The Coming Climate Change [Archive] - Page 8 - CNCzone.com-The Ultimate Machinist Community

xyzdonna

03-31-2008, 04:18 AM

Lamps,

Here is something from Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=turn-fluorescent-lights-off-when-you-leave-room

My only problem with compact flourescents is that I would rather my home was not lit with the colour rendition of an autopsy room.

Best wishes,

Martin

Hi Martin,
Having been involved with the sign business and neon for many years gives me some experience in this regard. "Neon" which isn't neon is very similar to compact fluorescents. By this I mean that the tubes aren't pumped with neon gas but with argon with a slight amount of mercury added. The clear glass tubes that burn with an orange/red light are the actual neon tubes. Most of the rest are argon/mercury with some exceptions. It is possible to pump the phosphor coated tubes with neon or other inert gases (krypton, xenon) to obtain other colors. If memory serves, blue pumped with neon gives turquoise for instance. There is a wide variety of phosphor coatings available to give a huge assortment of colors. The argon mercury mix gives a pale blue light if it's in a clear tube. I think most of light emitted is in the ultra violet range. This ultra violet light excites the phosphors and they emit light in the visible spectrum.
The point being that it is possible to manufacture compact fluorescents that don't remind one of a morgue. Why this isn't being done, I have no idea. I could go down to my local neon shop and have them make me some straight tubes about 4 or 8 feet long and use these to light my house. They could order phosphor coated tubes in a shade that would be pleasing. This at a cost of about $2.50 per lineal foot. If the shop is using good vacuum techniques the tubes can last from 50 to 100 thousand hours. They also have no filament to burn out which helps them to be so long lived.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

03-31-2008, 04:28 AM

So the answer is "NOTHING"! They have produced NOTHING but they want MONEY! YOUR money or OUR TAX money and they want government subsidies! THAT is a scam! They have nothing but pie in the sky projections, will produce a smelly hole in the ground that consumes money for no other reason than producing a place to spend more (tax) money. Charliton's like this are a dime a dozen thru history and have always had snake oil, rain or just plain sunshine to sell. They have something in common with those who want to sell the human caused global climate/ original human sin routine. They are criminals a heart!

Hi jhowelb,
You must remember that it has only recently become economically feasible to produce biodiesel. By this I mean the cost of petroleum derived diesel is now around $4 gal. At this price point the synthetic fuels start to make sense without government subsidies. I think the thing the government should do is remove the vagaries of the market place by increasing taxes if market prices should drop. This will give the developers of biodiesel a form of price protection so that as they ramp up production, prices won't fall below their cost of manufacturing.
Take care,
xyzdonna

GORDYKD

03-31-2008, 09:08 AM

Hi jhowelb,
To quote from this press release on yahoo's website:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080310/0372495.html
PetroSun, Inc announced today that its initial commercial algae-to-biofuels farm is scheduled to commence operations on April 1, 2008. The farm is located on the Texas Gulf Coast near Harlingen, Texas.
So it would seem that they are just now getting started with production. So your point would be?
Take care,
xyzdonna

How appropriate, beginning operations on APRIL FOOL'S DAY.

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 09:27 AM

GORDYKD

03-31-2008, 09:37 AM

Just a little reading to make one wonder about the true legitimacy of all that is "Global Warming"

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

Rekd

03-31-2008, 09:41 AM

Hi everybody,
Did ya'll just catch Leslie Sthall's interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes? Really fascinating. He allows that GW is happening, which obviously it is. Any thoughts?
Take care,
xyzdonna

:sigh:

He "allows" that GW is happening? Isn't that special.

Is he "allowing" it to happen on Mars too?

Did he "allow" it to happen several times over that last several hundred thousand years?

Did he "allow" the internet to happen too?

Seriously, Donna, he's a tool. He couldn't cut it as a politician so he invented man made global warming so he could sell carbon credits to unsuspecting fools who are all to willing to jump on each and ever band-wagon that rolls buy to separate the ignorant from their dollar. Very reminiscent of the plight of the Star Bellied Sneech's when Sylvester McMonkey McBean came by with his star adding/removing machines.

"You're a Star-bellied Sneetch,
you suck like a leech.
You want everyone to act like you."

Besides, I thought you were leaving?

MIKE JEFFERS

03-31-2008, 09:41 AM

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 11:27 AM

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

The sad part of that is that 60 to 80 % (my own rough estimate made from 66 years of watching the government thugs!) is tax either open, covert or otherwise included by mandate. (ie: no new refineries for thirty years, no drilling or exploration off shore, Alaska, the Rockies or just anywhere likely to produce. "Economically feasible" means that they have artificially inflated the price of a given product to the point of being able to sell any line of crap to the public for the purpose of shearing the sheeple!

Stated differently, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

fizzissist

03-31-2008, 12:14 PM

“I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view,” he told CBS. “They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”
--Al Gore on 60Minutes

Anybody catch Leslie asking Al the "hard" question....saying that Dick Cheney is skeptical...she would have given him even more credibility by saying Elmer Fudd. I wonder what his response would have been if she'd mentioned Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, or any of the host of people who are actually climate scientists??

Now we know that the 19,000 scientists who've signed the petition questioning the rush to crucify man for the planet's warming all believe the earth is flat.

I loved the part where Algore got credit for the energy remodel of his house. No mention of course that he didn't do it until after he was nailed for his energy usage.

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 01:37 PM

fish1234

03-31-2008, 02:21 PM

Well I may as well state that today MARCH 31 2008 and here in Wisconsin we are getting 6 to 10 inches of snow and highs in the mid 30's! I would like a little warming as I and many others in this part of the country are tired of cold and snow! On another note why do all the car manufactures keep building 300, 400 and more horsepower vehicles? It is all about money! If there was less GREED and keeping up with the jones the world would be a better place!

Rekd

03-31-2008, 03:04 PM

martinw

03-31-2008, 04:41 PM

fizzissist

03-31-2008, 05:13 PM

fish,

The manufacturers are building what we want to buy, and I wouldn't have it any other way! Imagine them building ONLY things THEY thought were what you needed?

I think not!

How often do you think they'd actually be doing, you know... what YOU want? ;)

Rest easy in the knowledge that if you're not sure what you want, an ad agency will TELL you what you want.

Like Algore's agency of choice for his sky-is-falling...whoops, I mean Globull Warming Campaign. We should be expecting to see some very slick ads, with talking amphibians, extinct hominids, and animated polar bears all decrying the impending doom.

How fitting. An agency made famous for farce, selling....farce.

(note: The Martin Agency...they've also sold Coke, MBZ, and.....drum roll......Homeland Security)

Mariss Freimanis

03-31-2008, 06:04 PM

fish1234,

The car you want is the Trabant:

"The much-derided Trabant - which means fellow traveller - was first made in 1957 and they were produced for 30 years with little improvements.

The pollution-producing cars were powered by smoky, two-stroke engines and went from 0-62mph in 21 seconds and had a top speed of 70mph.

Their steel frames had roofs, bonnets, fenders and doors made from plastic that was strengthened by wool or cotton.

It was the East German's People's Car and was incredibly basic, often having no brake lights or indicators."

Mariss

martinw

03-31-2008, 06:53 PM

The point being that it is possible to manufacture compact fluorescents that don't remind one of a morgue. Why this isn't being done, I have no idea.
xyzdonna

Dear Donna,

Unless I am entirely mistaken, there is a move afoot to ban all incandescent lamps in Europe within a few years, and replace them with "compact flourescent" ones. Filament lamps will be banned.

This will include low voltage halogens I think.

The planet-saving alternatives, (morgue lights), contain a small amount of mercury. The EU has just banned mercury. Well, it does not seem to be entirely "joined-up" in its thinking.

There are many millions of low voltage tungsten lamps over here in small lamp fittings. They give off a pleasant light.

There is no "compact flourescent" lamp to put into those many fittings.

Conventional light fittings far out-number low voltage tungstens. Recent studies suggest that most people do not want morgue lights, even if given them for nothing.

If you can come up with a lamp that gives a warm spectral response, and is compact, and has a beam that can be directed, if required, you will be doing mankind a massive favour.

For myself, I think I will stock up with a huge pile of illegal lamps, and sell them at inflated prices on e-bay, before being dragged off to the Climate Change off-shore prison.

Best wishes,

Martin

dynosor

03-31-2008, 07:22 PM

Dear GORDYKD,

Many thanks for that post.

Could you post a link to the article?

Best wishes,

Martin
I believe it is this article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

martinw

03-31-2008, 07:30 PM

I believe it is this article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Dear dynosor,

Thank-you for that.

Best wishes,

Martin

xyzdonna

03-31-2008, 08:44 PM

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 09:40 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Did you catch TV tonight? Al Sharpton has teemed up with your hero, Pat Robertson, to do an ad for Al Gore's global warming initiative. It seems that Al is seeking out unlikely, diametrically opposed proponents to highlight his GW stance. I can't wait to see the commercial. They are saying that we all live on the same planet so we must take care of it. What a novel thought!
Take care,
xyzdonna

You have again leaped headfirst into an incorrect assumption. I view Robertson as an eccentric opportunist only slightly less demented than the other two you mentioned. I cannot take seriously anything uttered by any of them.

But lets see, Gore has a much applauded book (Earth in the Lurch?) virtually indistinguishable from the Una Bombers Manifesto, a phony flick which is being force fed to kids world wide, an Emmy and a bogus Nobel Award and he STILL finds it necessary to spend $30 million on an advertising campaign? Business must be failing badly!

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 09:51 PM

http://bangornews.com/news/t/aroostook.aspx?articleid=161983&zoneid=175

Caribou sets snowfall record
By BDN Staff
Saturday, March 22, 2008 - Bangor Daily News

By Julia Bayly
Special to the NEWS

FORT KENT, Maine — It’s official. The 2007-08 snow season in northern Maine is one for the record books. Just in time for the start of spring.

The old record of 181.1 inches of snow recorded in Caribou, set in 1955, was shattered by noontime Friday when the National Weather Service in Caribou recorded 182.5 inches of snow since the start of the season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/americas/31snow.html?ei=5065&en=36bdab2bb3f6d083&ex=1207540800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Tons of Snow Test a Place Where Cold Is No Stranger
By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA — People here are divided between those longing for a few more inches of snow to set a record and others who think the 14 feet that has already landed, and mostly lingered, is more than enough.

No one needs to ask Luc Guertin his view. His front yard on a suburban street here features his personal monument to eastern Canada’s unusually prolonged, relentless and snowy winter. A snow wall, about 18 ½ feet high, 6 to 10 feet wide and 30 feet long, rises along one edge of the driveway. Standing next to a flagpole at the top, a balaclava-clad mannequin holds a snow shovel aloft in “Rocky”-style triumph. A sign, decorated with fuzzy chickens, offers outdated Easter greetings to the steady stream of sightseers who make their way to Toulouse Crescent.

Mr. Guertin, it should be noted, occasionally slips into an elaborate, homemade robot costume before picking up his extra-long snow shovel.

“Once I got going, I figured, why stop?” Mr. Guertin, a carpenter, said of his snow creation, which was mostly shoveled by hand rather than raised with a snowblower. “This year was such a record year for snow, so who knows, next year I might not be able to do it. A moment like this doesn’t come very often. I’m hoping for a snow record.”

The children wandering by one late March evening to poke and gaze at Ottawa’s newest attraction, as well as the drivers stopping for photographs, said that they, like Mr. Guertin, were hoping for another seven inches of snow. That would break the record from the winter of 1970-71, which meteorologists have called a thousand-year event.

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 07:03 AM

Hi Martin,

Quote Martin: Unless I am entirely mistaken, there is a move afoot to ban all incandescent lamps in Europe within a few years, and replace them with "compact flourescent" ones. Filament lamps will be banned.

Me: Bad idea. There are applications where incandescent would be better. I made the mistake of putting one of those mercury vapor lamps on our back porch. On a cold winter night it takes forever to come on and you can fall down the steps if you're not careful. I've learned to turn it on ahead of time if I'm wearing heels. It does save energy though and the bulbs last forever, we've never had to replace the bulb.

Quote Martin: The planet-saving alternatives, (morgue lights), contain a small amount of mercury. The EU has just banned mercury. Well, it does not seem to be entirely "joined-up" in its thinking.

There are many millions of low voltage tungsten lamps over here in small lamp fittings. They give off a pleasant light.

Me: Mercury is bad for the environment. You don't want it in the fish you eat, that's for sure. Hopefully your government will provide a conscientious method of disposal so that public spirited people can get rid of the things properly. That hasn't happened over here unfortunately. I don't know where to go to get rid of old mercury filled neon tubes for instance.

Quote Martin: If you can come up with a lamp that gives a warm spectral response, and is compact, and has a beam that can be directed, if required, you will be doing mankind a massive favour.

For myself, I think I will stock up with a huge pile of illegal lamps, and sell them at inflated prices on e-bay, before being dragged off to the Climate Change off-shore prison.

Me: Find a glass blower (neon tube bender) in your area. See if you can get him to show you a Technolux color chart or equivalent. You'll find some warm colors in there. If all they have to do is take a straight piece of glass, put electrodes on each end and pump it, the cost should be very reasonable. Several years ago it was about $2/ foot, probably a little more now. If pumped well they will last a long time (50,000 - 100,000 hours).
I found this tidbit:
"High colour temperature tubes (cool whites) (4000K and up) produce more brightness per watt than warmer whites (up to 3500K)." Apparently they are using the morgue light phosphors because of brightness per watt, it makes their efficiency numbers look better. The 4000K refers to the color temperature and I know that K stands for Kelvin but don't exactly know what this means.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 07:35 AM

Hi Rekd,
Quote Rekd:
He "allows" that GW is happening? Isn't that special.

Is he "allowing" it to happen on Mars too?

Did he "allow" it to happen several times over that last several hundred thousand years?

Did he "allow" the internet to happen too?

Me: I'm just playing it for laughs. I've come around to Geof's way of thinking. It's probably happening and man is probably contributing to it in a small way, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Quote Rekd:
Seriously, Donna, he's a tool. He couldn't cut it as a politician so he invented man made global warming so he could sell carbon credits to unsuspecting fools who are all to willing to jump on each and ever band-wagon that rolls buy to separate the ignorant from their dollar. Very reminiscent of the plight of the Star Bellied Sneech's when Sylvester McMonkey McBean came by with his star adding/removing machines.

Me: I can't argue with that. Although I've no idea what "Star Bellied Sneech's" are, or who "Sylvester McMonkey McBean" is.

Quote Rekd:
Besides, I thought you were leaving?

Me: I tried but I just couldn't. jhowelb needed me.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote Rekd:
Besides, I thought you were leaving?

Me: I tried but I just couldn't. jhowelb needed me.
Take care,
xyzdonna

CAN ANYONE DEFINE THE WORD "IS"? THEN NEXT "NEED"!

(Like Batman needs the Joker? Like Superman needs Kryptonite? Like the Roadrunner needs the Coyote? Right, and I NEED a migraine headache and hemorrhoids!)

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 09:06 AM

Hi Martin;
I found this interesting tidbit from a guy's website: http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/joule.htm
It's a good way to use up spent batteries. He claims the circuit will run continuously for a week on a "dead" battery. Might give the non-morgue lighting effect you're looking for. BTW, he's from your neck of the woods, Scotland I think.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 09:41 AM

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. - Einstein.

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 09:51 AM

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. - Einstein.

Got to laugh at the irony of that quote....since Al Gore has essentially concocted the whole AGW scare, and miraculously, he has the cure; Carbon Credits.

That's the secret of a good snake oil salesman..create a disease, and sell the cure.

newdogs

04-01-2008, 10:08 AM

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748]Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. "

Yup, I remember for me it was 1972.

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748]"I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"

Yup, I wouldn't say I was scared but I was a very concerned little guy. And wondered why my dad said "they always come up with something like that to try to make us feel guilty" he wasn't too concerned about the coming ice age or the destruction of the ozone.

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748] "GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster" Actually I have come think it's more a religion for those who beleive it's fact.

More to the point after 34-35years I'd say I think those disasters that crop up like global warming are just something the rest of the world pushes to make us here in the US feel guilty for the way we live. We have all the advantages so many others in the rest of the world crave for. We are a noble nation that always is first to come to the aid of people & places in need of help. But it always seems that the US is to blame for all these catastrophes. Funny how things come around, now after all these years I feel like my dad did back then!
Rob Drummond
Hillsboro, NH

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 10:31 AM

Got to laugh at the irony of that quote....since Al Gore has essentially concocted the whole AGW scare, and miraculously, he has the cure; Carbon Credits.

That's the secret of a good snake oil salesman..create a disease, and sell the cure.

Thank you!
Only I think as a group they (libs) dream up the cure then go searching for the ailment!!

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 11:39 AM

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 06:00 PM

If you're worried about the coming ice age, google Stanford's Stephan Schneider. He was sounding the alarm back then, and is sounding the alarm now about AGW.

This is the ilk that we're dealing with, the scientists who earn their living by alarmism, and in Schneider's case, he even admits it!

This guy goes so far as to say it's ok to exagerate claims to scare people.

That ain't science, it's P.T. Barnum.

Hi fizzissist,
I did as you suggested and googled Stanford's Stephan Schneider. Poor guy, the press has really frazzeled him. He admits to the uncertainties of climate change while attesting to the certainty of being quoted out of context.

Quote: Despite many attempts on my part — in my books, papers, talks, and other op-eds — to outline my opinions and dispel the media-propagated myths, the distortions continue to this day, even in "respectable" publications like the Economist, which ran a partial quote (also taken from the Discover article) without even calling me to see if it was valid. (See the quote from the Economist. The 'brave' editor of this attack does not even sign his polemic, but I am told it was Clive Crook.) The most egregious distortion I am aware of was in a 1996 opinion piece by Julian Simon (see also my rebuttal), a business professor at the University of Maryland, in which he not only used an out-of-context quote from the Discover article to "prove" that I advocate exaggeration in order to get attention, but he also invented a preamble, that I advise people to “stretch the truth,” and he attributed that to me, while (of course) leaving off the last sentence of my actual remark.

Me: Here is the quote from the Discover magazine article:

Stephan Schneider: Here is the published quote from that interview with Discover, from which selected lines have been used for over a decade as "proof" that I exaggerate environmental threats:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html#TheDoubleEthicalBindPitfall

Me: If you read the whole article the guy is really sincere about trying to get the truth out. He just says that the media demands that he be lumped into one corner or the other. He has to couch his quotes so as to cater to the kind of reporting that is being done. The media doesn't like ambiguities.
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 08:33 PM

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 07:23 AM

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

Hi fizzissist,
The news media is really in the entertainment business. They are looking for 30 second sound bites. They don't want a lot of scientific folderol laced with disclaimers. They want incisive, insightful comments that come to conclusions. He is saying that to get your message out there you must comply with these conditions. Format your comments so that they are easily assimilated by the average couch potato. The trick is to do this in such a way as to retain your honesty.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 07:31 AM

Hi everybody;
To quote from his website:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html

Citizens must demand that scientists provide honest, credible assessments that answer the "three questions of environmental literacy": 1) What can happen?; 2) What are the odds of it happening?; and 3) How are such estimates made? Citizens must also achieve a certain level of environmental, political, and scientific literacy themselves so that they feel comfortable distinguishing climate change fact from fiction and making critical value judgments and policy decisions, in essence becoming "citizen scientists". Just as popularization of potential probabilities and consequences will occur with or without input from scientists, policy decisions will be made with or without input from an informed citizenry. I hope that citizens will take responsibility for increasing their scientific, political, and environmental literacy and recognize the importance of the positive effect that an informed public will have on the policy process.

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-02-2008, 08:21 AM

:sigh:

I saw a big sticker on the back of a truck many years ago, *cough*ClintonYears*cough*. Took up the whole tailgate, and rightfully so. It read: "-NameRemoved-: Like a turd that won't flush"

fizzissist

04-02-2008, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=xyzdonna;433812
Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.
[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

jhowelb

04-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/18/ndoil/

North Dakota oil patch is booming
by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio
August 28, 2006

There's an oil boom in western North Dakota. Oil companies large and small are investing millions of dollars in new wells. The North Dakota oil industry has boomed and busted many times in the past 50 years. But some believe new technology and high oil prices will bring long term stability to the North Dakota oil patch.

Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/

Welcome to the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division, home page.

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=157178

You may be wondering why are we experiencing a gasoline shortage when oil production is peaking in North Dakota...

The shortage isn't with oil the bottleneck is in the refining process.

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 04:45 PM

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 04:49 PM

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

Hi fizzissist;
Yes, actually I need to be educated about Kilimanjaro. What's the deal on that?
Thanks,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-02-2008, 04:53 PM

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 09:59 PM

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

Hi jhowelb;
Quote: "bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment"

Me: Perhaps it depends on which bio-fuels you are considering. Ethanol from corn, I would agree. Not to mention what it's doing to our cost of food. Biodiesel from algae, I think not. This process takes CO2 out of the environment to produce the oil for diesel fuel.

Quote: There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 10:17 AM

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Overpopulation and sustainability are your personal and unqualified, unquantified baseless opinions, NOT fact!

Who promoted you to the rank of paragon and director of human fate?

Capricious and contentious superstition and religion are the exact terms to describe the brand if Liberalism that guides your life without the benefit of a recognized God! (Little Church of fallen, clueless, Godless keepers of the Flames of Illumination.)

Rekd

04-03-2008, 10:58 AM

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah!

...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.

Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

dynosor

04-03-2008, 12:13 PM

Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives.

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 12:14 PM

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the

...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.

Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

She, and Liberals in general, are obsessed with themselves and their desire to "save the world, civilization, the motorist, the poor, the minorities" from themselves and certain destruction brought on by dis regard of the Liberal "god-of-the-moment" (environmentalism, climate change, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, welfare, racial set asides and quotas and affirmative action).

They are not to be questioned on the effectiveness, justice or unintended consequences of these thing but rather should be judged by the purity of their intentions.

They will never acknowledge the negative side of the ledger ( all the carbon and money needed to manufacture raw materials) and insist that there is a zero sum gain. This would allow them to tax the economy into prosperity just as Stalin did!

This is the insanity that says that because of high fuel prices we will punish the oil companies with ever higher taxes, restriction on refinery facilities, exploration and recovery operations and expect then that the price of gas will go down.

But at the same time if the price of paint goes up THAT will be passed on to the customer of the sign shop!

THEY are the ones responsible for the outrageous prices but we are supposed to believe that THEY also have the answer by imposing further restrictions!

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill

“You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”
Albert Einstein

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 12:20 PM

Kilimanjaro....a beginner's primer

Kilimanjaro is a volcano. There is evidence that it is not a dead volcano, but a DORMANT volcano....that means there's still magma. That magma is believed to be within 400meters of the upper surface where the glaciers lie.
Magma=heat, heat+glacier=....receeding glacier???

Observed glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro was more rapid in the first half of the 20th century than the second half. In fact, the rate of recession of both slope and shelf glaciers has taken two distinct reductions of decline since 1950. That is contrary to the theory of atmospheric warming as a cause. (apologies to Lonnie Thompson)

What does appear to be the major cause of Kilimanjaro's glacial loss is the reduction in precipitation. Something on the order of 25% of the ice loss is countered by new snow, and most of the ice loss is to sublimation, not temperature related melting.

Why the reduction in snow (or rain, for that matter)? The single most obvious answer is a change is land use, not a slight increase in atmospheric temps. Farmers have cleared huge tracts of land, resulting in less humid upwelling, directly effecting a reduction in precipitation.

Precip on Kilimanjaro is also dependent on Indian Ocean and south Atlantic Ocean cycles...SST anomalies, El Nino, etc.....all things that are subject to normal variability.

Mt. Kenya in 1961 had in November 1961, for example, precipitation on the footslopes of Mt. Kenya that exceeded 275% of normal as a result of onshore flow from a large area of anomalously warm SSTs in the western Indian Ocean. There was also dense cloud cover for the period with greatly reduced evaporation. Gorebull warming proof?
I think not.

1961 was during the period of time when we were getting prepped for the coming ice age...we just hadn't been warned yet by....Stephen Schneider

There isn't a carbon credit in this universe that will restore Kilimanjaro's glaciers.

--previously posted:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

--yes...another edit....couldn't help myself and had to post this link to the U.K. lawsuit that rips up Gore's AIT movie...:)
5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Rekd

04-03-2008, 01:43 PM

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

Agreed. Perhaps some will use it as a reason to /self??

Mariss Freimanis

04-03-2008, 01:53 PM

Hi everybody;

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

XYZ,

Deception also includes what is omitted. I took a quick look and there is a obvious sleigh-of-hand on Schneider's website. The dreaded hockey-stick graphs have a 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD timescale. The temperature graph has a 1,900 AD to 2,100 AD timescale to include the usual hysterical extrapolations 100 years into the future.

What's missing is 900 years from the temperature timescale. Why didn't it also run from 1,000 AD? Perhaps to remove an inconvenient and very large drop in world temperatures that began around 1,200 AD and persists to the present day? Leaving it in would have kicked the props out from under the correlation he is trying to make between greenhouse gases and temperature.

Seems a little deceptive to me.

Mariss

Rekd

04-03-2008, 01:56 PM

Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable.
...
It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives.

I missed this the first time around. Good thing too, cuz I just puked reading it. (I knew eating that cottage cheese so early was a bad idea...)

Seriously, if these nut-cases are so anti-human, why don't they just remove themselves from the gene pool? (nuts)

I posted this on my blog about another subject, but the terms seem to fit nicely here as well...

Since the 1990's, radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have been destroying property in the hopes of stopping mankind's' existence. These freaks who use everything modern technology has to offer in the name of stopping modern technology have no idea how stupid and idiotic they really are, nor do they understand that in order for people to take them seriously, they 1) need to stop destroying other people's property, and 2) stop being hypocrites.

They need to move out of their houses, quit their jobs, remove their clothes, burn all their own personal property, and go live like a monkey in the woods.

Anything less than that and they are automatically regarded as thugs. If they truly cared about the environment, they would instantly denounce modern civilization and live like the savages they are.

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 02:24 PM

Matt,
I guess that is exactly what gets me so mad about the global warming alarmism crowd...the hypocrisy.

I'd sure love to see the personal "carbon footprints" from all of the people associated with Al Gore!!

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 07:49 PM

I missed this the first time around. Good thing too, cuz I just puked reading it. (I knew eating that cottage cheese so early was a bad idea...)

Seriously, if these nut-cases are so anti-human, why don't they just remove themselves from the gene pool? (nuts)

I posted this on my blog about another subject, but the terms seem to fit nicely here as well...

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work. Robert Malthus predicted the problem in the early 1800's. We are rapidly approaching the limits of what this planet can support. After that, consult with Geof on his predictions of what will happen next.

Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 07:58 PM

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work. Robert Malthus predicted the problem in the early 1800's. We are rapidly approaching the limits of what this planet can support. After that, consult with Geof on his predictions of what will happen next.

Take care,
xyzdonna

It must be absolutely miserable to be so completely confused about everything all the time!

Consistency is good if you aren't consistently WRONG!

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 08:30 PM

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Overpopulation and sustainability are your personal and unqualified, unquantified baseless opinions, NOT fact!

Who promoted you to the rank of paragon and director of human fate?

Capricious and contentious superstition and religion are the exact terms to describe the brand if Liberalism that guides your life without the benefit of a recognized God! (Little Church of fallen, clueless, Godless keepers of the Flames of Illumination.)

Hi jhowelb,
Wow, arrogant, ignorant & nutty in monumental proportions! I knew I was good but not that good! If I elicit all that from a conservative, it's quite a compliment actually.
No one promoted me to the rank of paragon director, I simply see things as they are, remember? My brand of liberalism is, as I've said before, teleological, reasoning with the end purpose in mind. From Wikipedia: "Teleology holds there is a purpose inherent and final cause for all that exists." We may not understand or know it, but there is a destiny and purpose for the universe. I'm religious in my own way you see, but I suppose it's on a different paradigm from you. You worship an angry god who demands penance and forgiveness of sins. I suppose the god I consider is beyond that. When I consider the god you worship, he looks a lot like what the people of ancient times would have imagined him to be. Which makes sense, they created him. If there is a god, and there well may be, I think he would be several orders of magnitude beyond what the religions of the world have come up with.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-03-2008, 08:40 PM

1) Quote XYZ: "I'm religious", "If there is a god". Pray tell where is the logic, teleological or otherwise?

2) No comment on message #2160? The one addressing you seeing no deception?

Mariss

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 09:01 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Wow, arrogant, ignorant & nutty in monumental proportions! I knew I was good but not that good! If I elicit all that from a conservative, it's quite a compliment actually.
No one promoted me to the rank of paragon director, I simply see things as they are, remember? My brand of liberalism is, as I've said before, teleological, reasoning with the end purpose in mind. From Wikipedia: "Teleology holds there is a purpose inherent and final cause for all that exists." We may not understand or know it, but there is a destiny and purpose for the universe. I'm religious in my own way you see, but I suppose it's on a different paradigm from you. You worship an angry god who demands penance and forgiveness of sins. I suppose the god I consider is beyond that. When I consider the god you worship, he looks a lot like what the people of ancient times would have imagined him to be. Which makes sense, they created him. If there is a god, and there well may be, I think he would be several orders of magnitude beyond what the religions of the world have come up with.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You don't know which or if I attend church but you presume to know the character and disposition of my God for whom you don't even have enough respect to capitalize His name. You imagine what my God looks like while the scripture tells us that none may look upon His face because we don't have the capacity to understand what we are looking at and then you tell me what you "think", as an amoeba, about the Creator and Architec of the Universe.

Arrogant, ignorant and LOST! (pathetic)

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 09:08 PM

1) Quote XYZ: "I'm religious", "If there is a god". Pray tell where is the logic, teleological or otherwise?

2) No comment on message #2160? The one addressing you seeing no deception?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
jhowelb I can do off the top of my head, you are another matter. You posted a serious question that I've referred to the good Doctor. If he deigns to answer me then I'll get back with you. If not, then I'll have to do some research on my own and come up with a plausible explanation.
The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic. I am religious in the sense of revering the beauty, order and transcendent elegance of the universe. That it could have had a designer, well that's a nice thought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 09:55 PM

Hi Mariss,
jhowelb I can do off the top of my head, you are another matter. You posted a serious question that I've referred to the good Doctor. If he deigns to answer me then I'll get back with you. If not, then I'll have to do some research on my own and come up with a plausible explanation.
The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic. I am religious in the sense of revering the beauty, order and transcendent elegance of the universe. That it could have had a designer, well that's a nice thought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Arrogant and lost. Good thing they pay you what your worth rather than what you think your worth!

I suspect that you are in awe of the beauty of what you perceive to be inside yourself. From this vantage point it's another view entirely!

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 10:04 PM

Mariss,
Is this what you were looking for?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Geof

04-03-2008, 10:19 PM

.....The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic.....xyzdonna

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 10:21 PM

Arrogant and lost. Good thing they pay you what your worth rather than what you think your worth!

I suspect that you are in awe of the beauty of what you perceive to be inside yourself. From this vantage point it's another view entirely!

Now jhowelb,
I didn't mean to be unkind, just mischievous. I enjoy our banter. You bring out some of the best of me. I hope I do the same for you. Now think about it, you wouldn't want the liberal that you love to hate to be nice would you? That would be insufferable! A liberal must be a vixen, a vamp, someone who sees through the incongruous illogic of the conservative mindset!
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 11:08 PM

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
MIRACLE, n.
An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

HEAVEN, n.
A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk of their personal affairs, and the good listen with attention while you expound your own.

CNC_Programmer

04-04-2008, 07:39 AM

A short read! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html)

CNC_Programmer

04-04-2008, 07:44 AM

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

From Merriam-Webster:

Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

xyzdonna: Although I don't share many of your views, I am also agnostic! I think #1 above says it pretty well!

Rekd

04-04-2008, 08:43 AM

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work.

Holy Captain Obvious, donna!!!

Nobody needs to explain to me that there are a lot of people in the world. It was predicted that we'd have eaten ourselves out of a planet by more than a quarter of a century ago.

Sorry, I just don't buy the hype. We're smart enough to deal with the problem without the need for fear mongering by way of junk science, and flat out lies.

The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

Mariss Freimanis

04-04-2008, 08:50 AM

fizzissist,

Thanks for the URL; that's what I was looking for. The red graph (most recent study) looks particularly bad for Schneider when graphed over a 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD timescale to match his hockey-stick graphs. Later today I'll scale the red graph and superimpose it over one of his graphs so we all can see the correlation.

Mariss

fizzissist

04-04-2008, 09:40 AM

Leon,
Never believe what you read at Fox. Nothing they say could ever possibly be true. They're shills of the right-wing conspiracy. At least that's what I keep hearing from my liberal friends.

So, if Fox repeats what Hadley says, it isn't true. It is true though if you hear it from James Hansen.

I love the mention of how you can't look at a single year, and at the same time they shout about how '98 was the warmest year (though that claim is subject to a heated debate by actual scientists). Schneider said too you have to look at long term trends....

Anthony Watts ( wattsupwiththat) and ClimateAudit have some great discourse on that whole issue.

But notice, if you will, that there's a curious shift in the tone of the alarmists? As if they're getting ready to spin the whole campaign around just in case things do get cooler....CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MODELS PREDICT???

...(place yuk yuk here).....

Mariss,
Go to Real Climate, and read what Gavin and the gang are saying about the ARGO bouys and claiming that the data is in need of correction....because they're not showing the desired warming....(another yuk yuk).....

jhowelb

04-04-2008, 09:47 AM

Now jhowelb,
I didn't mean to be unkind, just mischievous. I enjoy our banter. You bring out some of the best of me. I hope I do the same for you. Now think about it, you wouldn't want the liberal that you love to hate to be nice would you? That would be insufferable! A liberal must be a vixen, a vamp, someone who sees through the incongruous illogic of the conservative mindset!
Take care,
xyzdonna

Good Lord! You give me a huge migraine (dislocated further South) and prove one thing for positive. Liberals routinely engage in "the willing suspension of disbelief" of any thing incredible and even of the obvious!

Rekd said it very well,

<snip>

The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

First, create a problem and then create more and bigger government to tax the people into oblivion so you can "deal" with the "problem".

Let me emphasize, Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

xyzdonna

04-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

Hi Geof,
Sorry I didn't get back with you sooner, computer problems. We've been uninstalling stuff to get back to a stable platform. I'm not expecting any miracles, I'll just have to wait and see what happens when I croak. If I did screw up and jhowelb is correct then so be it. Somehow I don't think so but who knows. At least I'll be with all my friends.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-04-2008, 11:45 AM

OK, graphing is fun. I took Schneider's hockey-stick CO2, NO2 and CH4 graphs scaled from 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD, combined them and added the temperature anomaly graph provided by fizzissist scaled to the same timespan. I also included best linear fit lines for temperature and the dreaded hockey-stick graphs. They are the fat blue, red and black lines.

My interpretation:

1) Global cooling ended at about 1700 AD (end of fat blue line).
2) Global warming began at 1700 AD (beginning of fat red line).
3) CO2, NO2 and CH4 began increasing in 1900 AD.
4) Global temperatures have not yet recovered to the 1000 AD 'normal'.

Questions:

1) If global warming is due to man made greenhouse gases, why did global warming begin 200 years before the increase of these gases?

2) How do greenhouse gases account for global cooling from 1000 AD to 1700 AD? The greenhouse gas concentrations remained constant over this span.

3) How can anyone assert there is a non-zero correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases? I cannot see from the graphs how the latter affects the former.

Mariss

fizzissist

04-04-2008, 02:13 PM

My interpretation:

1) Global cooling ended at about 1700 AD (end of fat blue line).
2) Global warming began at 1700 AD (beginning of fat red line).
3) CO2, NO2 and CH4 began increasing in 1900 AD.
4) Global temperatures have not yet recovered to the 1000 AD 'normal'.

Questions:

1) If global warming is due to man made greenhouse gases, why did global warming begin 200 years before the increase of these gases?

2) How do greenhouse gases account for global cooling from 1000 AD to 1700 AD? The greenhouse gas concentrations remained constant over this span.

3) How can anyone assert there is a non-zero correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases? I cannot see from the graphs how the latter affects the former.

Mariss

The argument you'll get from the AGW crowd is that:
1. There was natural warming occuring, well within natural variability.

2. Greenhouse gasses were being taken back into solution by the oceans at a rate which held them steady as recorded in the proxies. Additionally, the oceans and other CO2/greenhouse gas sinks weren't saturated as they are today.

3. Timescales are confusing to the casual observer. Warming=increased CO2=warming. The ice core data, presumably the best gas proxy, has an inherent lag due to various factors so there might not appear on the surface to be a correlation. The 800 (and as little as 200) to 2800 year lag of CO2 to temperature is thoroughly discounted by Gavin Schmidt, Jeff Severinghaus, and others at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw

Man's contribution has increased CO2 levels beyond what the system would normally be able to keep in balance, resulting in what is impending runaway warming.

There. Simple. You should now be convinced that man has caused global warming. :)

....btw, ice skating on the Thames is an indication of a healthy planet. Just what you need, right?

Rekd

04-04-2008, 02:27 PM

CO2
Oh.

You mean plant food?

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 10:17 AM

When Liberals offer an environmentally friendly alternative, be very afraid indeed!

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 11:01 AM

And now the ugly truth begins to peak it's head out and look around at all the "suckers"!

World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"

By Ed Cropley

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.

"The World Bank's foray into climate change has gone down like a lead balloon," Friends of the Earth campaigner Tom Picken said at the end of a major climate change conference in the Thai capital.

"Many countries and civil society have expressed outrage at the World Bank's attempted hijacking of real efforts to fund climate change efforts," he said.

Before they agree to any sort of restrictions on emissions of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming, poor countries want firm commitments of billions of dollars in aid from their rich counterparts.

Now, let me ask, just WHERE do you think all this money is going to come from? HINT: it will no longer be in YOUR budget!!

pdf hold entire article.

fizzissist

04-05-2008, 03:23 PM

Poor nations at climate conference demand more money to cope with global warming
2008-04-01 09:52:58 -

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - "Poor countries at U.N. climate change talks demanded Tuesday that wealthy nations provide them with billions of dollars a year to cope with global warming and shift away from polluting, carbon-intensive industries....."

http://www.pr-inside.com/print512779.htm

Who is this "Group of 77"??? You're gonna love this...notice that China and India are members...and they're demanding free money from YOU!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77

Anyone catch the evening news story the other night talking about what countries own how much of our national debt? Wasn't China in for something like $350Billion??

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

File this story under "Climate Change Blackmail,,,,and Dumb Enough to Pay it."

Mariss Freimanis

04-05-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by xyzdonna View Post

"Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable.
...
It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives."

XY,

Take a deep breath, relax and look at the attached thumbnail. Note that most of the earth reads '0 people per sq. km'. Even around Chattanooga.

Mariss

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 06:35 PM

Would be interesting to see similar maps graphing, for example, distribution of trees or possibly just rain forests. Bet it would be instructive!!

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 08:51 PM

So it seems at just a glance, there are a whole lot more trees than there are people!!

Temperate and Boreal Forest Types

1 Evergreen needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf and evergreen.
2 Deciduous needleleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf and deciduous.
3 Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is composed of a more or less even mixture of needleleaf and broadleaf crowns (between 50:50% and 25:75%).
4 Broadleaf evergreen forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, the canopy being > 75% evergreen and broadleaf.
5 Deciduous broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, in which > 75% of the canopy is deciduous and broadleaves predominate (> 75% of canopy cover).
6 Freshwater swamp forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, composed of trees with any mixture of leaf type and seasonality, but in which the predominant environmental characteristic is a waterlogged soil.
7 Sclerophyllous dry forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is mainly composed of sclerophyllous broadleaves and is > 75% evergreen.
8 Disturbed natural forest
Any forest type above that has in its interior significant areas of disturbance by people, including clearing, felling for wood extraction, anthropogenic fires, road construction, etc.
9 Sparse trees and parkland
Natural forests in which the tree canopy cover is between 10-30%, such as in the steppe regions of the world. Trees of any type (e.g., needleleaf, broadleaf, palms).
10 Exotic species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species not naturally occurring in that country.
11 Native species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species that occur naturally in that country.
Unspecified forest plantation
Forest plantations showing extent only with no further information about their type, This data currently only refers to the Ukraine.
Unclassified forest data
Forest data showing forest extent only with containing no further information about their type.
KEY Tropical Forest Types

12 Lowland evergreen broadleaf rain forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude that display little or no seasonality, the canopy being >75% evergreen broadleaf.
13 Lower montane forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, between 1200-1800m altitude, with any seasonality regime and leaf type mixture.
14 Upper montane forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, above 1800m altitude, with any seasonality regime and leaf type mixture.
15 Freshwater swamp forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, composed of trees with any mixture of leaf type and seasonality, but in which the predominant environmental characteristic is a waterlogged soil.
16 Semi-evergreen moist broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude in which between 50-75% of the canopy is evergreen, > 75% are broadleaves, and the trees display seasonality of flowering and fruiting.
17 Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is composed of a more or less even mixture of needleleaf and broadleaf crowns (between 50:50% and 25:75%).
18 Needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf.
19 Mangroves
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, composed of species of mangrove tree, generally along coasts in or near brackish or salt water.
20 Disturbed natural forest
Any forest type above that has in its interior significant areas of disturbance by people, including clearing, felling for wood extraction, anthropogenic fires, road construction, etc.
21 Deciduous/semi-deciduous broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude in which between 50-100% of the canopy is deciduous and broadleaves predominate (> 75% of canopy cover).
22 Sclerophyllous dry forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is mainly composed of sclerophyllous broadleaves and is > 75% evergreen.
23 Thorn forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is mainly composed of deciduous trees with thorns and succulent phanerophytes with thorns may be frequent.
24 Sparse trees and parkland
Natural forests in which the tree canopy cover is between 10-30%, such as in the savannah regions of the world. Trees of any type (e.g., needleleaf, broadleaf, palms).
25 Exotic species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species not naturally occurring in that country.
26 Native species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species that occur naturally in that country.

xyzdonna

04-06-2008, 08:10 PM

Hi Rekd,
Quote:Nobody needs to explain to me that there are a lot of people in the world. It was predicted that we'd have eaten ourselves out of a planet by more than a quarter of a century ago.

Sorry, I just don't buy the hype. We're smart enough to deal with the problem without the need for fear mongering by way of junk science, and flat out lies.
Me: I hate junk science as much as you do. But how do you deal with the very real problem of overpopulation. It will max out the resources of our planent; oil, water, food, minerals; the list is long.

Quote: The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

Me: I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

Quote: You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

Me: No, I don't think we need a world government, we have the United Nations to resolve these international problems.

Yes, finally something we can agree on. We do have too much government!
Take care,
xyzdonna
PS: I hope ya'll missed me, my internet was down all weekend.

jhowelb

04-06-2008, 08:31 PM

#1
I hate junk science as much as you do. But how do you deal with the very real problem of overpopulation. It will max out the resources of our planent; oil, water, food, minerals; the list is long.

Except for the "inconvenient truth" illustrated in the two graphics provided by Mariss and my self. No evidence that our "resources" are strained exists and my offer for nomination for the "Darwin Award" still stands for anyone so concerned with over population as to take a near by exit!

#2
I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

We have already seen your ability to be selective blind to any thing which you already have an opinion, like election and narcotics laws. Most Liberals can rationalize any thing at all and this statement PROVES it!

#3
No, I don't think we need a world government, we have the United Nations to resolve these international problems.

Yes, their record is at least as good as that of the Democrat Party. The stench of corruption would drive a dog off a gut wagon!

#4
Yes, finally something we can agree on. We do have too much government!

Insincerity is the greatest insult one can heap on a man of intelligence and integrity.

You owe Rekd a huge apology!

(Do you ever pay any attention to your spell checker?)

handlewanker

04-06-2008, 09:32 PM

There's a damm good reason that some areas are sparsely populated, there's nothing going on there, no work, no resources, no transport system, no shops, and nobody in their right minds.

By the time you lot populate these areas it will be standing room only, that is no room for food crops, unless you really believe that there will be "life on Mars".

Incidently, about the previous quote about the moon landings being a staged medicine show, NOBODY has yet explained how some ordinary people, not Superman & Co, were able to withstand the radiation that exists beyond about 250 miles or so when you leave the Earths influence.

Explain that one away.
Ian.

fizzissist

04-06-2008, 10:04 PM

Me: I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

Lying to a federal grand jury under oath is none of my business???? Just to brush you up on some minor points....

The whole affair was the !@*%! PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA being charged with sexual harassment in the workplace. As a woman I'd think you'd be even more sensitive to such an issue. If your boss had sexually harassed you in his office, and under oath asked if he'd ever had sex with someone else in the office....it's none of your business?? My bet is you'd be singin' a different tune.

The subject of his lie is irrelevant, but both the question and the answer were.

What absolutely astounds me is women not relating to the fact that if the president can get away with it, then ANYONE should be able to. .... But I must be misguided? It's ok for a democrat, but not ok for a republican.

Never mind. He lied under oath. An attorney himself, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury. He lied to you, he lied to me, he lied to the court, he lied to the country...and he lied to his wife.

We're seeing now that he's successfully passed that baton to the woman that would be our next president.

NOw...back to Gorebull warming.

howiesatwork

04-07-2008, 04:34 AM

jhowelb

04-07-2008, 08:05 AM

There are still people convinced it's gonna be the end of the world when this natural warming cycle peaks...
Who is it that decides what is the "Normal" mean temperature of this planet?
Where is that LMAO smiley when you need it, huh? :confused:;)

Here is a hint: not anyone who resides on the face of the planet past present or future! Humans do not have the capacity to change the "thermostat". Man's accomplishments are temporal and finite.

BTW, there have always been nut cases walking about with "the world ends tomorrow" signs. What makes these loonytoons any different?

LMAOAY!!!

jhowelb

04-07-2008, 12:54 PM

Oh, yea! And even MORE evidence of Gorebull Warming!

StarTribune.com
Storm dumps more than 2 feet of snow in northern Minnesota

By Associated Press

April 7, 2008

Residents of the Iron Range and other parts of northern Minnesota are digging out from under at least 2 feet of fresh snow.

The grand prize for the most snowfall goes to Virginia, Minn., where 32 inches piled up between Friday night and this morning. More than a foot fell in the northern Minnesota community of about 9,000 people since Sunday evening, the National Weather Service said.

Not far behind, 29 inches fell in northern portions of Itasca County, 27 inches in Cass Lake, 26 in Babbit, and 25 in Chisholm.

A spring snowstorm Sunday and continuing today caused slippery roads and travelers advisories and prompted the closing of Interstate Hwy. 94 westbound out of Alexandria.

And this morning, more than a dozen school districts in northern Minnesota have delayed or canceled classes, KARE-TV in the Twin Cities is reporting.

A winter storm warning remained in effect until 7 a.m. today in northeast Minnesota. The warning indicates that significant amounts of heavy snow, freezing rain and sleet are expected. The snow will make travel hazardous or impossible, the National Weather Service said.

The snow in northern Minnesota is expected to end by late this morning, but 1 to 2 additional inches of snow will fall before then. The storm is likely to move into western Wisconsin later this morning.

Another storm system may bring more snow to the northern part of the state by the end of the week, the weather service said.

Other heavy snowfalls were reported in Babbitt with 22 inches, Tower, 19, Grand Rapids 25, Wirt, 22 , and Cohasset 23.5. Lake Bemidji reported 13 inches, Wilton, 12.5, Zerkel, 18, and New York Mills, 13 inches.

Snow was coming down at the rate of 1 to 2 inches per hour on Sunday afternoon.

A St. Louis County sheriff's deputy says "quite a few" vehicles were in the ditch all the way toward Hibbing Sunday afternoon, but no serious injuries were reported.

Heavy snow also fell in the Morris, Alexandria and Staples area of west-central Minnesota. Grand Forks reported 6 inches of snow

I-94 westbound out of Alexandria was closed early today. About 6 inches of snow fell in that area.

Today in the Twin Cities will bring a 40 percent chance of light snow between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. The skies will be mostly cloudy and temperatures will hit a high of around 39 degrees. Tonight, temperatures should drop to about 28 degrees.

On Tuesday look for rain after 1 p.m. and temperatures should rise to about 44 degrees with winds of 6 to 9 miles per hour.

Staff Writers John McIntyre and Tim Harlow contributed.

Information from: Mesabi Daily News, http://www.virginiamn.com