its own.

If one was to think about it - one might begin to wonder if all these hot water spouts spewing into the oceans all over the globe - might have an effect on the planet's water volume and temperature.

So there really is a posibility that CO2 emmissions are not the most obvious reason. I can put an icecube tray full of ice in a sauce pan, put it on the stove and crank up the furnace to 85 degrees. Let it sit out all night long and still have ice in the morning.

If I lit the stove, with just a low flame under that sauce pan of ice, it would be melted and evaporated by morning. To me hot water under a glacier trumps radiative forcing.

Hydrothermal vents that have probably been active for millions of years are not a good explanation for the relatively rapid and recent rise in global temperature. That is simple common sense.

Originally Posted by snakespit

Hydrothermal vents that have probably been active for millions of years are not a good explanation for the relatively rapid and recent rise in global temperature. That is simple common sense.

The assumption of millions of years and everything being the same, as it is now, during that time is why we can't understand what is happening.
Uniformitarianism is anti-sense as well as non-sense.

Hydrothermal vents spewing hot water into the ocean for millions of years???
How much water would have been added over the period of millions of years?
Where has it all gone over those millions of years?

Originally Posted by Smallax

The assumption of millions of years and everything being the same, as it is now, during that time is why we can't understand what is happening.
Uniformitarianism is anti-sense as well as non-sense.

Actually, uniformitarianism makes perfect sense, and is supported by all the evidence. Fail.

Hydrothermal vents spewing hot water into the ocean for millions of years???
How much water would have been added over the period of millions of years?
Where has it all gone over those millions of years?

Yes, technically hydrothermal vents spew hot water, but it is not like you are implying. They do not spew new water or anything, they merely spew heated water that seeped down through faults, fissures, etc. that made its way to a warmer environment (near magma, etc.) and was heated.

For your edification: http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/j...mg/04ill_2.gif

EDIT: Here's another for you: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explor...stry-hires.jpg

All they do is recycle water in a nice, neat little cycle (same thing happens in hydrothermal vents on land in places like Yellowstone). These things are very well studied and how they work is well known.

Originally Posted by snakespit

Hydrothermal vents that have probably been active for millions of years are not a good explanation for the relatively rapid and recent rise in global temperature. That is simple common sense.

I don't think Smallax was implying they were necessarily responsible for Global Warming. I think he was implying they are responsible for contributing to melting the Ice shelfs above them as they warm the water below. Here's an excerpt and the photo:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre.../mt-erebus.jpg

It seems that we still don’t know everything there is to know about our earth-climate system. Take this for example. Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”.

Yet many claim the CO2 is the driver for any melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. I wonder how this will figure into that argument?

Larsen Ice Shelves A and B, by the way, sit astride a chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks, which may figure into melting and breakups like this and this. (h/t Alan)

In fact, there are a LOT of volcanoes in Antarctica as you can see in this image. Notice that many are near the edge of the ice, and there are none in the interior, which may be a lack of discovery of ancient ice buried volcanoes. Most scientific bases are near the sea, rather than inland, for supply and weather tolerance purposes and there are many places in the interior that have yet to be fully explored.

These images showing known Antarctic volcanoes and satellite measured temperature trends from 1992-2004 below tends to back up the idea that where there is volcanic activity, temperatures have been rising.

The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica’s ice sheet has been discovered by members of the British Antarctic Survey.

The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet began erupting some 2,000 years ago and remains active to this day. Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists discovered a layer of ash produced by a ’subglacial’ volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales. The volcano is located beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet in the Hudson Mountains at latitude 74.6°South, longitude 97°West.

Surprise! There’s an active volcano under Antarctic ice Watts Up With That?

Originally Posted by Smallax

Heating up the Ionosphere with Tesla technology. No wonder there is an inter-governmental report put out to divert attention to CO2.

I think superheating the Ionosphere may have consequences. We don't hear Algore pounding the drum on researching that. That is why it is so hard to believe articles that defy common sense. Oh well.

Many scientists believe that misuse of the HAARP Technology could inadvertently destroy the ionosphere and therefore lead to the ultimate destruction of much of the life on Earth. It is scary technology which some also believe can be a tool for controlling the weather, using it as a weapon against perceived enemies. The problem is not so much learning about the technology, but who is controlling it and the purposes they will use it for.

Here's a link that speaks to the dangers of HAARP.

Exotic Research Report | Vol 1 No 1 | HAARP: Environmental Warfare

The US Government has a new ground-based ìStar Warsî weapon which is being tested in the remote bush country of Alaska. This new system manipulates the environment in a way which can:

Disrupt human mental processes.
Jam all global communications systems.
Change weather patterns over large areas.
Interfere with wildlife migration patterns.
Negatively affect your health.
Unnaturally impact the Earthís upper atmosphere.

The US military calls its zapper HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program). But this skybuster is not about the northern lights. The device will turn on lights never intended to be artificially manipulated.

The Dangers of HAARP
Independent scientists have stated that the result of deliberately altering the ionosphere could be global vandalism, and that such experiments could affect peopleís moods and mental functions; the radiation which the HAARP transmitters bounce off of the ionosphere and into the ground are at the same frequencies as predominate human brain waves.

This month the U.S. military continues its experimentation in the first phase of the HAARP program. Extremely powerful beams of radio- frequency energy will pulse into the upper atmosphere and return to spray the surface of the planet with electromagnetic radiation. The military insists that all of this is safe.

However, the risks of HAARP have been exposed through careful research involving hundreds of source documents. Questions have arisen in the research...Could these manmade disturbances trigger destructive weather? And as the radiation bounces back to Earth, what will it do to our health? To salmon or other species which rely on the naturally occurring geomagnetic fields for direction?

Originally Posted by Brigid

Actually, uniformitarianism makes perfect sense, and is supported by all the evidence. Fail.

Yes, technically hydrothermal vents spew hot water, but it is not like you are implying. They do not spew new water or anything, they merely spew heated water that seeped down through faults, fissures, etc. that made its way to a warmer environment (near magma, etc.) and was heated.

For your edification: http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/j...mg/04ill_2.gif

EDIT: Here's another for you: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explor...stry-hires.jpg

All they do is recycle water in a nice, neat little cycle (same thing happens in hydrothermal vents on land in places like Yellowstone). These things are very well studied and how they work is well known.

Nice neat little diagram kind of like the 'tree of life'. I was hoping the links would describe and explain what discoveries led to the cartoon diagram.
Too much of 'science' is assumption - so question everything!

The biggest problem with uniformitarianism is that there aren't many features about our world that could remain the same for millions of years. Niagrara Falls, Mississippi Delta, growth of deserts and coral reefs, slowing earth, cooling planets, genetic load, ongoing extinctions,etc.

Originally Posted by Archangel

...
The Dangers of HAARP
Independent scientists have stated that the result of deliberately altering the ionosphere could be global vandalism, and that such experiments could affect peopleís moods and mental functions; the radiation which the HAARP transmitters bounce off of the ionosphere and into the ground are at the same frequencies as predominate human brain waves. ...

I agree with the idea of global vandalism. The equivalent of dumping radioactive waste in the ocean to inspire new evolution of algae.
I had not heard of the brain wave frequencies being used by HAARP. Interesting.

Perhaps their education system of dumbing down the ignorant masses isn't working fast enough.