<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Study fingers climate change as cause of recent heat waves ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T01:54:30-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Couple of corrections]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76425]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Lightning Joe,I appreciate your posts and generally agree with them but I have to correct a couple of things you said in this one.First, as far as the CO2 level, it's accurate that at no time during human occupation of the Earth (about 2.5 million years) has CO2 in the atmosphere been this high but it probably was this high sometime between 15 and 20 million years ago and in the very distant past (about 100 million years ago and earlier) it probably was much higher, in the 2000 ppmv range.Second, scientists have said that once we stop increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere it will take over 1000 years for natural processes to reduce the level of CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76425]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:38:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Climate fit for humans]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76381]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi,I said this to another commenter -- you're right that the planet has its own cycles and that those cycles are natural for the planet. What people are usually trying to stop when they talk about mitigating climate change is the transformation of the planet's climate into a climate not suitable for human life and civilization. If the climate does change so much that it is no longer fit for us, then the planet will go on just fine as it has for eons. So, yes, Hansen is specifically choosing years that don't include all the warming cycles the planet has ever endured. But he's excluding them on purpose -- he focuses on the Holocene era, to find out how the climate that has historically sustained human life is changing.Laura]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76381]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[laurashin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:11:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[One thing it missing from your &quot;argument,&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76371]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And that is CO2.  NEVER, in ANY history we can divine, has the atmospheric CO2 burden been what it is now (those who say it has are LYING).  No matter what, It will now take at least a century, for it to come back down to what it was in the early part of the Twentieth Century.CO2 traps heat, plain and simple.  Inject CO2 into an air sample, and suddenly that air sample will not pass heat through.  We are now in the middle of such a change, and it involves our ENTIRE atmosphere.  It's like wrapping up in a &quot;space blanket&quot; on a hot day. I live in Alaska, and I know its getting hotter.  How many more heat waves will it take, till you figure it out too?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76371]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lightning Joe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:50:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[History repeating itself is right.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76350]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Coincidence? I think not. It is history repeating its self until people learn from it.&quot;...And the history now repeating itself is that people will always let their opinions be railroaded by those who would deny the necessity of change.Sooner or later, if you don't die first, you will see that we need to change our energy usage patterns.  But I expect it will be far too late, by the time that happens.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76350]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lightning Joe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:44:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;Questionable, Massaged, Data&quot; == FAUX Noise and the Koch Brothers.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76340]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You can't point out how scientists &quot;conspire&quot; (to do actual, um, science), without holding deniers to the same standards. THAT is what science is, is always using the same measures.  The data must be real, must be relevant, and must fit the models.  Data and modeling results done by real CLIMATE SCIENTISTS fit this model.  So called &quot;science&quot; from the deniers' camp does not.  For one thing, they are hardly ever climate scientists -- but meteorologists, geologists, economists, and of no scientific standing whatsoever.  The CLIMATE SCIENTISTS overwhelmingly agree: the climate is changing, and WE did it. As for &quot;proven and admitted?&quot;  You are listening to FAUX again.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76340]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lightning Joe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:39:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Confirmation bias?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76354]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think you're reading what you want to see into the report.  To quote your quote of the report:Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...Mann has the respect of his peers because his findings have held up well under scrutiny.  He has done pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.  He's been investigated several times by different entities and has never been found to have done anything substantially wrong.What makes you think Hansen is abandoning climate modeling as a valid investigative tool?  It's been years since he has been directly involved in maintaining the GISS Model E code but he's still the head of the GISS and so presumably has major influence on what is done with it. Models of any kind are just tools to measure how well our scientific understanding of a topic fits the real world.  Hansen's original model from the 1980's and others developed since then have held up well compared to real world observations.  Is that another case of you reading what you want into it?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76354]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:58:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Will they?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76353]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Did you not read the official non-report?  Nobody's going to bother because they're too successful at securing funding.  That's what their report really says.And they have been &quot;found out&quot;.  That's why Hansen is wisely changing tactics and is moving away from the &quot;climate modeling&quot; model.Just like it was with the football team, as long as the money keeps coming in, nobody is going to rock the boat.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76353]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:15:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mann's work is still periferal to current core climatology]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76345]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You are presuming that accepted practices include a bias toward global warming to the detriment of the scientific truth.  I think you need to provide some solid evidence for that, not just a bunch of hand waving.  As I have said in other posts these scientists are smart guys.  They have to know that if they are perverting the science dishonestly for political reasons they will be found out sooner or later and their scientific reputations will be destroyed.  If science is a search for objective truth then any deception will be discovered eventually.  So that conspiracy theory just doesn't hold water for me.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76345]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:55:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not accurate.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76335]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you read the emails they coordinated efforts to discredit and discourage anyone from challenging their assertions.If there was no cover up, why would one of them use his scientific credentials to remove over 3,000 internet references to the Medieval Warming Trend from Internet sites as diverse as Wikipedia and university online libraries.The bias media has gone to great lengths to suppress what came out, but it is out there if you really want to find it.This is an old discussion.  I am really getting bored with people claiming NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76335]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:54:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So what.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76341]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[- - I suspect they also chose it because their records for this time period are much more reliable than records that would stretch farther back. - -That does not change the facts.  There is plenty of evidence to support marking distinct natural warming cycles over the past million years.  To study only 30 years and try to speculate what will happen over the next 50 years is a joke.The earths natural process are measured in decades, centuries and millennia.  30 years is hardly a single click of the geologic clock.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76341]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:48:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You should figure out where to file for your grant...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76318]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...because apparently in the academic and climate community, that is all that is required to make your arguments infallibly legitimate:This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.(From the Penn State non-Investigative Report regarding the ClimateGate scandal, http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf)So basically, there's no need to actually question anyone's practices, research or methodologies because the success in proposing research, and obtaining funding alone is proof that they are legit.  (That's hardly the charitable attitude that the warm-mongers have regarding any science to the contrary funded by anyone else)Just a casual browse of &quot;expert&quot; opinions on global warming has temperatures increasing anywhere from 5C to near nothing.But you say it yourself that There are no known similar warming episodes in the past to compare to.  Perhaps that's why they feel the need to make so much of it up.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76318]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:57:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Reply to:  It is &quot;nominal&quot; if you discard the Mann's phony hokum stick.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76308]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Because we ran out of replies I'm starting a new thread to reply to John McGrew.What does Michael Mann have to do with any of this?  His work is merely corroborating evidence not fundamental to climatology.  You may think 1 or 2 degrees C of warming is nominal but when you calculate the total amount of energy required to produce that much temperature rise on Earth it's an immense number.There may be a lot of divergent opinion of where all this ends up.  There are no known similar warming episodes in the past to compare to.  Triggering a new glacial period is not something that serious scientists consider likely.  It could be if the Gulf Stream shuts down that Western Europe could become considerably cooler but the total energy in the system would still be increasing.  Some aspects of the warming we've produced already are not reversible but if we stop adding to the GHG load of the atmosphere we will quit making things worse at an accelerating rate.A robust solar power grid is distributed to cover a wide area.  You may have a front 100 miles long but perhaps it's only 10 or 20 miles wide.And where do I file my paperwork to get on the government grant gravy train?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76308]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:17:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Climate fit for humans]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76316]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi abear4562,In the study, they lay out four reasons for choosing the period 1951-1980. 1. It was a period of stable temperatures, in contrast to the warming of recent decades. 2. It is recent enough for older generations, such as baby boomers, to remember. 3. The climate then was in the Holocene range, meaning that it is the climate that the natural world and civilization are adapted to. 4. They have used this period for scores of other publications, so it is the best period to use for comparisons with prior work.As for your claim that a 30-year window is too short compared to a millennia long cycle, I suspect they also chose it because their records for this time period are much more reliable than records that would stretch farther back.Laura]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76316]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[laurashin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:01:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Climate for humans]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76315]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi foolmeonce,The authors chose the period 1951-1980 because it was during a time of climate suitable for human life. They said this in the study -- I didn't mention it because when most people talk about mitigating climate change, they mean so that the climate stays acceptable to human life. I chose not to state what I thought was obvious. While the planet can withstand any climate -- one fit for dinosaurs or one fit for us -- we're a bit fussier.Laura]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76315]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[laurashin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:52:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Que?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76289]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Did I mention nuclear somewhere?And you have my view on solar a bit twisted from reality.  I have long said solar is not a one size fits all solution for the entire nation.BUT.  I have said that where local conditions permit I am a supporter of affordable solar on homes as part of a distributed grid that might someday move us away from the need for big power plants.Another BUT is that an affordable power storage method must be developed for affordable solar, or affordable wind as appropriate for the local weather, to ever be part of a 24/7 power solution.While solar on every roof top is not practical as previously mentioned,  I do think a significant number of homes should have it if a few southern US states started mandating, where applicable, some form of solar hot water or PV solution as part of new construction building codes.  Even a few hundred thousand modest solar hot water systems would produce a large reduction in power consumption.Such a mandate would be a boon to the solar industry and should drive technology improvements, competition and eventually, hopefully, prices down with the higher volumes of sales.  It would be a great opportunity to encourage local solar production through tax breaks to consumers if they buy Made in the USA.  I say consumers to give companies an incentive to put out a good producut, but more importently to put the money directly in comsumers pockets and let them decide what company gets their business.  Instead of the government picking what companies gets money without a proven product.In addition, common sense net metering laws need to be created / strengthened to provide incentive for people to install home PV while not punishing the grid power providers who have to bridge the overnight gap in solar power until the storage requirement is met.While the issue of renewable power is large in scope and lengthy to implement, the actual path to using more renewable power is not as difficult as many think.It just takes a little thought and a lot of planning.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76289]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:46:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It is &quot;nominal&quot; if you discard the Mann's phony hokum stick.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76288]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If fact, as much of a &quot;consensus&quot; that exists regarding the anthropocentric nature of global warming, absolutely no consensus exists regarding where it is going, or even if it is.  Opinions diverge everywhere from extreme heat to triggering the next ice age.  And just as divergent are the opinions on if it's even stoppable or reversible.As for clouds and the grid: A single cloud wouldn't be, but a cloud front certainly would.  I my neck of the woods, moving fronts extending over 100 miles are standard during A/C season, and would wreak havoc on a grid that was not balanced.  This is why for a &quot;smart grid&quot; as currently envisioned without standby power would have to be empowered to turn off people's A/C; something that would be highly unpopular and something the smart grid advocates go out of their way not to mention publicly.And yes, an intelligent reader would notice our differing styles.  What I want to know is where I file my paperwork to get my check from the Koch brothers.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76288]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:36:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Global Warming Cause of Recent Heatwaves, Drought, Floods, Power Outages]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76266]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The world is in more trouble than we know, we couldn't see it before. We have all the laws to build sustainably, we design in calculators. Here is what we missed in the infrared spectrum with building development close to boiling temperature with solar interaction while we react to the symptoms with massive energy waste and more emissions. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=88]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76266]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Thermoguy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:49:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hansen's contribution to NASA]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76264]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I really appreciate the fact that Dr. Hansen was not a part of the NASA team that landed Curiosity on Mars.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76264]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ruellej@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:50:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Simple Questions]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76263]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Wow, your reply to my post went up almost immediately.  You seem to be a right wing troll who has nothing to do but lurk around this website and attempt to convince readers that there is a great deal of turmoil and controversy among climate scientists over the reality of global warming.I would like for you to produce the names of scientists who support your point of view so that I can read their positions and determine for myself how much credibility they have.  I certainly am not going to give any credence to your second-hand hearsay claims that hordes of mainstream scientists are flocking over to the side of the deniers.  So I again say put up or shut up.  Your screeds against honest scientists who test the environment and report their findings that the planet is, in fact, warming won't budge me even an inch.  Only facts reported by actual climate scientists can do that.I notice that you had nothing at all to say about the defection of Richard Mueller from your side.  I suppose there really is very little you can say about it because it is what it is.Ties to East Anglia?  In the immortal words of Maynard G. Krebs, &quot;Surely you jest!&quot;  I have no ties to anyone in East Anglia.  I am a mortgage refinance signing agent from coastal Georgia, USA.  I am not even sure where East Anglia is, beyond its being located somewhere in England.  Be that as it may, your ad hominem attacks on them show how low you are willing to sink.By the way, while we are talking about allegations of corruption, it would not surprise me to learn that you have ties to the Koch brothers yourself and are actually on their payroll.  Do they pay you a generous stipend to sit around all day trying to sow confusion about global warming on sites like this?  Is that how you can afford to spend so much time lurking around this website all day long?Oh, while we are on the subject of simple questions, do you think Sen. Inhofe's attitude on global warming may have softened since his state recently tied the record for hottest day ever (i.e., 113 degrees on August 3, 2012 and August 11, 1936) and broke the record for hottest 3 consecutive days ever (i.e., 112.33 degrees on 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3-12?  http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=climate-okc-heatwave.Despite living in the deep South, I personally cannot comprehend routinely experiencing temperatures in excess of 110 degrees.  Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if that is, indeed, where we are headed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76263]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[garywainright@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:28:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nothing nominal about it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76250]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Calling the warming that has occurred &quot;nominal&quot; just shows you don't really understand the depth of the problem or that the problem will continue to get worse in the future until we do something about it.  That &quot;nominal&quot; heating means the oceans are absorbing energy at a rate greater than 2 Hiroshima bombs per second.  (1 Hiroshima = 67 terrajoules).A single cloud is not much of an issue in a distributed system as solar power is.  It certainly would change the demand level.  Where do you think the heat we need AC for comes from?It's pretty easy to tell the difference between you and HI.  There is a distinct difference between your posts.  But then maybe you are one person, just bi-polar ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11344-76250]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:58:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

