First, here's the offending article:

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5772

Worrisome Trend Lines for Al Gore
August 18th, 2006

Global warming enthusiasts love to jump to conclusions from sequences of numbers, regardless of their provenance. In the same spirit of reckless conclusion-jumping, why not enjoy ourselves?

First, let’s look at the Farmer’s Almanac for July 15 of this year. Sunrise was at 5:27 am, sunset at 9:03 pm, so the duration of daylight was 933 minutes. What about the next day, July 16? Sunrise was at 5:28 am, sunset at 9:02 pm, so the duration of daylight was about 931 minutes.

Looks like we were losing about 2 minutes of daylight per day in July. This could be serious.

What if we look at August 15 of this year, a month later? Sunrise was at6:05 am, sunset at 8:22 pm, so length of daylight was 854 minutes. What about today, August 16? Sunrise was at 6:06 am, sunset at 8:20 pm, so length of daylight was 851 minutes. Looks like we are NOW losing about 3 minutes of daylight a day. It is getting worse!

When you see a trend where the rate of the trend itself is increasing that way, we say the trend is accelerating. In this case it looks like the loss of daylight time has accelerated from about 2 minutes per day to about 3 minutes per day, and done so in about a month. This gives a rate of acceleration of 1 minute per day per month.

So how many months before we have a day that is zero minutes long?! Well the formula for computing the amount of total change given by an accelerating trend is:

Total change© = acceleration (a) / 2, times the length of time (t), squared or: c=a/ 2 X t squared.

We want to solve for t, the time over which this trend will accumulate so that we go from July’s 933 minutes of sunlight to down to 0. So we’ll say c = 933, and reorganize the equation to solve for t: c=1/2 at2 becomes t = square root of (2 X 933/1), or 43 months from June, 2006.

So, by about December, 2009, we’ve got Global Warming pretty well licked, assuming it sort of depends on sunlight!

Somebody better call Al Gore!

Now for some fun with letters: everyone knows that hurricanes and tropical storms get tagged with names that progress through the alphabet each season.

Well, in Just 9 days, we will come to the one year anniversary of the emergence of hurricane “Katrina” from the mere tropical storm Katrina. That’s Katrina with a “K”, the 11th letter of the alphabet, thus the 11th hurricane of 2005.

So has this year’s K-storm, named “Kirk” shown up for the party yet? No, and neither have Joyce, Isaac, Helene, Gordon, Florence, Ernesto, or Debby. Do you suppose it was something we said?

Tropical storms Alberto, Beryl, and Chris did briefly show up, but they drank of the intoxicatingly warm tropical waters in moderation, and went home early, and soberly, without becoming hurricanes and doing the knocking-over-the-punchbowl things that hurricanes tend to do.

Bottom line: the number of named storms so far this year, three. Last year at roughly this time, 11.

In 2005 we had 15 hurricanes, and 7 of those were major. This year the latest (revised down twice now) prediction is: 7 hurricanes, 3 of those major. Looks like we are losing 50% of our hurricanes per year! If we started out with 15 in 2005, we will have our last hurricane ever during the season which ends in, …wait for it – December, 2009! Holy cow!!

Paging Al Gore! Al Gore, call your office immediately … and get me re-write!

So are either of our fun trends for real? Well, most of us know that the days always get shorter after the spring solstice on June 21 or so, until the winter solstice on about December 21, and then they will start getting longer again, just like every year.

I just picked the right dates to get the trend I wanted to show, and then extrapolated that trend way beyond where it was truly appropriate to do so.

Which brings us to our fun with hurricane letters. Is it real? Well, the situation I described this year is exactly what is happening, and unless 7 hurricanes are spawned in the next 9 days, we are not going to be anywhere near the “K’s” by the end of August like we were in 2005.

Will 2006 be a very light hurricane year? Can’t tell for sure yet, since much of the “party action” usually happens after August, but it is looking that way, and to date it certainly has been. But will the trend keep going over the next years – highly unlikely. Again, you can’t just take a cherry-picked change in some phenomenon and project it way out into the future like that.

Now I seem to recall a movie Al Gore made – I forget what was it called – was it “An Incompetent Sooth!”? Anyway, it sure tried hard to say that Global Warming caused Katrina, and the other big storms last year, and that we were going to be having a lot more of them from now on.

Most responsible scientists would say that just as this year’s hurricane activity doesn’t prove Global Warming is a fiction, last year’s didn’t prove that it is a fact. But none of those scientists got parts in that Al Gore movie, or got pubished on the front page of any big newspapers, or interviewed on TV networks news, either. That’s no doubt why most of you think that Katrina “proved” Global Warming was real – because you were meant to.

Did you save Al Gore’s phone number from before?! Since he likes to pretend he knows all about climate trends, maybe he knows where all the hurricanes are? Maybe we should all call him up and ask him… hey Al, with this terrible increase in hurricane activity you predict – where’s “Waldo”?!

. . . and here's my response:

To the editor:

Your article indicates that you have a shaky grasp on the fundamentals of global warming. It also appears that you have an agenda and therefore have a need to bend what proponents of global warming are saying. No one--not even your hated Al Gore--claims that one hurricane or one hurricane season proves that global warming is a reality. The point is that global warming will be producing stronger and more frequent hurricanes, but, if you can bend your mind around this--not necessarily in a linear fashion.

Many factors go into making or breaking a hurricane. This year, conditions have thus far not been favorable in the Atlantic basin for tropical-storm development. But have you noticed what's been going on on the other side of Central America, in the Pacific? There have been numerous hurricanes there, storms that head westward. They've had very frequent and strong typhoons in Japan, China, etc. And just because the Atlantic basin has been relatively quiet so far this year means nothing. Conditions such as wind sheer and blocking highs and lows have kept storms from being able to develop in the Caribbean. That's no statement on global warming. What is a statement on global warming is that the water temperatures are very high in the Atlantic basin, and if and when a storm is able to take hold (and not be destroyed by wind sheer, etc.), it will have plenty of very warm water to feed off, thereby producing a major hurricane.

To sum up: 2006 may not end up being a very active season because other factors having nothing to do with global warming are keeping the storms from being able to form in the Atlantic basin. That's not the case in the Pacific. And, the fact that other conditions are keeping storms from forming in the Atlantic basin says nothing at all about global warming.

It would be helpful if conservatives would put aside their agenda long enough to actually try to understand what people like Mr. Gore and the thousands of scientists who are onboard with climate change are saying. No single event or weather pattern proves or disproves global warming, and all climate-change scientists, and Mr. Gore himself, acknowledge that. But just because we get a welcomed break in 2006 doesn't mean that conditions won't be more favorable in coming years, and were I a betting person, I'd put money on the fact that we'll be seeing plenty of strong hurricanes in the not-too-distant future. Will that prove that global warming is a reality? No. But the evidence will continue to mount--stronger and more frequent hurricanes, rapid glacial melting, harsher and more frequent heat waves, more severe droughts, etc. Maybe that won't convince you, either.

I've tried to figure out why, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, conservatives are so resistant to this whole idea. Is it because they don't want to have to change their energy-consuming ways? Is it because they're afraid we'll fall into economic ruin as a result? I suspect some of that is at play, although it's worth pointing out that the economy will be stimulated by the demand for more energy-efficient products. But I really believe that the main reason conservatives are resisting the whole notion is that they can't stand the idea that a liberal might be right, let alone AL GORE. There is no way a conservative could support a cause that's been championed by liberals, and especially not one that's been championed by Gore.

But there's another question I have regarding conservative resistance to the notion of global warming: What if the climate-change scientists are wrong? What harm will have been done? We will have stimulated the economy by spawning R & D into energy-efficient products. We will have taken a big step toward weaning ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. We will have cleaned up the air we breathe and the water we drink. We will have lessened the load on our landfills. Why are these bad things to have accomplished, even if it turns out that global warming isn't a reality?

And then there's the next question: What if the global-warming scientists are right?

Sincerely,

Karen Wunderman

Know what I'd like to ask the anti-global warming crusaders: how many scientific organizations say global warming is not caused by humans? I can't think of any, but I know there are plenty that believe we are.

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Godard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA
National Academy of Sciences
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
EPA
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Geophysical Union
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
Canadian Meteorological Society

Saying there's a debate over global warming is like saying there's a debate over whether or not the Earth is round. The dissenters are just a few nuts trying to make names for themselves, just like the Flat Earth Society.

Excellent letter earthmother :good: , thanks for posting.

Thanks, Uncle Joe. I got the following drivel back from them in response to my letter:

Well, aside from the fact that the title of the article was clearly in the subject line of my e-mail, it was quite easy to see what I was referring to in my letter, and they could easily have given me a "meaningful response" if they'd wanted to. Obviously, this was just a way to wiggle out of giving me a meaningful response, because they can't. They know that all they're doing is trashing Gore, and there's really nothing they can say to that.

Anyway, I felt I needed to respond to their trash. Not that it'll do any good, but so be it.

Your letter of response, EM was excellent just as UJ posted.

Whoever the hell Thomas Lifson is, he was rather rude. Very insulting. :bad:

Great letter, EM.

He says you haven't bothered to see what they have written yet you are responding to their article!! How could you respond if you hadn't read it? Lack of intellectual seriousness?? The article in question lacked any intellectual seriousness whatsoever. That Lifson guy must be an idiot.

Good morning,
your calculation is "almost" right. In fact, previous civilzations like egyptians mayans calculated the "d-day" which will be december 2012. I suggest you a book written by Maurice Cotterell and Adrian Gilbert, with explications of their theories based on observation of sun cycles and the pyramids (mayans and egyptians).
D-day is close... we do not realize that money is not important compared to environment. an indian prophecy says "that after all trees will be cut, all waters poisoned and fishes caught we will realize that money cannot be eaten" (or something like that anyway that is the meaning). we should try to convince CEO of oil industries but this is too hard. I suggest convincing CEO of insurance companies, because they spend lot of money every year for natural damages, instead of investing it for prevention and "clean" energy.
best regards
Alan

EM, my congratulations on a great response to that offending article :clap:

And to imagine this outfit calls itself the American Thinker :?: :bad:

Excellent response, Earthmother.


And of course their article is nothing but some high school kid having fun, pretending to be somehow teaching science. National Lampoon at its not-so-best.

Your extremely well-written response was like pearls before swine. Their response was probably a cut-and-paste that they sent to all the critical letters!

The effort you put into it, though, may yet prove valuable. The sniping attacks will continue, and your response may be useful more than once!

Thanks for posting it.

I believe it goes without saying that any topic begging debate will always have opposing sides offering "facts" to prove their position and thereby disprove the opposing side's position.I agree entirely with the notion that if we can adopt measures and implement programs to reduce energy consumption and decrease waste byproducts,we can only be better stewards of the planet on which we have been so fortunate to spend our cognizant time on.Surely no person in their right mind,regardless of political affiliation,could argue against this.Debate is healthy but loses its objective when too many experts enter the fray.If the problem with agreement over environmental issues in our country revolve around political expediency,surely the two most entrenched parties can call upon a single or a few experts in this field whom they are willing to commit to supporting and have them submit their facts in a open forum for all interested parties to review.While I support all efforts to improve the health of our planet and its citizens,I believe no real progress can be made until the personal costs of purchasing more energy efficient products and lower emissions vehicles are made feasible to the largest segment of the world's population.If a person can afford to purchase whatever product and the choice is between a higher efficient one costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars more than a lesser expensive model which might not be as efficient,I believe the choice will be made based on lower cost even though the argument can be made that the difference in price will be recovered through energy cost savings over the life of the product.Seldom does the "environmental factor"enter the decision making process for most average Americans who are in the lower socioeconomic status of society.While it is all well and good for wealthier folks to preach the virtues of these products,until the cost is affordable the average person I can only envision a one step forward/two step back gain in reaching any sustainable advance in this most important area.
Regards,
William Pollock

earthmother: excellent response. This idiot uses a farmers almanac and a physics formula thats on my computer and any numbers can be punched in and you get different results and it was not intended for the reasons he gave. This is one complete fool.

You did good EM. :good:

billy3p: Since you posted this the minute you joined I assume you joined just to post your response.

You said "any topic begging debate will always have opposing sides offering "facts" to prove their position and thereby disprove the opposing side's position".

The other side have offered no facts to defend their position. This is not a debate but an attempt by some fool to discredit Gore.

You also said "If the problem with agreement over environmental issues in our country revolve around political expediency, surely the two most entrenched parties can call upon a single or a few experts in this field whom they are willing to commit to supporting and have them submit their facts in a open forum for all interested parties to review"

Its only political because this Administration refuses to accept the findings of qualified scientist in the field. Call upon a single or a few experts? The experts have spoken already and agree Global warming is a major problem made worse by the activities of man. You claim its only for the well off but its mostly the well off that offer fools like the author of this article to support their claims that there isn't a problem. They can't find an expert and to change would cut into their profits. And by the way, most here, those who do truly care about the environment are the average person you referred to. You can save in affordable ways. Try looking and doing a little research on the matter.

I think the argument is a legitimate one, to a point. Many of the more energy-efficient products cost more. We went to buy a hybrid vehicle a few years ago, and the cost was $3,000-$5,000 more than the same vehicle in a conventional model. We took the non-hybrid. The same is true on a smaller level with things like washing machines. A front-loader is more energy-efficient. It costs more than a similar top-loader. And even with those energy-efficient lightbulbs, they cost more than the regular ones.

However, we're seeing those higher prices come down, and in time, they will cost the same as the less energy-efficient models of things. The cost of the lightbulbs has come way down. Hybrids don't cost quite as much as they once did.

But there are still ways to save without purchasing expensive energy-efficient versions of things. Turn your heat down a degree or two. Turn your AC up a degree or two, or don't use it when you don't have to. Walk or ride your bike when you can. Turn off lights you're not using in your home or apartment. Recycle. There are many things we all can and should be doing, and they don't have to cost money.

Yes it is to a point. The Hybrids do cost more but most use electricity in combination with Gas. There are farmers that have been using Hydrogen separated from water to run trucks, cars, tractors and generators for electricity for 20 years that I know of. A 12 volt battery and a pulsed charge will separate the water into Hydrogen and oxygen. Edmonds Scientifics even sells a toy rocket fueled by Hydrogen that is separated from water. All waste products produce methane gas which is burnable and every restaurant uses oil for frying that is burnable. Answers could be found as long as someone makes enough money on it. Look at Brazil. They produce fuel from sugar cane. Willie Nelson powers his tour bus on bio-diesel he makes by using cooking oil and is now building a large plant at a place here called Carls Corner.

Our biggest problem is big business. And who could not understand the lure of 45.5 plus billion a 1/4 in profits.

Another fact this fool left out of the article is that he is using a formula that excludes any added or continuing force such as the Sun continuing to shine. This formula is for the decline of an object after the initial and limited force is applied without any other force added. If anything will be at 0 in 2009 it will be his IQ.

I have a question.

I am a research scientist. I live the scientific method everyday. I am confused as to why I am confused about the state of American politics today. :rolleyes:

My personal feelings are echoed all over this board. I am frustrated, overwhelmed, angry, and perpetually astonished at the self-serving, short-sighted, and completely irresponsible decisions made as to the running of this planet! As a philosophy, I have soothed my anxiety somewhat by decided that even if some of us are open enough to see that the sky is falling, if our species is so parasitic that it cannot preserve itself, than maybe it should fail. In the meantime, I will do what I can to not be a parasite and to teach others as well.

Conservatives are still claiming that climate change and global warming is a question. REALLY?! :blink: Even if I can ask them questions and get them to accept that perhaps there is some food for thought here, they are convinced that it is completely unproven that man has any influence over this at all. REALLY?! The scientific data is out there! AL Gore didn't make this stuff up although the republicans will have you believe that he did. Science and Nature two of the TOP international scientific journals internationally are innundated with research on global warming. It costs money to access the articles, and I personally don't have a subscription. Does anyone out there have a subscription that we can access these papers? Most republicans I know will not listen to a word AL Gore has to say...but it is not just AL's words.

I may have to break down and buy a subscription that I can't afford and if I do...I assure you that I will share what I find.

Thanks!

Amy

I have a good friend who's an automotive writer. As you might imagine, the automotive industry isn't onboard with global warming. In fact, they're highly antagonistic to the whole idea. They believe that the REAL scientists, the ones they say who are doing the REAL research that shows that global warming isn't a reality and isn't being caused by human activity, are being squelched by the rest of the scientific community, which is onboard with climate change. They rail against "science by consensus." What I try to explain to people like this is that science is largely about consensus. When some researchers discover something that doesn't jibe with what we've always believed, their info is often discredited, at least initially. But gradually, more and more scientists do their own research or test the findings of the original research, and the truth comes to light. Once that process starts, and more of the scientific community comes to agree with the original research, a consensus is reached. No, it's not absolute proof. But very few things in science are. We used to think dinosaurs became extinct because they were stupid or their brains were too small for their huge bodies. Now we believe it was because of a giant meteor strike that plunged the world into darkness. Someday, we may discover that it was something else. Same with evolution. Was Darwin right? The scientific community believes so. But someday, who knows, there may be some other explanation that makes more sense.

My thinking is that you will never convince those who are so antagonistic to our ideas. They hate the idea of human contribution to climate change for a number of reasons: it's a liberal idea; it's main proponent is a man they hate--Al Gore; they have an arrogant view of the role of humans in the world--they believe humans are here to exploit the earth for their own purposes, rather than the notion most of us hold, which is that humans are the custodians of this fragile planet and have a responsibility to keep it healthy.

For the most part I've given up trying to convince those who are so close-minded as to say that what we're experiencing now is no different from what's happened before, or that it's just part of a normal cycle, etc. Clearly it's not, but they'll never see it that way. I can't waste my time on people like that. There are some whose eyes we can still open, but you can tell right away when you've got someone who won't even listen to what you're saying. IMO, those people aren't worth our time.