I can do this one

Going Surfing. Surfing is doubtful after the tabata How bout going paddling.

Got some questions about kipping styles. I've only seen 3 - the swinging one, the more up and down style like Annies and the crazy sort of backwards kip like OPT and AFT.

It seems like most people do the swing and that's how I learned. Why is that the most common kind of kip? The two other kinds look like they can be faster.

When I got on the bar the other day I just started going up and down instead of swinging back and fourth. It was so much easier on my hands which usually take a serious beating from the swinging.

Does body type determine what kip style is best?

One more thing- when I couldn't do any more up and down pull-ups I started swinging more and got a few extra.. Does that mean that we can just do more with the swing?

That kipping video posted about 3 weeks ago shows Annie teaching the swing. But I've always seen her use the "up and down" method during workout demo videos....

I do a hybrid of the two, because the bar at the gym isn't high enough for my 6'0 frame...so I do a swing, but with my knees bent.

I have tried both, and find the swing much easier to maintain a rhythm, but at the expense of my hands (nasty blisters)

Allison -

I learned my kips from watching Annie's videos, so I use her style. I notice, however, when I get near full exhaustion, I kip any ugly way I can in order to get myself up there.

Good evening. Sunday Rest Day--no musings.

In keeping with my "walk the talk" from the 30th I extend a hearty welcome to all CF newcomers. Today is Rest Day. It comes along every fourth day, come rain or shine. On this day Coach and Lauren will post an article, link, or question and then invite any and all Crossfitters to share their thoughts. The articles tend to lean libertarian, conservative, and controversial. The posters who accept this kind offer tend to lean pretty strongly left or right, one way or another--not a lot of traffic in the middle.

No, it's not a mistake. You didn't stumble upon a counterfeit CF. It's not a special occasion. You can't choose or influence the topics chosen. Entreaties to discontinue the practice of Rest Day discussions are a waste of cyberspace; don't bother. It's gonna be here every 4th day.

Deal with it, or don't. Enjoy the repartee? Dive in, the more the merrier. Interested but shy? It's great theater, so pull up a chair. Mortified, disgusted, appalled by political/philosophical discussions on an exercise site? Sorry. Every 4th day is Rest Day and there will be a discussion of some sort right here on this very space until it no longer interests or pleases Coach and Lauren. Remember, the CF table is in THEIR dining room and we are all guests.

Now, it you need me today I'll be in the gym since I rested yesterday. I'll be the one with the injured wing, probably running or rowing or some other CF something or other.

Oh yeah...Barry, play nice with the new kids in the playground, OK?

Man. CrossFit even improves father/daughter relationships! Cool.

Interesting article. I'd never thought about the relationship between former Marxist ideology and current climate management ideology. Interesting point.

I had noticed a couple of things mentioned in this article.
1) reducing carbon in any country will force the economy to contract. It doesn't seem to be in any country's best interest. And what if everyone else says they'll do it, then they step back at the last second? Or if even one country steps back at the last second. That country will have developed a huge economic advantage over its neighbors without doing anything but rather because they shot themselves in the foot.

2) Carbon credits exported to poor countries really amounts to rich countries paying poor countries to retard their own economic growth. It benefits the rich more than the poor. Maybe it's a way to slow down India and China while keeping America on top for a few years.

Bottom line is it doesn't seem to be in any country's best short-term interest to go along with this. That said, why are all of them going along?

I've read Jeff Glassman's blog and would really like to accept that the "warming" people are full of crap, but it's difficult to see how so many scientific examiners could all have missed the boat on this. Isn't that what peer review is for? Isn't that one of science's major claims is that it is self-correcting when errors creep in?

It seems to me that the "deniers" position is the position of hope to which any sane person would cling if they could find the evidence to support it and yet the consensus is going the other way. Doesn't make sense to me.

Final thought - I grew up under the nuclear threat. Any day the Russians were going to nuke us. Every kid I knew had this fear lurking somewhere in the back of their mind. I've been wondering recently if this "warming" thing is a similar fear for today's kids.

My conclusion is that I'd like to dismiss the "warming" chicken littles (and instinctively reject their hysteria out of habit) but I have difficulty looking past such a large scientific majority who seem to support the "warming" hypothesis.

Love the rest day posts and look forward to reading more on this topic.
AdamC

That Richard Fernandez piece is classic climate-change denialism. Ad hominem attacks on environmentalism generally, insane comparisons with global socialism and other largely unrelated phenomena, no science whatsoever (Mr. Fernandez has a degree in public policy and no particular expertise in this area) and no evidence presented for one of his central points, that the Kyoto accord has somehow failed to reduce carbon emissions.

In short, the piece is embarrassing.

Point 1)
"the neighbors shot themselves in the foot"

Sorry for the ambiguity.

Set up my garym (garage gym) today in our college rental house to get ready for Texas's fittest games challenge...yall better watch out!:)

p.s. I love crossfit/crossfit people

About the kip, I love the figure C kip, the opt guys kip is so much faster(thankfully I know James younger brother and they kip the same). the reason I love the figure C kip is because you generate an enormous amount of thrust. At the end of Fran my shoulders are still coming up and tagging the bar. the other kip(let's call it the OPT kip) has one draw back. My buddy said when he first adopted it into his form he got some bad smacks to the chin.

the "up-down" kip is definitely faster and primarily what I use, when I reach complete exhaustion my pullups turn into a big swing ("swinging version) in order to get my chin over the bar. If you're going for more work-less time, which I think many of us are, I'd go with up-down if possible.

Great video, loved it.

Another pullup philosophy question:

The kipping pullup is regarded as "The King" because it is the fastest and has the highest metabolic demand.

However, by this logic, why isn't the jumping pullup considered "The King?" It is the same amount of work to perform a jumping pullup (center of gravity of the body moves the same amount) as a kipping pullups, and yet they can be done even faster, with more full-body, multi-joint involvement. One would think that there would be a greater metabolic hit to the system this way.

Quick question for the masses -

I am attending the Level One cert at Camp Pendleton in a few weeks and was wondering if anyone had insight on what I should do to help prepare. Have been crossfitting about 9 months, have combed the archives and FAQs, read Starting Strength, etc.

What am I missing? Any thoughts on what else I can do to prepare?

Thanks in advance -

Bingo,

I'll try. I was looking at the last Rest Day, and wondering what the hell this Barry Cooper fellow does all day besides fulminate. I know he doesn't watch TV, and types really fast, but my goodness doesn't he have anything better to do?

I probably just need a girlfriend to tell me to knock it off and come to bed. Scary as it is, what I type here is only maybe a third of what I type overall. I wear myself out, but I can't stop. There is value in this work, and although it may not be apparent, I do make progress in the content and quality of my thinking, even though I may seemingly spend all my time working over the newbies for their lunch money.

It might be best if I sit this one out, although I can't resist one comment: it does seem highly ironic that Algore is being considered as obstructionist. If true, that makes him not just a propagandist, but a profound hypocrite.

From where I'm sitting, a lot of American corporations are going to make a lot of money selling technologies like wind energy that just don't work. Just as farmers are paid not to grow things, factories are apparently going to get paid not to make things. I want in on this. Somebody tell me how to get some of this money for nothing. I may not be capable of complete torpor, but I can figure out things to do with the time for which I am paid not to do things.

Now that I think about it, there is a certain efficiency in not doing things. If I could figure it right, I could multi-nontask, and get paid for 5, maybe even 10 things at once I'm not doing. In fact, I could personally replace the entire segment of the Chinese economy being paid not to do anything.

I'm that good.

On a completely unrelated note:
My 6yo daughter deadlifted my 53# kettlebell today. I'm so proud of her! She only weighs 48#.

On the kipping pull-up, I use a hybrid of the swing and the up and down (which I call a kick-up). The swing would normally travel along an arc, just like with a KB swing, as your head approaches the pull-up bar. However, I prefer to move a bit inside of the arc, more directly to the pull-up bar. This can be done by slowing your momentum at the bottom of the pull-up, a la kick-up kip.

Daz, the JPU isn't the same amount of work as you're not moving equal mass over a full range of motion.

Hope this helps,

Moz

Kipping pullup questions & discussion should really be posted on the messageboard rather than rest day comments.

I've been CF for more than a year, never posted, though I dutifly read the posts each day...I admire those of you that post regularly, and for those of you who are blessed to be able to WOD in a REAL CF gym, consider yourself blessed...I've others talking about how hard CF is when you fly solo at the "regular gyms" (I'd be in that category), and for those of you who are privileged to be around CF trainers and other CF athletes day in and out, well, I'm jealous!

Bingo, OUTSTANDING work educating the new CF'ers...I started over a year ago, and my best friend is a CF fanatic, so I had him to rely on if I had questions. I read the FAQs several times, but there are just some things that are easier understood when explained by a CF veteran. I think you have done a phenomenal job each day explaining to those new to CF what each WOD is, how to modify it, etc. Had it not been for the frequent phone calls to my best friend on "hey, how do you do...", I might have given up. He explained several things to me along the way, much as you are doing in the daily posts now, and I am confident the new CF athletes will find their fitness home, just as I did.

I would add to Bingo's advice, if I may, the biggest oops I committed when I first started, and it took me about three months to figure it out...you'll see several workouts that have "three rounds for time, 21-15-9" - Fran is a good example. When you see those, it means three rounds, round one is 21 reps of each exercise listed, round two is 15 reps of each exercise, round three is 9 reps of each exercise. When I read that initally, I read it was round 1, is 21-15-9 reps of each one, followed by round 2, 21-15-9, and round three 21-15-9. I couldn't ever figure out why, when I'd finish those WOD, my times would be say 45:00, and everyone who posted would be 5:00-10:00...my best friend kept asking, "are you sure you are doing it right?" I thought I was, but I never saw my times improve, and I got really frustrated. Until, the day, I saw someone post a question about 21-15-9, and they were doing the same thing I was. Instead of doing Fran, three rounds, I was doing Fran three times! BIG DIFFERENCE! So, even though my times didn't improve, I got strong quickly! hehe...

I read someone yesterday who said they feel like a dork - don't worry, we've all been there! Keep at it, and once you start repeating WOD, seeing your times improve, or the first time you deadlft, bench press, clean, etc. a ton of weight, you'll never want to stop! When I started CF, I had never lifted weights in my life - it wasn't something any girls I know did, but I thought it would be fun. The first WOD I ever did was overhead squats - I didn't finish it, didn't walk right for four days, but I was hooked - I followed it up with MURPH, Filthy 50 and Fight Gone Bad. I was instantly addicted. For my one year CF anniversary, I did all of the HERO WOD in one day (that was 8 DEC this year) - it was the hardest thing I've ever done, but also the most fun. No one but a fellow CF will understand that - anyone else thinks it's nuts! I've come a long way in a year, from barely being able to lift the bar (45 lbs) to being able to do all HERO WOD in one day - for those of you who are new, you'll see real progress, you just have to stick with it. And, if you haven't already, subscribe to the CF Journal - you will find more good information there than you ever thought possible.

For those of you who are CF veterans, thank you for sharing the past year with me! I have been sitting on the outside, reading everything you write daily. I wish I could tell you how much CF means to me, but I'm quite positive I do not have the vocabulary to articulate it - Coach and Lauren, I can never thank you enough. You have given me more than you will ever know. Thank you to all of the regular "posters" too - Allison, Bingo, Appolloswabbie, Kate, CCTJoey, Spider Chick, Nadia...I know I've left out many of you, but you all have encouraged me each day, as I progress through each WOD. THANK YOU.

AdamC

Many of us who are skeptical about climate change aren't necessarily skeptical of the evidence but are somewhat more circumspect about solving the "problem" if there is indeed one at all.

Ecology is the science of understanding consequenses.
-Frank Herbert

Some thoughts:

1. How come every problem no matter it's nature is given the same solution, more govt. regulation.

2. The Bali Summit is a prime example of why I don't take these preening dilettantes seriously. It was a vacation! Apparently Brussels and London aren't really set up for this kind of thing. Next time have it in Albany and see who comes. (No offense meant Albanesian CFer's.)

3. Carbon credits are mostly a scam, especially in the case of Kyoto. Western European signatories to Kyoto never reduced their emissions, they simply buy credits from countries that don't exceed their own alottment. This house of cards only works because the baseline year for Kyoto is 1990, near the height of Soviet power. Since 1992 Russian emissions have fallen 23 percent, not becasue of clean tech but becasue of a shrinking economy. Russia sells it's unused credits to Western Europe who then uses their purchased moral sanctity to riducule the US.

This was covered in the article but Monbiot attempts to make it sound as if the US drove the credit program. in the end it is the Europeans tha rely on it as an emissions slight of hand.

Just as in point one, Kyoto has more the feeling of scheme of control to counterbalance American economic dominance than any real signifcance to green efforts. The answer to all your problems, more regulation.

Oh yeah and I love Crossfit :)

successful nite in nation's capital. hee hee. swellegant fur coats, emeralds & diamonds, diplomats speaking foreign languages...

KB seminar at crossfit koncepts in gaithersburg, md 2day. Sweet! should be useful in addressing differences in left/right strength ratios. In all truth, it has me rethinking all sorts of training techniques, and there might be some seismic activity readjusting the tectonic plates of my lifting life. Ran like a woman on fire through georgetown 2 nite. stopped at sephora & lululemon, spent money, then hauled a$$ home to get ready for my oh so fancy party. love living here.

LOL Barry.

Bingo, your kindness and gentle nature is much appreciated.

oh, and isn't that weird coming from me? appreciating kindness? guess it's the peace corps turning me around. but, umm... the newbs usually give themselves a gut shot on rest days & mabye they'll shut up today & not sound so green if they read your sage advice.

finally, Semper CrossFit, beloved CrossFitters. it's astonishing how well adjusted that we who know are bodies are, and how utterly checked out to lunch the folks who are disconnected from their physical selves are. Not impressed with the ridiculous stuff that's supposed to make me overlook & somehow not notice that someone's completely let themselves go and is fat & weak. Awesome to be part of a community where your worth is measured by your gymnastic ability to lift, run, & row. I tell everyone about Sally & Mary & how awesome our senior women are. There is NO EXCUSE.

Allison: OPT has it all dialed in. When you get so good that you are down to shaving miliseconds off of your time, his techniques are simply unparalelled. The swinging kip is really pretty, wastes time & is is easier than the OPT rep. Annie S's froggie kip is pretty efficient and is certainly faster than the swing. OPT's piston engine pullup is as close to a straight hang pullup as you can get without losing the added benefit of momentum. And, I'm so sick of aching, ripped palms. If you figure out how he does it, i can do it at my level of strength, and it saves time and ripped hand skin, for doG's sake, let me know what you have. OPT is the topic of much admiration and study at X-Fit DC. Personally, I suspect he has a tiny anti-gravitation device in his sneakers.

-Spidey

Hello, I'am joining the CF family. I have had some exposure to CF in the Police Academy (Jul-Dec 05) but did not stick with it. At the time I did not know about the web site or of the huge following. I thought the instructors were just trying to kill us.

Recently I have joined a 12 wk fitness challenge put on by my department, One of the guys in my district suggested that I try the CF work-outs and the Zone diet for the challenge in stead of the conventional work out that is suggested. I will keep posting my results as RXed. I think this will also help keep me motivated. Here are the awufull facts (no laughing please)

WM/5.07/220#/42yo/28% bf/48in chect/38in waist. Noting to hide, keeping it real.

#19, PRGR

You did ALL the hero WODs on one day? YOU are my hero, and the next time you do that, I want to get in on it with you. What an event!! Strong, strong, strong! That's not just a date with Pukie, that's a long term relationship.

I see the girl in the picture jumping rope but I can't see the rope. Is this part of the vast right-wing conspiracy that she is just pretending to jump rope? She's holding the handles in her hands but there is no rope attached. I blew the picture up 400% and still couldn't find a rope. I did however, see Elvis's image in the background.

THE COUNTDOWN CONTINUES.

19 MORE DAYS TO BASIC BARBELL IN SAN DIEGO!
CAN'T WAIT.

THERE'S NOTHING I WON'T TRY AND NO CHALLENGE I WON'T TAKE!

ROBERT S.
TUCSON, AZ.

Anyone have a link to some vids that demonstrate the OPT and/or AFT style of kipping? I'd like to see which of the many style of kips I am closest.

Spider Chick - Cool comments. However, I hope that I misunderstood when you said that this community measures a person's worth by his/her abiity to lift/run/row/etc. Judging by your previous posts, etc I am pretty sure that that is not exactly what you meant. I would hate for someone new to CF viewing the posts for the first time to get that impression. I think we can all agree that as long as someone is trying to improve themselves in those athletic areas and as a person in general that he/she has met the intent of CF and the community. Wouldn't want to start a Gym Jones elitist type culture here. Sorry for the rambling.
Happy Rest Day
Cheers

Nice job Lil Andy! Way to beat up on dad. And good call on the shorts too. So hard to match the shoes to khaki, and that is what really matters when working out. Color coordination :-)

Welcome to the CrossFit family, RoJo #22. I'm confident that you'll win the fitness challenge if the others stick to the impotent body for life model. CrossFit + the Zone is unbeatable.
PS-Please do keep posting. No one here will laugh at your honest efforts. Just remember, your warm up = their workout.

big saarge-
It's not opt or apt but this is sort of similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1bqrIZAjo

This article was intriguing to me. It is interesting to see what the political side is actually doing (or not doing) in response to the information that scientists give them. Money is very good motivation, especially when there is a lot of it involved.

On the Scientific side, I wanted to add my 2 cents. I’m no expert by any means, but I do have a little background it meteorology and climatology. I don’t want to call the “Scientific Community” liars, but I will say that many people make the study of global climate out to be easier than it is. Studying anything on a global scale is not easy. Studying global climate change is even harder, considering the drastic changes that can occur month to month, year to year, or even decade to decade. Many of these changes are cyclical, and it is very difficult to see what is permanent change and what is part of a cycle.

Most of the tools that scientists have developed and used to study global climate change are far from perfect. Computer models that use sea, air and land observations are only as good as the observations themselves. People and machines taking weather observations make mistakes. This makes the computer models inherently flawed. Satellite data has been claimed as a great tool for studying rising sea levels. The problem is that different rates of erosion across the globe have made accurate calculations impossible. That has not stopped the media from stating it as fact.

It is very common to hear media members and scientists alike say that weather observations over the last 100 years show an increase in the average global temperature. In many places of observation, the average annual temperature has risen due to the heat island effect. As an area becomes more populated, homes are heated, streets are paved and the like, the daily temperature tends to increase. This makes it decidedly more difficult when trying to figure out an average GLOBAL increase in temperature, and this is in addition to the fact that there is a certain percentage of mistakes made in weather observations. In the end, the margin for error that is possible when calculating the average temperature change over the last 100 years is greater than what scientists have claimed the temperature has actually risen. In other words, they are making an educated guess. If you say the temperature has risen 2 degrees over the last one hundred years, give or take 3 degrees, you are not giving yourself any credibility. So, the global temperature could have actually fallen over the last 100 years.

I’m sorry if that made absolutely no sense. On a different note, I’m now addicted to Crossfit, and I don’t see myself being able to kick the habit any time soon. I’m trying to get my wife on board. She is hesitant after she sees me coming home close to death after finishing Barb or Murphy.

Big Saarge: Perfect examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyXTguBCpv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uryt3n9q1q4&feature=related

InfidelSix: Sorry... I thought rest day would be the perfect time to ask. I was asking about the pull-ups for 2 days on the Black Box page but got almost no feedback. I figured I'd ask here since everyone is so helpful. Either way I started a thread on the message boards.

Just a quick post to see if there happen to be any other Crossfitters in Albuquerque working out at Kirtland AFB. I wish I could afford to go to the actual Crossfit gym, but as long as I'm at KAFB, it would be nice to have someone to workout with. (I'll probably ask again on a non-rest day too...).

I also just wanted to echo all of the other newbies' excitement about their addiction to Crossfit. Started in August when my husband deployed, and I think my friends think I've joined some sort of weird cult that I've nicknamed "the gym." I even managed to get my mom (age 52, no previous weightlifting experience) to do the Tabata workout with me today! She did everything but the pullups, and did awesome. :)

So that no one is guessing what my agenda is, I lean towards the green side of the debate on global warming/climate change. I feel that it is a real problem and that I should do my part to help out (recycling, minimizing how much I drive…). What the national governments should be doing to fix things on a global scale I’m not so sure because I’m not an expert on the topic. What the article said about how carbon credits can be abused did pique my interest and suggest that some of what is being proposed may not work.
One thing I have noticed on the rest day discussions is that there a large number of people posting here who do not believe there is a problem/do not believe there is anything we can do to change the climate/do not believe in what is being done to reverse the observed trends and other similar views. The two videos below I feel present a very strong argument as to why we should be pressuring world leaders to take action regardless of how likely you feel climate change is. What exactly that action should be is another topic I’ll leave to the experts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related

My first post here. First let me say that I admire, respect and appreciate anybody who has the guts to routinely do these workouts, including the mental gymnastics on "rest" day. I started trying to follow the CF workouts about 6 months ago and while I usually perform the "girlie-man" variations, I am noticeably stronger and even improving on my endurance (a real weakness for me historically).

I want to weigh in on the Global Warming topic with two basic "facts (I think they are facts, feel free to consider them as opinions)."

1: I am 46 years old. When I was in fourth grade, there were 3 things that had me terrified each night when I went to bed; 1. Russian soldiers with nukes bent on my destruction, 2. Killer bees from Africa, and 3. The coming Ice Age! Does anybody else remember this? In the 70's the scare was that we pesky humans and our CFC's were causing the planet to cool measurably and any day the ice would roll down my street and devour my parents and my brothers (of course, me and my dog would have escaped...we just roll like that!).

2. My local weather report has not been able to accurately predict the weather in my area 2-3 days hence in my lifetime using the sensitive scientific measuring equipment and computer-generated models that are at the cutting edge of meteorologic technology. How then can this same equipment tell me precisely what will happen in another decade, or in the next 100 years.

Do those 2 "facts," the coming ice age warned about in the first Earth Day in 1970 and the fact that weather prediction in any market in the US is completely fallible; lead anyone else to think that maybe there is a "chicken Little Agenda" going on here?

Great to see the family getting into it.

I have to oppose the GW scam. It sounds too much like the other government subsidy scams for my liking.

However, I do support the grassroots eco movement. There is absolutely no reason why recylcing, disciplined fuel consumption, lowering emmisions and power consumption are bad things. Of course all of these things are user level solutions that do not require the system of credits or government national or international financial rewards that the mainstream political eco freaks are pushing for.

I am trying to make this as non-controversial as possible considering I have my hands full with the last rest day. HAHAHAHA

It's true, action needs to be taken to protect the environment. But there is enough science that indicates cutting C02 emissions will not solve anything. Furthermore, humans have contributed far less (even measurably less) to global climate change than natural disasters have. Singling out CO2 as the evil gas that will bring the end of humanity as we know it is foolish. Therefore, dictating policy to restrict output of the gas at the price of cheap fuel may be useless. Environmental preservation is a serious thing. It is a serious thing that has been neglected for years by many countries across the globe. Steps need to be taken to make human civilization less harmful to the environment. These steps need to be more in depth than just cutting back on emissions. And it should not be an international effort. This is something that each individual country, each commercial company, and to some extent each person should be worried about. Politicians enforcing strict policies on the few who they deem as contributing the most to the problem will not solve anything.

Spider Chick (#23)-
Yes, I did ALL HERO WOD in one day (and sadly, that was only when there were six, before BADGER and JOSHIE). ALL HERO WOD WAS AWESOME! I cannot take crdit for that being my idea, I saw someone else did it on Veteran's Day. I did it on 8 DEC to celebrate my one year CF anniversary, to honor Pearl Harbor day, and my heroes in digital cammo (if they happen to read this, they know who they are!).

Doing all of the HERO WOD was by far one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I was determined I was NOT going to quit. It took all day to finish it, starting at 9 am and ending at 5:45 pm, ending with MURPH, my all time favorite HERO WOD. I almost met pukie a couple of times, but it is by far my CF highlight, very emotional too.

Thank you for the kind words! I've seen your interview and posts - you could knock this one out too, easily!

AllisonNYC, I6 is just pointing out that the real technical stuff is explained MUCH better on the message boards. The format is meant for that. Plus, you should find tons of information already there about this subject. Many, 'Experts" haunt the Message board that can explain things much better than the hit or miss of a 24 hour message board.

They got one thing right with the new climate summit. I hear Bali is a wonderful place for a vacation - as long as you stay clear of the night clubs.

The carbon credit system was brilliant but also incredibly naive. The rich countries, who were developing and selling green technologies (i.e. US) would sell to the poor countries as their economies expanded. The poor country would have an incentive to buy green technology because this would help to maintain low levels of emissions and result in a carbon credit from the rich countries. Effectively, the rich would subsidize the economic expansion of the poor with the condition that they do in an environmentally friendly way. It is win/win. The rich countries have a greater demand for their technology, which drives economic growth and revenue (i.e. taxes). The revenue is passed back to poor countries as a reward for environmentally friendly economic expansion. The whole world gets greener and Gore gets a Nobel.

The problem is that whenever the concept of a subsidy is introduced corruption is never far behind it.

Allison, thanks for posting those videos.

The first method is INSANE! (AFT's Piston Method)
Definitely something I would like to try

The link below is the WOD video to which Andy is referring, if anyone wants to see it.

http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/003176.html

Before I go "elbows deep" in the rest day article a quick response to Adam C #9...I am currently reading Taubes' latest work, Good Calories Bad Calories, now it has nothing to do with global warming, Kyoto or Bali but there are interesting parallels with relationship to how sometimes the scientific community gets it wrong.

One of the more salient examples of error begins when the ones conducting the test consider the "greater good". When this occurs there is a tendency with some issues to ignore the results that do not support the hypothesis as well as another tendency to accept cause/effect relationships that have not been scientifically proven.

This is only in response to "how can the scientific community get it wrong?" question.

And to get into the "warming or not"...yes, warming is occurring based on avg temps, but interestingly enough every year that the earth has had an increase in average temperature there has been an increase in solar flare/sunspot activity.

I can draw three possible conclusions prior to scientific study:
1. that the sunspot activity has no effect
2. that there is potential that somehow the sun may effect temperatures here on earth
3. or that we need to cut our greenhouse gasses down immediately because they are causing solar flares

J

#14 Daz true, but it depends where you want to place the metabolic load.

#14 Daz...also the jumping pullup is so efficient in work production that someone could probably knock out 100 reps with a 50lb weight vest in one quick set. That WOULD be "king" but you may destroy your knees in the process.

Along with what dbones said, you could lower some rings so that you could just reach them from a full squat. You could pump out ridiculous squats with the additional pull, even with that weight vest. Try cranking out 100 of these for time. It's all a matter of that load spread.

Oh my God... I think I'm Communist!

Who knew...

Andy, from one Dad to another, it was just a thrill, a real warm feeling to watch you and your daughter. Lil' Bingo is banged up from a basketball game last PM (very high quality glute bruise from a hard foul) so even before I start my WOD will be a lower quality experience because he won't be able to join me. Maybe I'll do one and he'll count.

With The Heir in college and Lovely Daughter off to college next year I am continually reminded, in a not so happy way, of how quickly these years fly by. Thanks for a Sunday smile.

Making up for lost time so did the WOD from today's video demonstration... gave me a chance to use my homemade med ball, homemade plyobox and new Buddy Lee jumprope! Yipee!

30-25-20
wall ball 20#
plyobox jumps 19"
Double unders
9:52 Almost puked!

What is the "bear" workout?

jdawg: It looks like a hard one..
There's a link to it on the article about Jolie in the Journal.

Good morning everyone.

No rest day today for moi.

SC pebbLE up in northern VA and me down here in VB are having at:

50 forward lunges
20 lateral lunges
50 backward lunges

5 rounds for time.

I am a tick scared of this one, as I am most of the WOD's...but lovin the feeling! I was thinking of suggesting that we do it with a 100lb vest on,blindfolded, uphill (both ways) on broken glass...but then realized that an absurd post and idea like that would much resemble yesterday's #296 poster...so...back to reality!

(sorry all, I couldn't help myself!)
Happy Rest Day!

~J~
~Train Hard and Push Through "IT"!~

Tough loss Andy. Good effort.

Josh Murphy and I did the Seal WOD from Friday: 20 pushups, 65 # thruster, 50# db swing, 20" box jump, amrap/15, run 1 mile, rinse and repeat. 4 rounds each time. Nasty. Josh had 4 1/2 rounds both times. BW:167 Y/A:59

I forgot to do the burgener program yesterday, so did it today
3x Burgener warming up
5 sets of: 3x 60 kg F-SQ + 3x 60 kg Jerk
exra: power yoga for about 30 min.
Have fun, Johan

About the emitions, if it is all true, we need to elect more ethical people in our goverment, in all our goverments. and second: figure out how to break the ruling of the multintionals.

Anyone know what jump ropes they're using in the video? They look like Buddy Lee ropes, but I can't seem to find that color.

AllisonNYC - Thanks for the links. I guess I am closest to the AFT video (not as fast or for as long). I use the explosivness of my hips to generate that vertical momentum. You gonna knock out Tabata SE today? Go for it.

Freddy C. - Also a sweet video. Kip has amazing shoulder flexibility. He goes all the way over the bar and can still hold onto it. WOW
Cheers

thanks for the encouragement yesterday! i'm definitely going to keep at it. i'm not one to quit! :o) thank goodness it's a rest day - i prayed hard for one ;o)

Sundays are run days for me: 10k in 51:27. Would like to get that back below 45min for the summer.

33/M/225

Day late on my first Tabata workout. Also my first intro to Pukie in a while, I fondly refered to Pukie as the Verp when I was a swimmer.

So after 1 hr, a protein shake, an apple, an orange, and 2 slices of pizza I am starting to feel like a human again.

My notebook is about 20 feet away, so I cant remember the indavidual scores, I will say that I fell off a cliff after the second round of each set.

Anyway my first Tabata something else = 303

CD

50 forward lunges
20 lateral lunges
50 backward lunges

OUCH! There's more muscles hurting in my legs than I knew I had. I can see improvement every time I do them tho (this was the 4th). time: 25:59
J roCK's time was 24:14. That's why I'm just the peb. Were hoping to do a mile forward lunge soon.
Happy rest day!

Oh yeah, I forgot; that was for 5 rounds.

I saw allot of people said they had problems with timing their tabata yesterday maybe this will help

Most watch timers and stop watches have a 10sec alarm. Set your timer for 30sec and to repeat. Let the first 10sec go by start when there is 20sec left; your rest period will be from the start of the alarm till the beeping stop. Then go back at

I saw this GREAT Crossfit T-shirt on Zazzle... the front says "Crossfit" and the back says "Drink the Kool Aid" I thought it was too cool to keep to myself so I had to share!

http://www.zazzle.com/crossfit_shirt-235156115508702520

Happy Rest Day!

DID YESTERDAYS WOD I HAVE BEEN OUT OF TOWN FOR A VERY SICK GRANDDAUGHTER AND WAS LIMITED ON MY WORKOUT TIME.
PULL-UPS 38
PUSH-UPS 76
SITUPS 84
SQUATS 118
I NOW AM WHIPPED BUT FEEL MUCH BETTER FOR THE EFFORT.

M/47 (last day)/150

3 rounds for time
500M Row
15 GHD Sit-ups
30 GHD Back Ext.
21 Box Jumps

19:55

Got a couple of odd smiles from some younger BB's who kept a cordial, respectful distance.

I'm starting Rest Day runs again. Why? If I always run at CF pace, I would soon hate running. Besides what else is one to do on a wet and cloudy California day?

5.25 mi in 43:13

Uh oh! Zazzle again. I hope someone checked with Coach before they made those shirts. Somehow I doubt it.

Cheers!
JP

I had to take the day off yesterday so I completed the 32 intervals today. Wow, I thought I was in decent shape but crossfit has proven me wrong. I just finished my first week and I luv this stuff. I admittedly went about 90% on this but it was still a great workout(still trying to get a good feel for all of the different movements and complete the entire workout).

Pull - 55
Push - 66
Situp - 70
Squeat - 80

I put together my grym in my college rental home yesterday in order to prepare for the crossfit central fittest games challenge....yall better watch out!!

p.s. I love crossfit/crossfit people

hey all,
just wanted to put in my two cents in....i went away from crossfit for about two months to try something else....let me just say that that was one of the worst moves that i have done in a while.....i am a firefighter and no other workout comes close to keeping me in shape for my job....this workout is awsome...i have not been this sore since i stopped in November....i guess that we all learn from our mistakes....ill never stray again....thank you guys for coming up with crossfit....

Played touch football today (standing weekly game) and it was brutal. My legs were shot from yesterday and I was slow to the ball all day. I will rest tomorrow.

yes

my garage gym is now ready to go. Crossfit centrals fittest games challenge, I am ready for you. Cant wait to meet everyone at the competitions.

38M/175

Had to spend the rest day on the bike burning off what I ate and drank last night watching the games.

While hanging out with my five year old, I road the trainer (kinetic) for an hour and kept it aerobic getting in about 15+ miles. It's supposed to be 65 here (MD) tomorrow and I will be looking forward to a long road ride outside. From there it's whatever the WOD is. Bring it on.

Stay safe all

Barry Cooper--

To say that wind energy doesn't work is silly.

Wind turbines now supply significant amounts of energy to the grid today. Grid operators (like PJM, ISONE, NY ISO, ERCOT, and the CA ISO) have determined how to integrate wind generation into their systems, maintaining reliability, and adjusting ancillary services, like spinning reserve, as necessary.

You're out to lunch on this one.

As for those questioning "carbon credits," you have to distinguish between allowances allocated under a cap-and-trade regim, "offsets" created under a regulatory program as a complement to allowances, and voluntary offsets, purchased by those who have no regulatory complianc obligtion.

To say carbon credtis don't make sense is like saying lifting weights doesn't make sense, when what you really mean is doing barbell curls is pointless.

So many opinions. So few facts.

Today:

{
100 jumprope (high knees, criss cross or whatever)
20 burpies over a parallete
10 quick shoulder stands on paralletes
10 foot raised push-ups with full RoM
run 400m
}
3 times through

J-rock is crazy for doing those lunges. just my opinion.

42yom / 147

Decided to do the latest Painstorm # XXXIII Called "Total Death"

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 reps of the triplet:

Deadlift: 1.5 X body weight
Back Squat: 1.25 X body weight
Shoulder Press: .75 X body weight

34:05 as Rx'd

DL - 220
SQ - 185
SP - 110

Could have gone faster on this. Squats were heavy at this weight for me and I fatigued on the Standing Press quickly so had to break up more than planned. Great workout though. Look forward to this one showing up on the main site. If this does not help my CFT nothing will.

D-man777 #36: welcome to the community! Glad to have more folks posting on here. At the very least, it helps my motivation! No hard feelings, I hope, but I am female and scale workouts as necessary. I'm strong and improving. Is that girlie? Sorry to point it out, I just hate seeing "girl" being used as a bad thing. There are a lot of tough girls here.

Jrock, pebble: Like the WOD- it's something I can do right here in my freezing living room. Might give it a while later.

In a previous Rest Day on AGW I posited the line of thought that an economic analysis of the present day costs of responding to GW vs. the cost to society, human kind, and the world economy was in order. I further posited that one could do a sensitivity analysis to address at least some of the uncertainty inherent in the information that is available at this time as input data for the analysis. "Nullname" engaged me in a cordial discussion, eventually concluding that such an analysis was unlikely to be possible/plausible.

It turns out that a number of economists on both sides of the political aisle are interested in this issue.

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/01/04/weitzman-formalism-run-amok
http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/30/why-i-oppose-a-carbon-tax

and http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021407D

Now, these seem to be reasonable people taking an objective look at a difficult question, trying to put real numbers on the effects of GW on both present and future standards of living. If we are to be taxed for the purpose of some global good, be it AGW or other, I would rather it be done in such a way that I am able to see the utility TODAY; this is why I used, repeatedly, the example of providing potable water to those parts of the planet that do not have it at this time. I KNOW what the utility is (no need to discuss the discount value of future dollars); I KNOW what the result is likely to be on the standard of living for those affected (little to no uncertainty since we have seen these effects before).

Now, before you engage your flamethrowers, all of these posts and all of the posters, including yours truly, are agreeing that there is global warming occurring, and indeed the links posted accept some anthropomorphic affect as well. The main points, as I tried to explain a couple of weeks ago are:

1) There is much uncertainty in ALL of the input data in the calculations made by ALL groups, both scientific and economic.

2) There is much political overlay in the science and the economics.

3) No matter who's input numbers you use the present day costs necessary to have any effect 50 or 100 years from now are simply enormous.

Uncertainty requires patience and conservative (vs. radical) action, IMO. Alternatives (a technological solution vs. a tax solution) can be explored in a rational manner without invective or ad hominem.

What's the rush?

Who's vs. whose...

Barry Cooper - please post your scientific studies or empirical data to prove your statement that wind energy doesn't work. The Netherlands, to say the least, will be quite surprised to hear that one of their main energy supplies is a failure.

TomR #76,

You’re correct that wind energy works. But of all commercialized energy sources, wind is not, as you say, significant – it is the least significant. It represents 0.065% of total energy production. It is last among all listed sources.

Wind has no significant impact on US energy policy except as a diversion.

Carbon credits are silly. They don’t reduce world CO2 output. Your model of weight lifting doesn’t fit. Carbon credits are like taxes on your bank savings account. If those taxes are uncomfortable, shift your savings to CDs.

In a recent rest day, tons of words were spent on monetary economics based on a gold standard. What a waste of electronic bits! The gold standard is an abandoned monetary system with no probability of every returning. How the standard might work in abstract is pointless in light of pragmatism. Saving the world from CO2 and much of the rest day article are silly in the same way, though the article is correct about the political undercurrent.

Neither man nor any natural event can cause global warming by increasing greenhouse gases, much less CO2. Increasing GHGs does not cause a precipitous change in climate. That applies first and foremost (pardon my idiom) to water vapor, which is more than an order of magnitude more significant to warming than is CO2.

The best climate model is that global surface temperature is controlled by Earth’s albedo. The surface temperature operates in a closed loop. A little warming causes a little extra water vapor, which creates a little more clouds, which turns down the solar radiation reaching the surface. Net, the greenhouse effect exists, but is reduced by the closed loop gain, a concept not even recognized by the Consensus climatologists. None of this is modeled by the Consensus on Climate in their GCMs, nor does the Consensus demonstrate the basic understanding of feedback, all as demonstrated in their IPCC Reports.

Carbon dioxide is a benign, beneficial gas. It doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. It is the effluent of choice from the use of energy. Global warming causes an increase in atmospheric CO2, not the reverse.

Carbon dioxide IS important politically. It is in use to attack the economic success of the US. It is a surrogate for greed in the domestic attack on corporations. It is a weapon of choice for socialists, the economically challenged. It is also important as justification for grants to climatologists, and corn and wind farmers.

Barry,
your comments are absurd. The province of British Columbia is installing wind turbines all along its coast based on empirical evidence gathered from installations in Europe.

As far as the comment about getting paid to do nothing, it's clear that you don't understand how the carbon credits work. It is not a subsidy to US companies.

Go easy on the cynicism.

Bingo--

While the federal guys dither, the states act. Unless you live in the Southeast, there's a good chance that your state is moving forward with some form of GHG limits.

Google RGGI or AB32 or Western Climate Initiative or Midwest Greenhouse Gas Pact.

The conversation may not be over, but the action has begun.

Sad that people wouldn't go green on their own...and making the companies that they run green too...
As soon as it's a question of money/work vs whatever, people choose the money, no matter what trade offs (there are limits...but where?)
Even when a problem stares them in the face, they don't do anything about it! good example of this is someone who's >400lbs...enter the crossfit experience...
Some good discussions/points here...
"DO NO HARM"

Leslie Ap #79: Thanks for the correction. Nothing derogatory meant by my comments. I was trying to figure out a way to be a bit self-deprecating without being offensive; I clearly failed to achieve that objective. Please accept my sincere apology.

Great Video !

Yesterday's done at the hall so i couldn't kip ( not a good enough bar) plus was still very sore from the 120 and 120 work out. Pull ups really suffered because of that.

score 344

definitly ready for a rest day

3 Rounds for Time
Run 800m
21-15-9
Thrusters 1/2 bodyweight DB
Trunk Twisters 35lbs
Box Jumps ski style

Finish order:
Scott , Matt, Steve

It was funny this lady came up and asked us if we were doing CF and we said yes. She then proceed to tell us that it is a very dangerous workout program and to be very careful not to get injured. I love it that everyone is an expert. I do admit that near the end of the workout our form may have been slipping a little but I would have appreciated a little bit more advice than "danger danger"...

Jeff and Charity, i know it's not good to post a WOD (even if it's made up on a rest day cause I'll probably never find it again. oops.

#53 J roCK

looks like you have an imposter, or a clone.

Well they say "imitation is the greatest form of flaterry"

ha

Did a nice 5 mile run today for my off day - leisurely pace in 8* C weather - LOVE IT!!

#89 SWA - I find when I'm going hard, looking like I'm about do die, all mean looking and stuff, people tend to leave me alone

30-20-10
Box Jump
Burpee
Knees to Elbows
11:38

Wow...the more you look the more interesting stuff is in this issue, no matter which side of the political spectrum you may call home.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Game+plan:+what+conservatives+should+do+about

Best line: "...our resources are finite. It's possible to buy so much flood insurance that you can't afford fire insurance..."

Bottom line: Global warming is simply one risk among many that present themselves to us as citizens and to those we have elected to represent us in government. As such it is one of many at which "single issue" interests will pound away, braying for attention, making the most elemental emotional appeals in order to garner their share of the pie.

What's the rush?

Tabata Something Else:

Pull-ups: 6, 8, 9, 7, 5, 5, 5, 4 .. 49
Push-ups: 7, 7, 7, 8, 7, 7, 5, 5 .. 53
Sit-ups: 11, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 12 .. 91
Squats: 18, 18, 16, 15, 13, 14, 13, 15 .. 122

Total: 315

Keith W. steped on my feet for the sit ups, kept track of my numbers and timed me. I'm convinced I have the best coaches ever. I don't know what I would do without them...

I did way too many pull-ups before the workout trying to practice. Funny thing was when I got to the workout I had almost no kip of any kind! I think I got too excited about the whole thing and was over thinking all of it.
That was my first time with this workout and it killed me. I think I'll do a few things differently next time. :)

Thanks for all the input about the pull-ups.

Ran 6.4 miles in 48:04. Abnormally warm here today so it was a good day to run. Felt the squats from yesterdays Tabata workout.

Jeff Glassman--

You wrote:

"Wind has no significant impact on US energy policy except as a diversion"

The state of CA has a goal of generating somethinng like 20% of its electricity from renewable resources. TX, NY, PA, IA and other states (approx 25 in all) have similar policies. Wind is likely to be the primary source of new renewable generation to meet those legal requirements. In my view, this makes wind more than a diversion.

Bingo
Does that mean birthday tomorrow?
A fine day it will be.

30/m/190

90x Pull-up +
10x Get-up +
80x Push-up +
20x Get-up +
70x Atomic Sit-up +
30x Get-up +
60x Squat +
40x Get-up

37:15

Get ups w/ 35#

What's up with the Zone Diet? Got me a book, read a bunch of websites, figured out my protein blocks and that good stuff. I'm curious to hear some testimonials from people who don't get paid to say the Zone Diet rocks. The biggest question I have is the amount of calories the diet says you should be eating. I have 169 lbs of lean mass and I counted myself as active because of the crossfit, and the diet recommends I eat 1800 calories a day. Now that seems low to me, and the Zone diet response is that when you are hormonally balanced, you don't need as many calories. Is anyone on the Zone and loves it? And is anyone on the Zone and hates it?

As the "daddy" of 7 and 5 year old girls, that was an awesome video. Andy, "I'm always proud of my daughter", great line. You are setting her up for great success in life. Cool.

D-man: no problem! I came across a variety of burpees referred to as "Man-makers (think burpee with dumbells in hand). I have affectionately re-named this horrendous exercise "Leslie-makers." Or D-manmakers, for you.

Viva la Crossfit!

29/f/110

got bored so did the bear today

65-65-65-70-70

last time worked up to 80 and failed at 85. still not feeling 100% but something is better then nothing.

pre: 500m row, mod CFWUx2 + Burgie WUx2
post: strething

great job andy and little andy! i really enjoyed that video!

Tom Rawls #96,

You changed the subject from wind energy to renewable energy. Wind energy is currently about 0.69% of just renewable energy. An order of magnitude increase in wind doesn’t make it especially important even in this limited category. Renewable sources are only about 9.4% of total US energy production.

When California and other states put emphasis on renewable sources, they’re looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. Renewable energy is a diversion to the total energy policy, and wind is a diversion to renewable energy.

All California needs to do to meet its stated 20% goal for renewable sources is simply to tax and regulate nuclear generation, coal fired generation, oil fired generation, gas fired generation, and hydroelectric generation nearly out of existence. In the radical political, get- big-oil climate of California, that would be like pushing a car downhill. Look at what the state did and tolerated with electric power generation and prices in recent years!

California needs to promote nuclear power first and vigorously. It needs to multiply the number of stations, and get them on line. It needs to cut back on permissible law suits and regulatory protests. It needs to promote oil drilling, and to bring refineries on line in the state. It needs to get federal rules relaxed. The people need to be educated and led.

The way to cut dependence on oil, foreign and domestic, is nuclear power. Anything else is hot air.

Did intense CrossRest workout consisting of relaxation on the couch with some ice cold water and feelin the cross-draft comin through with some OZZY records on.
Started to break out a sweat from being in hot tub.

As rx'd

Regarding the whole global warming I completely think its trash. I think people are forgetting the big picture... I mean the ice age went away (i.e. the world heated up - changed its climate if you will) before mankind even knew what carbon emissions were.

Really if you bother to actually spend an hour or two to do some research you will see that the whole climate change argument is hardly ironclad. I'm not going to get into specifics here because that would take way too long but if you're interested you can start by googling something to the effect of "global warming false" OR "climate change untrue." A book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" has some pretty good stuff too.

There are those who say that even if its not true whats the harm in reducing carbon emissions and heres my answer: every dollar we waste trying to stop a problem that is most likely not caused by people is a dollar we will not have to deal with the effects of climate change - if they happen. I'd say we should save the billions that the green party socialists would have us spend and be ready to deal with the aftermath.

On a brief side note, its worth pointing out that both China and India were both exempt from the whole Kyoto treaty. That means that if we had signed we'd be handcuffing ourselves while two countries that could become our two biggest economic (and maybe military) adversaries get a blank check to do whatever they want.

Finally I'd like to say Crossfit is awesome

I didn't feel like tabata anything, so...

3x Burgener Warm-up
3 rounds for time: 12:45
10 kb snatch left hand(1.5 poods)
10 kb snatch right hand(1.5 poods)
10 Thruster 60kg
10 pull-ups
sucking wind!

1 set of 10 knees to elbows, or as close as I can get 'em

Regarding the possibility of human activities influencing climate change, I'm curious: who here, regardless of the specifics of your opinion on the matter, has actually read the direct research printed in peer-reviewed journals? Not regurgitated or condensed ideas or summaries re-printed in Science, Nature, New Scientist, Newsweek, Time or any other source, be it periodical or book, but the original research, complete with equations, model specifics (if a modeling paper) and so on?

Here is a link to a pdf which does a pretty good job answering most of the mythology about GW put forward so far.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

And it is backed up by what the White House itself calls "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. A lot of hard evidence has been compiled to support that GW is happening and we are the cause of it, most of the resistance can be traced back to Exxon funded denial groups:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

that have a real problem with alternative energy and conservation programs. And they should, they affect their bottom lines directly.

Possibly the most damning evidence is to follow the lead of a politically disinterested player: insurance companies. Their business is risk assessment, and probability, working with the available evidence to make a reasonable prediction of future trends. When they do a good job they make money and stay in business, when they do a bad job, they lose money and go out of business. Market forces right? Where are they putting their money?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/051101_insurance_warming.html

These guys are not what you call tree huggers, they care about one thing: money. And they have to be good at their assessments or they're out of the game in real time.

So if you want to call 95% of the scientific community, most of the big insurance companies, and everyone else who gives a crap about the planet they live on "chicken littles" go ahead. I guess that would make you ostriches right? Stick your head in the sand, pretend nothings wrong, hope it all goes away. Problem with sticking your head in the sand is that you leave other parts of your anatomy exposed. No thanks!

28/m/210

90x Pull-up +
10x Get-up +
80x Push-up +
20x Get-up +
70x Atomic Sit-up +
30x Get-up +
60x Squat +
40x Get-up

49:22

get-ups with 35#

You know, I'm gonna get a complex. I occasionally weigh in, ask a question or two, sometimes even answer a question like today. Am I just so much on the fringe of these issues, so immersed in the arcane and the esoteric? Is the economic impact of GW and the corresponding response not the issue at hand if we grant the existence of the entity?

If a penguin falls in Antarctica and Al Gore is not there to hear it, does it make a sound?

There are many articles on wind power. Here is one selected almost at random: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22538464-14743,00.html

The net is that kids living at home can afford to be profligate with their money, but somebody has to have a job, and somebody has to keep money in the bank.

Solutions implemented by sober adults need to be based on the way the real world works, and the way the real world works is that wind power is unreliable, so that full power backup has to be in place.

GE will make billions off it, though. If we make our metric the desire to do in Big Business, how do we select which one to do in? What if GE makes money with nuclear and wind?

The rest of it, Jeff is on the case. I have yet to see an argument that did not base itself on a popularity contest, and yet to see anyone challenge Jeff's model of the CO2 solubility curve.

I did wait 24 hours.

Jeff's Exxon funded myths are specifically addressed, along with citations to exhaustively vetted and peer reviewed scientific studies, in Myth #6, #7, #11, #13 of the the link I posted. Here it is again:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

Most of the rest of Exxon's myths, that have been repeated almost verbatim here, are dealt with in this paper as well. Don't trust a word that I say, check the citations and look at the studies they reference. What it comes down to is do you trust the National Academies of Science for all the major industrialized nations of the world or Exxon for scientific research in the area of Global warming?

The scientific evidence is simply overwhelming, that is if you are basing your decision making on actual science, not mythology, that GW is happening and we are the cause of it. If you want to keep your heads in the sand and ignore the facts, join your Exxon funded brethren. There are plenty of people developing green tech that we can turn around and sell to developing nations and industrialized nations to actually deal with problem.

"FACT: Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century
warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two.
Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP.
Some studies have received valid criticism for possibly underestimating the magnitude
of longer-lasting, century-scale temperature changes, such as the warming
during the MWP. However, other studies, using different methods, still find no
evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s.
Most importantly, any uncertainty about whether the present is warmer than the
MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the
warming over the past 50 years. A separate body of studies has provided the main
evidence for this finding."

What he is saying here is that the science is far from solid, and they are perfectly aware that a number of the "studies" in fact consisted almost entirely of statistical analysis conducted by people who were not statisticians, and whose work has been roundly condemned by statisticians as seemingly intended to generate a specific result, one which shows the latter part of the 20th Century to be anomalous, when in fact it isn't.

"FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large
natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural
processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the
Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be
readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of
CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years."

I have asked repeatedly that this claim of the highest CO2 level in 420,000 years be documented. It can't, because it is fallacious. They are comparing ice cores of unknown reliability, pulled from (if I'm not mistaken) the South Pole (versus the North pole), and comparing it to data gathered at the equator.

The empirical problems with this are numerous, but the most obvious is that they are assuming 1) their samplings--taken in very few locations--are accurate because CO2 is "well-mixed", which is a methodologically suspect and empirically unverified assumption, and 2) that the poles and the equator manifest equal amounts of CO2.

As Jeff clarified the last time this came up, CO2 mixes with ocean waters in what is called (Jeff correct me if I screwed this up) the Thermohaline circulation. Colder waters hold more CO2, and warmer waters less. For this reason, we would expect to see more CO2 at the equator than the poles. For this reason as well, global statements about CO2 cannot be called scientific, and certainly not fact.

"FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several
decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate
models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past
150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors,
such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of humanproduced
sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the
intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was
rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic
rays and Earth’s temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods."

My God. They are confusing models with reality. If science was a dog, they could be arrested for abuse. This really is a nonsensical pack of BS. They have ignored solid research modeling both the effects of cosmic rays and sunlight, and used as a starting point the conjecture of rapid warming, which they then use to "prove their point.
Real scientists do not pair themselves off with political lobby groups, and co-write papers with the intent of generating political results.

"FACT: Global warming cannot be halted quickly. CO2 and other GHGs can remain
in the atmosphere for many centuries."

The fact is, they have no clue how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere. They are stating an assumption based on their models, for which they have little to no empirical evidence. Jeff Glassman has shown at least one clear example of a feedback loop which would enable the planet to self regulate CO2 levels, as it has in fact done for all of the history of the planet until now.

It appears every single point is going to have major problems. I don't have time for 30 pages. Jeff understands this much better than I do in any event. I'll keep at it though. This farce is shameful. It is absolutely the worst abuse of science of which I know in the last 50 years.

For those with no interest in looking at the details of this debate, just ask yourself how free you feel in conversation to dispute the "fact" of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Can you say that it isn't proven? Can you say you are undecided? Can politicians?

What do you get called? A denier. Despite the fact that virtually no one who opposed this political coup d'etat masquerading as an effort to save the planet has anything to do with interests with very valid reasons to confirm the research, we all get painted with the same brush.

Ask yourself, if the question was: do plants grow better at 45% humidity or 80% humidity, would there be this sort of hue and cry? Is science supposed to be political? Is it supposed to support political positions, and condemn in the strongest possible terms all opposition whatever?

Say what you want about the facts. Maybe we are causing the warming, maybe we aren't. What is utterly unambiguous is that the debate has ceased, and an intellectual violence started without prescedent in my awareness outside of totalitarian states.

Long one in the hopper. Net is that rhowk has given us an easy target. Post should appear, unless I've exceeded the limit.

I did want to pin down one thing mentioned, which I more or less do understand, but not in detail. To whit:

"thermohaline circulation - the density-driven convective circulation system of the world’s oceans. Warm Atlantic water moves northward along the axis of the Gulf Stream, and evaporation increases water density while releasing heat to the colder atmosphere in the North Atlantic. Once significantly dense, the water sinks into the deep ocean, forming a downward limb of a giant conveyor-like circulation that extends around the world’s oceans."

Anyone familiar with even basic chemistry--which is me--understands that how much of sustance that can be contained in a liquid is a function of temperature. It is easier to dissolve your cocoa in warm milk than cold milk.

It is my understanding that within prevailing climate models the assumption is made that CO2 solubility is constant, meaning that as the ocean currents travel to the poles, back to the equator, and so on--in a circular fashion--the CO2 dissolved in that water remains constant.

This assumption is necessary in order to extrapoloate historical CO2 data from the poles, and apply it to equatorial measurements. Yet this assumption, useful as it is methodologically, is nonsensical. Why should we violate common sense, known laws of chemistry and physics just to support the conclusion we want to draw?

Why else the clear need to shut down debate, other than the many patent problems with the data?

Barry~

Thus my question about what original research people have actually read. CO2 is INVERSELY soluble relative to ocean temperature; more CO2 is stored in cold water than in warm water. The concentration of dissolved CO2 in deeper ocean currents is greater than surface currents. This is a primary function of ocean dynamics. What climate models have you seen that assume constant solubility and in what context?

My understanding with respect to the presumed constant of CO2 was what I remember Jeff having said the last time this came up. Can you verify that is in error? It's conceivable I misremembered, although I'm normally pretty good about things like that. I could be wrong.

It would seem to be presumed by anyone wanting to make strong statements about historical CO2 levels, since we have no samples from the equator 100,000 years ago.

With respect to CO2 solubility, it appears I was in error, since now that I take an undistracted moment to ponder this, that makes perfect sense. To dissolve gasses, you must cool them. I knew this, but got ahead of myself. I was wrong.

However, the underlying theme is the same. It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that what we see at Vostok, and what we see at Mauna Loa bear only a tenuous relationship to actual historical CO2 levels.

When we see scientists stating as fact that we have not seen CO2 levels this high in 420,000 years, if that is accurate, I can well understand why people would be alarmed. But the devil is in the details, here as well as in the claim that the latter half of the 20th Century was hotter than any comparable period in at least 2,000 years (or whatever).

I hate being wrong, and anybody that catches me in error has done me a favor, and themselves a disservice.

I have made a decision. I have become inspired. I have decided that I'm tired of nickel and diming this debate, and I am going to start a blog, and create interactive summaries of issues. As I get new data, I will make changes. I am going to figure out the math on this thing, and get to where I own the science, at least as well as a non-professional can, and better than many so-called professionals.

In the meantime, I will freely admit I don't currently own this topic in any way shape or form. Jeff Glassman does, and anyone who has not looked at his piece "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide", ought to.

Here is the link: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

An excellent decision, Barry! One of the major issues in the current world is the fact that all of cannot hold the level of expertise needed to truly examine the issues that are actually relevant to us, and so we all must, to some degree in each area, accept what other people say. In an era in which easily obtainable mis-information abounds, that becomes extremely problematic. In this sense, it is exactly like training- find out for yourself what works and what doesn't; don't always accept other people's opinions. Teaching yourself math is not as difficult as you might think- go for it!! Let us know the blog when it gets posted- I'll be interested to see it. I need to go read Jeff's page- I still haven't made it over there, although I missed the last big discussion on this subject.

In the mean time, I am still going to accept the mechanic's word on why my car makes that funny sound. I'm not interested enough to become an expert on that one!!

kvk #107

You speak of peer-review journals, then list Science, Nature, New Scientist, Newsweek and Time. The latter two are not peer-reviewed, and utterly useless scientifically for other reasons. But regardless peer review in this country is quite broken. It is designed to produce conformity, not to uphold scientific standards. See the evidence at www.rocketscientistsjournal.com, CO2 Acquittal, and find the Oreskes study.

Furthermore, Science and Nature are not available to the public except for a fee. Science for sale is arguably not science.

No climate crisis would exist but for the climate catastrophists known as the Consensus, and their house organ, the IPCC Reports. Nothing matters except as written there. There is no point in debugging other climate articles.

The IPCC reports contain perhaps several thousands citations. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that half of them were not freely available to the public, but were for sale at fees ranging mostly from about $9 to $30. To acquire the whole library would cost an independent citizen I’d guess around $10K to $30K. The IPCC reports should be banned from US public policy until a year after every reference is made freely available to the public.

Worse, one of the many problems with the IPCC is that many of its references don’t support the facts to which they are attached. Other of its references are not ultimate sources, but instead reference back to other for-fee articles in a seemingly endless and costly stream.

Good scientific practice is otherwise. A science writer should quote liberally and exhaustively from the papers as he needs the information, and then give a citation to the ultimate source. This is not a copyright violation. The IPCC practice is starkly at odds with good science in this and other regards.

Note also that the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed. The IPCC has a fan club at realclimate.org, and it is not subject to independent peer review. The Kyoto protocol is of the socialists, by the socialists, and for the socialists, and it was not subject to peer review. Greenpeace runs a black list of IPCC critics called exxonsecrets.org. It is not subject to independent peer review. It practices guilt by association, and the evil source is not limited to Exxon. It uses the name Exxon in the title to curry favor with the anti-corporation, anti-big-oil, conspiracy-theory-obsessed lefties. No one has a site to attack the climatologists for taking government grants or being paid by big Left universities.

Wow. No new posts.

Now that I'm not multitasking, and look at this, I realize what I was trying to convey was accurate according to my understanding, but due to recursion to one of my periodic bouts of retardation, I mixed ideas.

My intent was to point to my understanding, which Jeff discusses, that more CO2 is released into the atmosphere in the Pacific Ocean, than in the Polar regions.

However, in the spirit of "there are no dumb questions if you don't know the answer" I want to put a question to Jeff, as I genuinely don't understand this.

Jeff: if atmospheric levels of CO2 are higher in Hawaii because it is an "outgassing plume", and lower in the Mauna Loa data because it is a CO2 "sink", why would levels be higher in Hawaii and not higher in Vostok? There is something about the physics of how the CO2 came to be encased in ice that I don't quite grasp. Is it that we are comparing atmospheric CO2 in Hawaii to water CO2 in Vostok?

I understand there are two issues--the temperature and CO2 correllation from Vostok (which seem to show CO2 levels lagging temperature), and efforts to compare current to historical CO2 levels--but it the second question here which I don't understand. Perhaps I am being dense. Are we comparing apples to oranges, or apples to something unknown?

In your view, what would be the best means for 1) measuring current CO2 levels, and 2) comparing them to planetary history? I understand this to be unnecessary, assuming your model is substantially or entirely correct, but it does seem to me that this process, properly executed, would likely be very damaging to the AGW conjecture.

Dang, Barry- I had one in the loop but I think I got spam caught because I used two exclamation points in one sentence. I wanted to encourage you to proceed with your blog and learn absolutely as much as you can- let us know when it's up and running. I won't go into any more because my earlier post might get through eventually, and then I'll look like a dork (more than usual, I mean) for repeating myself.

KVK,

Fair enough. It seems clear enough that I need to expand my life horizons. Again, there are too darn many Barry Cooper posts here. These are admittedly big issues, but I take this much too seriously, and need to focus more on how to rehab my biceps. I think I finally have a good idea.

I'm going to be hitting Jeff up. He may tell me I'm an idiot, but that's the price you pay for getting caught ignorant. It may surprise people, but I'm never afraid to play the fool if I need to to learn something.

Oh, look, LSU is playing OSU, and my antenna gets it.

Later.

Jeff~

You missed my point; perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying to refer to peer-reviewed literature, not to second or third-hand accounts of it (thus Science, Nature, Newsweek, and so on- they are not PR original research, but many people refer to them as their source for whatever issue they are discussing).

I would agree with you on the "science for sale" issue- everything should be completely and utterly transparent. Everything. The problem is funding, of course- who's going to fund publication and such? We should have some agency who's job it is to publish peer-reviewed research and make it freely available to all. That transparency also applies to the political mess that is always, always made of science. I can't speak to the IPCC or Kyoto or any other politically-connected agency or solution, because I don't look at them beyond a cursory examination. I have access, so I go to the journals. Peer review should be perfect, but you are correct that it is not, especially in the medical field. I've never experienced the conformity issue as opposed to upholding rigorous standards, but everyone has different experiences.

As for Exxon, I am a fisheries biologist in Alaska; their track record is not very good up here. Your statements regarding "socialists" and "leftists" and "big leftist universities" and their relationship to climate change is, I think, tangential. Any list published by Greenpeace is a list, not a scientific paper, and so would not be subject to peer review any more than Exxon publishing a list of critics of its internal policies.

The reason I encourage Barry's forecast blog (and yours- I apologize; I still haven't read it yet) is precisely this utterly confusing and ultimately abhorrent mess of he said she said on just about every facet of our political and scientific and market issues. I hate it more than anything. I want the truth, and those who lie for money or power deserve severe and permanent penalties.

rhowk #108, #112

I disagree that your favorite site “does a pretty good job answer most of the mythology about GW put forward so far.” I read through the site quickly, and it contains nothing of any value. Some of it is dead wrong, and some is impliedly wrong. Labling what you criticize as a myth is popular, but quite off-putting. I also disagree with your 95% statistic.

Please don’t expect me to research your links for you. You might as well give me the address of your local public library. If you think any of these articles makes a valid point, please condense it and post it here or at www.rocketscientistsjournal.com, and I’ll give you a consdered reply, pro or con.

Your phrase “Jeff’s Exxon funded myths are specifically addressed” is your wild imagination in all regards.

Barry #113,

Good for you to see through the implied uncertainty in the “ten independent scientific studies”. Personally, I have to dedicate my time to the IPCC Reports. No climate crisis exists but for the IPCC, so debugging other studies and theories is a waste.

The natural CO2 cycle consists of massive outgassing from the oceans, concentrated in a few locales. Maybe two thirds is emitted from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, where it rises, splits north and south, enters the Hadley cells of circulation, and then descends to feed into the westerlies, flowing across Hawaii. Atmospheric circulation carries the CO2 around the globe and poleward. Along the way, it is absorbed into ever colder, mostly surface water, until at the poles it enters the thermohaline circulation, the great conveyor belt. It is then carried to depths to reemerge about a millennium later. This circulation is around 90 to 100 GtC/yr.

Man made CO2 is about one fifteenth the natural circulation. It enters the atmosphere and is stirred into the natural.

As the climate warms, more CO2 is outgassed. How much is absorbed is not likely to change because whatever the extent of the ice caps, the liquid water is in near equilibrium and freezing. How much is absorbed remains for someone to calculate.

You might want to check my site for discussion of the IPCC claim that present levels are higher than at any time in the last 420,000 years. (See The Acquittal of CO2, key words confidence or 420,000.) That time period is the extent of the full record available from Vostok. The samples are on average about 1.5 millennium apart. What are the chances that a 50 year period like the present was detected? The answer is about 3%. The present CO2 level is unprecedented over the last 420,000 years with a confidence level of about 3%. A coin toss is good to 50%.

One myth punctured. Next! Anyone want to nominate one?

Barry #113; rhowk #108, #112

CO2 does not persist in the atmosphere decades to centuries, as proclaimed by the IPCC and your mythologists. The IPCC’s own figures and standard formula show the life is between 1.5 and about 4.9 years. See On Why CO2 Is Known Not To Have Accumulated in the Atmosphere & What Is Happening with CO2 In The Modern Era, paragraph #1. See also The Acquittal of CO2, key word 35,000 words for a discussion of how the climatologists went wrong. www.rocketscientistsjournal.com.

Another myth punctured.

Barry #119,

Right, no dumb questions. We are all dumb, just about different things.

The atmosphere is richest in CO2 at the sources, the outgassing sites, especially the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. The concentration is lowest at the sinks, mostly the poles where the ocean uptake of CO2 is greatest. The concentration weakens from source to sink in a pattern that more or less spirals around the globe. As the ocean cools by moving poleward, it sucks CO2 back out of the atmosphere. There's a picture!

The current model for solubility has CO2 highly soluble in water. In this model, the surface is almost no barrier to the flow of CO2. The gas has a partial pressure in the air and in the water, and the two almost instantaneously come into balance. Someday we may be able to image the atmosphere, giving a false color to the CO2. I imagine Earth might look rather like one of the gas giant planets with stripes of CO2 circling the globe and moving poleward.

Vostok is actually inside the sink at the South Pole. It should on average have the least CO2 concentration. The IPCC disagrees. The CO2 concentration at various locations, and taken by various means, are forced to agree by calibration techniques. This is a valid scientific technique, and can yield useful modeling information. However, to use the calibrated data to claim that the CO2 concentration is constant around the globe is a big scientific error. That seems to have been committed by the Consensus. At the same time, it is contradicted by the IPCC where it states that the gradient of CO2 (change in pressure or concentration per meter or per degree latitude or longitude) is ten times greater in latitudinally than it is longitudinally.

Now that there would be no gradient at all if the concentration of CO2 were uniform around the globe is a tautology. What the IPCC says about the gradient implies that the longitudinal gradient is at least detectable. Otherwise, we don't know the magnitude of the gradient. If the calibration values were to be published (peer reviewed or not, at least made freely available to the public) we might be able to measure the gradient. The IPCC just shows charts where various CO2 records merge perfectly. Regardless, the CO2 is not well-mixed as the IPCC claims repeatedly.

By the way, in my last little explanation of the model, I didn't mention the seltzer bottle effect. As the conveyor belt/THC rises to the surface, the water warms and becomes saturated in CO2. The bottle cap is removed, and the gas explosively exhausts into the atmosphere. The warmer the climate, the more is released. The amount sinked at the poles is always at zero degrees C, only the geometry changes as the ice caps expand and shrink.

The CO2 at the poles is captured in the snow and ice first, and then compacted into the ice cores over time. One of the things we don't know, or hasn't been published, is the equivalent averaging time in making the ice core. It is not at all likely to be an instant in time, as the measurements tend to be at the atmospheric stations. Every kind of measurement has some averaging time. If, as it may be, the averaging time to make an ice core is centuries, then the Vostok measurements will be well below the maximum that an atmospheric measurement would yield. A helpful bit of data here which I haven't seen is the gradient of ice age per meter. So Vostok should be lower than Mauna Loa data for two reasons: the measuring window and the source vs. sink difference. The IPCC graphs show the two types of data smoothly merging into one continuous trace.

This model for the global flow of CO2 shows the influence the ocean has on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is by and large a by-product of the ocean. The fact that the CO2 concentration and temperature in the Vostok record follows the solubility curve is confirming of the model. This is the correlation bit. A more subtle feature of the data is that the CO2 concentration does not appear to have a constant offset in addition to the solubility shape. This means that the CO2 does not have a constant, average concentration. This is evidence that it does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

The little that man emits merges into a stream of atmospheric CO2 15 times as large, where weather turbulence mixes the natural and manmade gas and weakens the gradient.

The problem is not, as you ask, apples and oranges. It's fresh apples and fossilized apples. In between, there are rotten apples. There are Granny Smiths, and Macintoshes.

I've not familiarized myself with the measuring techniques. I take the measurements at face value as representing the state of the art, and then examine what the data imply. Measurement techniques are discussed at length in a freely published paper by Ernst-George Beck, complete with pictures of various gas analyzers. See discussion at Gavin Schmidt's Response to the Acquittal of CO2 Should Sound the Death Knell for AGW at www.rocketscientistsjournal.com, key word Beck. Very damaging, you ask? How about the death knell?

Also see The Acquittal of CO2 on my blog, key word again Beck. This in a conversation with Dr. Earle G. Stone, a professor at Texas A&M, a geoscientist with, unlike the Consensus, a healthy scientific skepticism.

Little late for the party, but here's Sen. John Kerry v. Rep. Newt Gingrich debating climate change policy. I thought it was actually (surprisingly) good.

(wfs) http://tinyurl.com/2mmyz2

Sen. Kerry's idea is "Cap and Trade", which Rep. Gingrich argues would only create and ever-expanding global government bureaucracy.

Rep. Gingrich simply wants all "Green Energy" industry to be allowed to operate tax free. Creating a system where you have 10,000 entrepreneurs trying to find a way to provide green energy, as opposed to Sen. Kerry's proposal which would cause 10,000 lawyers of carbon producing industrial companies to sue the government for unfair restrictions.

Happy rest day.

27yo male 185 lbs

Rocked this one out with my AC shane.

Shane = 15
Webbsta = 17

This one totally owns you. Pukie is on deck and ready for his at bat.

I Love you hunny bunny. I'll be home sooner that later now. I miss you so much.

Jeff,

Thanks. I'm going to have to reread that in an actually rested state.

As a Swag--a term with which you are almost certainly familiar--what percentage of the data upon which the IPCC reports are based are openly available in the public domain? By public domain I mean stuff that I could at least theoretically find in my public, non-technical, library, or on the