Thursday, July 16, 2009

AGW - Actual Factual Science (A Guest Post)

It seems to me that when the brothers Gore we writing the fairy tale that we all know now as Global Warming, or Climate Change or whatever clever euphemism they happen to be using this week, Albert Jr., relied heavily upon the knowledge (or lack thereof) of his audience. The problem is that there are too many educated and intelligent people for Liberalism to succeed, and this is the case with Global Warmingism. There are some truly great minds united against the subject of anthropologic GW. I had the opportunity to hear one recently.

A local meteorologist, celebrity and all around good egg by the name of Miles Muzio recently spoke at a luncheon that I attended. His chosen topic for the day was Global Warmongering. He went on to explain how solar cycles, lunar cycles and ocean currents all have an effect on the ambient temperature of this planet.

One thing in particular caught my attention, and Miles blogs about it this month. The Mu Force, or Mu Theory as he called it at our luncheon, which is the direct relation between the Moon’s orbit and an El Nińo year. Y’all remember our last El Nińo back in 1998? For the West coast it was a particularly wet year, with mild temperatures. The El Nińo phenomenon is a warming of the surface of the Pacifc ocean which causes the weather anomalies like we experienced here in ’98. It’s a detailed read, but I suggest you check out Miles’ blog to learn about the effect of the lunar orbit on our weather patterns here on Earth. Any sailor worth his knots knows that the lunar gravitational pull affects the tides; this is what causes high and low tides. Miles hypothesizes that as the moon’s orbit tightens, and it gets closer to the surface of the planet, that same gravitational pull stops the natural cycle of ocean currents. These ocean currents normally act like a big blender, bringing cold sea water from the bottom of the ocean to the surface, and recycling the warm water from the surface, back down to the bottom. When the moon is in its closest orbit, it’s gravitational pull counter acts the normal blender like action, preventing the cooler water from coming to the surface. This results in a warmer surface temperature on the ocean, and thus an El Nińo year.

A few other interesting tid-bits from the lecture:
· Miles called the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ theory absurd, stating; “When was the last time a volcano erupted in your greenhouse, or when was your last hurricane?” He went on to explain that our planet is remarkably good at reflecting heat and energy back out into space, something that does not happen in a true greenhouse.

· Miles stated that CO2 levels do not precede a warming of the weather, but instead follow it, and made it understandable to the layman (me) by comparing it to a soda or beer. You ever notice that the warmer your carbonated beverage, the less oomph it has? That’s because as a liquids temperature rises, the less CO2 it can hold. Thus you open a warm beer, and Tsss! all that fizzy goodness escapes, leaving little carbonation in the drink. The opposite is also true, the colder the drink, the more I burp…

· The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 385 parts per million by volume. Miles, the king of analogies that he is, described it this way: “If the atmosphere were a typical back yard, in-ground pool (approximately 10,000 gallons) the amount of man made CO2 escaping into the atmosphere would be equal to less than one thimble full of water being poured into that pool. Or, think of the atmosphere as the amount of air inside a typical home-“ Miles’ definition of a home, is a little larger than my modest pad, he suggested a 2,500 square foot home. “The amount of man made CO2 would be equal to 1/3 of a postage stamp cubed.”

The reality is that this idea that we can change the atmosphere, or the earth is so pompous, it could only have been born in the mind of a liberal. Maybe a RINO…

Your moment of levity; to which I say, watch where you step!

NOTE: Also on the Global Warming front: 43,000 children are injured every year in bathtub accidents. It’s a national tragedy and no doubt, Obama is hard at work looking for a Czar to take on this challenge. What does this have to do with Global Warming? That’s 43,000 children more than will be harmed by global warming this year…

(Disclaimer: This post was contributed by our good friend Classical Liberal and all cuss words should be directed at him. his curriculum vitae includes never having gotten his head caught in a bucket, which makes him at least an imaginary number squared X smarter than Al Gore.)

(DO NOT think that we are upping the quality of content on this site. We have standards that must NOT be exceeded.)

Please take the time to comment.

30 comments:

christinajade said...

Awesome post, CL!

I held conversation with a local weather type person several years ago, who told me that she had to grit her teeth every time she was basically FORCED to say the words "global warming" on the air. I asked her how many others felt that way and she said, "all the way up to Al Roker." I laughed, but she had a point.

By the way, Puddles got a bruise the other day acting like a 9 year old hooligan in the tub. Des this mean I can get a bailout?

christinajade said...

Note the typo above ^ should be DOES.

gheesh.

classicaliberal said...

Thanks CJ.

I wouldn't wait for the Bathtub Czar to get appointed, call your congressman now! Don't wait, it's your money and you need it now!

One Salient Oversight said...

Okay, I'll bite.

First of all I want to ay that science is no respecter of politics. I have no axe to grind for or against Al Gore but even if the guy was one of Hitler's right hand men he is still right about global warming. Gore has used his position to warn the world of the danger and I think it is better to treat the matter on its own merits rather than simply position it as part of the standard left/right political divide.

Now as to Miles Muzio.

I had to read the first paragraph a couple of times to realise that it was linked to the whole "1998 was the warmest year" debate, and that Muzio argues that it was warm precisely because of El Nino. The problem with this idea is that it misunderstands El Nino. The El Nino / La Nina climate phenomenon is cyclical in nature which means that the warm seawater around Peru during an El Nino turns into cool seawater in the same place during a La Nina. We've been in a La Nina phase for the last few years and yet global temperatures are still relatively high compared to the average. If there is a relationship between El Nino and global temperatures that causes temperature variation it does not explain why temperatures have been rising for the last couple of hundred years.

As for the moon's orbit on the effects of tides and warming - again it should be pointed out that even if a relationship does exist between the moon's closest pass and world temperatures, it does not explain why temperatures have been rising for the past few centuries. Even more so when you consider that the moon is moving away from Earth an average of 2.5 inches per year in its orbit (which should have a cooling effect if Muzio's argument is correct).

One Salient Oversight said...

Muzio is correct when he speaks about the historical relationship between warming and CO2 (warming first, CO2 next) - but then so are the climate scientists who are warning us about anthropogenic global warming. Did Muzio speak about Milankovitch cycles? There is a natural warming/cooling phase that the Earth goest hrough based upon the axis of the Earth "shaking" every 26,000 years. When the Earth cools down or warms up, water's ability to hold CO2 does change and Muzio is right when he says that warm water holds less CO2. So when the Earth enters a Milankovitch cycle - which causes global cooling - seawater is able to hold higher concentrates of CO2. When the cycle ends, seawater warms up and CO2 comes out. The problem with Muzio's argument is that there is a mutualistic relationship between the two as well - namely that increased CO2 levels can lead to higher temperatures which leads to higher sea temperatures which leads to higher CO2. The historical relationship of CO2 after warming is sort of nixed by the addition of human activities.

Muzio also speaks about the sheer size of CO2 compared to other gases in the atmosphere - obviously showing just how tiny a percentage of CO2 we're talking about. This is true, and 6-7 years ago this was one of my realisations as well. Yet even at such a small level CO2 does have such an effect. Small things can kill you. A study of earth's temperatures going back millions of years shows a causal relationship between CO2 at the ppm described and higher surface and sea temperatures.

We're already seeing a massive dropoff in the amount of Arctic sea ice, and sea levels have increased by 6 centimetres (2.5 inches) since 1990. With permanent Arctic sea ice melting, albedo drops and the liquid Arctic ocean will store more heat from the sun's rays. As the Arctic sea warms, warmer seawater will be lapping up against the glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland, causing an increase in calving (ice breaking off and cuasing icebergs) which, in turn, adds liquid water to the earth's oceans. The potential is for sea levels to rise a couple of metres, maybe even in our lifetime, and this would cause low lying areas of the world (eg Bangladesh) to be permanently inundated with water. The results would be catastrophic and, in addition to climate changes in food-producing areas, would probably cause the deaths of millions.

And that's why we global warming believers take it so seriously.

And just one last thing - 95% or more Climate Scientists, those who are experts in world climate and who study it, are the ones who believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just as we listen to the opinion of doctors about our health, so should we listen to the vast majority of climate scientists about the issue of global warming.

Andy said...

Awshit! I am in a big hurry, and just read OSE's comments. I don't have time to mess with it right now.

I'll be back.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! My word verification is "baribut"

It just don't get no better than this!

Andy said...

Okay, I'm back...I had to take a dump after reading OSE's arguments.

OSE: I am not one to discount arguments from guys that seem to have studied the subject MUCH more than I have.

But as you ended your last comment, you wrote, "And just one last thing - 95% or more Climate Scientists, those who are experts in world climate and who study it, are the ones who believe in anthropogenic global warming."

Really? 95%? Where do you come up with that percentage? Do you actually know all of the experts in world climate who study it? How many of them do you know?

If not, what source do you have to claim that 95% of "all of the experts in world climate who study it" believe in AGW?

And who are these "experts?" Are they pure scientists, or just guys milking grants from "concerned groups with plenty of cash to spread around?"

Or, are they maybe like the deniers who risk losing their jobs, offending the Goracle, and finding themselves homeless because they don't "bite?"

I'm just asking. And I ask, because when anyone...even an obviously learned fellow...throws out a number like "95"%" of anything...my BS Alarm goes off.

95% of any group of "experts" in agreement on "anything" is almost statistically impossible...unless you're talking about the Earth being round.

Your assertion calls into question everything you wrote before. Like I said...I'm just saying...and am very willing to be educated.

Skunkfeathers said...

My point on AlGore and his global warming scam is simply thus: he steadfastly refuses to debate experts who challenge him. He will NOT back up his nonsensical assertions head-to-head.

That tells me all I need to know about his arguments and his credibility.

Human-caused global warming is a scam. A scam AlGore is benefiting from and a hypocrite of, period.

Andy said...

Skunks, The Goracle can not debate experts who challenge him. He can not because he knows less than ZERO about the subject.

All Gore knows is that he has found a mule-cart to ride to greater fortune, and some sense of personal worth before he completely slides into dementia.

But OSE makes a good point. The debate is not about The Goracle. It is about whether we are screwing up millions of years of natural processes by driving cars, burning coal, and farting.

As OSE said, "95% of experts agree..." I'm still waiting on the verification of that before I take his other arguments seriously.

You know...don't bring a argument to a asstutte bunches liken us widout figgers to bak it upp!

paul mitchell said...

The thing about government funded science is that it ALWAYS follows the money. The folks that take government money to perform research are going to find what their masters tell them to find. Even if the FACTS prove otherwise.

Just saying.

Patrick Joubert Conlon said...

I recently did a post on the return of El Nino and, since then - being a weather buff - I've been pondering what causes it. Now I know - thanks to you and Muzio.

classicaliberal said...

Just a note to let y'all know I'm still alive, and I will be responding. Work has been crazy busy this week.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment! Its been great to see your thoughts. I will get back to y'all later today!

CL

classicaliberal said...

OSO:
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the matter of Global Warming. Let’s get right to it.

”… I think it is better to treat the matter on its own merits rather than simply position it as part of the standard left/right political divide.”

I agree that it is always best to judge any matter based on its merits versus falling into a typical left vs right political divide, however, I feel confident after researching this topic and listening to many who are far more educated on it than I that it is in fact a political argument, wrapped up in environmentalism and is being manipulated to control the economy. You cite the number ‘95% of Climate Scientists…believe in anthropogenic global warming.’ It’s an interesting assertion, but I would challenge you to provide back up for that number. On the other side, there are 30,000 scientists including 9,000 PHD’s who have come out against global warming, and more specifically anthropologic, or anthropogenic global warming.
Global warming has become a method to control the economy (i.e. cap and trade) and force a green lifestyle down the throats of every American. This is why it has become a right vs left argument.



”I had to read the first paragraph a couple of times to realise that it was linked to the whole "1998 was the warmest year" debate, and that Muzio argues that it was warm precisely because of El Nino.”

I reread both my first paragraph, and his, but I do not see where either links to 1998 as the warmest year on record…

”The problem with this idea is that it misunderstands El Nino. The El Nino / La Nina climate phenomenon is cyclical in nature which means that the warm seawater around Peru during an El Nino turns into cool seawater in the same place during a La Nina. We've been in a La Nina phase for the last few years and yet global temperatures are still relatively high compared to the average.

There’s this pesky word ‘average.’ There’s a small problem when citing the word average in reference to global temperatures, because as it happens, the longest running record of temperature data has only been around since 1659. I believe we’d all agree that the earth is in fact, many thousands/millions/billions of years old. For the sake of argument, we’ll use the smallest number I’ve ever heard in the age of the earth debate, please don’t kill me, it’s for argument’s sake only. The ‘youngest’ I’ve heard the earth might be is around 10,000 years old. If that is reality (and it’s highly unlikely), then 350 years represents 0.035% of the total amount of time that weather has been happening on this planet. Folks who champion global warming want to take this 0.035% of data and extrapolate it out over the earth’s entire existence and state unequivocally that it’s warmer than its ever been. We know for scientific fact that this earth’s atmosphere has been through violent extremes throughout history; including ice ages, warming periods, floods, etc. all without the aid of my Suburban. The fact is, we don’t know what the average temperature is for this planet and therefore it is extremely tenuous to proclaim an average, and further say that we are exceeding the stated average.
A more probable explanation for the rise and fall of experienced temperatures is natural global cycles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=player_embedded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1221096

*For whatever reason, I could not imbed these links in the text, so above are links to the referenced data.

classicaliberal said...

“As for the moon's orbit on the effects of tides and warming - again it should be pointed out that even if a relationship does exist between the moon's closest pass and world temperatures, it does not explain why temperatures have been rising for the past few centuries. Even more so when you consider that the moon is moving away from Earth an average of 2.5 inches per year in its orbit (which should have a cooling effect if Muzio's argument is correct).”

This assumes that there are no other forces in play which have an effect on global temperatures. This discounts or completely ignores solar cycles, global temperature cycles, polar magnetic cycles, etc. which may have an effect on global temperatures. It is entirely possible that a solar cycle in combination with the lunar orbit may cause global temperatures to rise for a period, even though the moon is moving away from the earth at a distance of 2.5 inches per year.

”…increased CO2 levels can lead to higher temperatures which leads to higher sea temperatures which leads to higher CO2.”

I would be interested to see some data that backs up the claim that rises in CO2 is directly relational to rises in temperature. According to this report, Are carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rising? Yes, but they've been much higher at times in the past, in fact, 20 times higher 500 million years ago” And yet life existed and persisted.

”The historical relationship of CO2 after warming is sort of nixed by the addition of human activities.”

Sort of?! Isn’t that the whole crux of this argument on both sides “the impact of humans on CO2 levels is or is not the causal reason for GW?!” If what you say is the case, how can we account for this? Isn’t it theoretically impossible to know what impact humans have had on CO2 levels, since we do not, and cannot have a reading from before humans were here interacting with the environment?

”A study of earth's temperatures going back millions of years shows a causal relationship between CO2 at the ppm described and higher surface and sea temperatures.”

I’d be interested to see this report.

”We're already seeing a massive dropoff in the amount of Arctic sea ice…”

And during the same period, ”Antarctic sea ice has increased by nearly 14% since 1979”

The reality is that if you’ve chosen sides in the AGW debate, your mind is likely to be unchanged no matter what evidence or data is placed in front of you. It is always interesting to debate with others to affirm your on beliefs or challenge your thinking. I think it’s safe to say that I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine. If you feel that AGW is a real threat to our way of live, do what you can to minimize your impact! However, I would caution those who see the legislative system as a means to control other’s lives, especially when the science is far from settled, and there is, regardless of what Reverend Al says, still a great debate raging.

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=10666569

classicaliberal said...

Patrick - I appreciate you taking the time to read through my post on the Mu Theory. You, and folks like you, are the reason that I posted. I found the topic to be very interesting, and I hoped that there were others out there who did as well. I'm glad that you learned something new (as I did)!

Anonymous said...

Riggghhhttt. Scientific journals like Nature, Science, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc. contain tens of thousands of research articles over the past century on the radiation physics of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases, reproducible datasets showing a predictable and then observed relationship between CO2 and global temperature (and on... and on...). Yet you're going to place your bets on a tv weatherman who makes up a force (naming it after himself, no less) to explain the occurrence of El Nino (somehow that one slipped by the real climate scientists) and comes up with sophomoric analogies that try to explain radiation physics using thimbles and swimming pools...

No wonder the country's going to hell.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, never forget, temperature has only been standardized since 1955, when Kelvin was set in stone. A data set of information on Earth (which is at least 3.5 billion years of atmospheric age) of only 55 years is a kinda small data set by comparison. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Riggghhhttt. What's the response time of higher concentrations of long-lived Greenhouse gases? What's the transient climate sensitivity, Luddite? Let's see.... radiation physics, the geologic record and the historical climate record suggest an increase of ~0.7 degree Celsius corresponding to the 30% increase in CO2 over the past 100 years. What do we see. Oh, that's right, about 0.7 degree Celsius. So, temperature observations match the predictions of global warming theory based on observed increases of greenhouse gases. What were you "just saying?"

paul mitchell said...

Luddite? Nice. You don't know who they were, huh?

Um, first point, carbon dioxide levels were higher according to all assumptions in many different times in the past. Even a mere 400 years ago. Of course, there have not been any discoveries of SUVs from the Triassic era, either. Nor nuclear power plants.

I appreciate your belief in man-made global warming, Anon, I really do. It's stupid, but I appreciate the fact that there have to be stupid people in the world. Simple history tells us that. We cannot all be geniuses. Plus, the world needs ditch diggers, too. Que sera.

Again, temperature has only been standardized since 1955, so the last 100 years has a variance that is unmeasurable. You see, REAL science needs controlled experiments in order to attempt to prove anything. Since actual temperature standardization was only adopted in 1955, all the data before that is immaterial, in fact. Of course, you do realize that a change of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (You know that is about what your HUGE 0.7 degrees Celsius is, right?) can be explained away with the increasing accuracy of instruments or a past of ill-controlled conditions, right? You also know that the temperature has been falling regularly for the last twelve years, which means we have about eight to ten more years before the regular cooling cycle ends and the slight warming cycle starts again, right?

Not only that, the measuring devices that crazy people like yourself are using to push your silly, little fright wig movies, are kinda not being maintained up to the standards. Plus, even though the equipment is not performing its function properly, the data that they are collecting is STILL not supporting the statements of the morons, even with almost 60% of them being in heat islands, now. That is kinda why Michael Mann had to falsify the data and manipulate his computer models. You know, what normal people call FRAUD.

(Here's a bit of advice, if you want to blame your imagined global warming on CO^2, there is a bunch more of it in the ocean than the atmosphere. Get on the idiot forums and pass the word around. Personally, I liked the cooling scary stuff where y'all had to get rid of CFCs, that only killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and Africa when they couldn't get cheap refrigerant and they starved because of food spoilage. Boy, y'all are humane.)

Even more fun, is that there exists no skepticism from morons on the left that believe this silly AGW crap. They do not even take into account the utter corruption of the IPCC. (That's the United Nations body that is paying Mann and his fellow crooks.) You see, not only does REAL science NOT support the ridiculous theories about carbon dioxide causing warming problems, the IPCC members are getting rich on the backs of idiots that do not understand mathematics and science. Like yourself.

Of course, criminals NEED dumb people to pull off their capers.

But then again, leftist scientists still believe in Darwinism even though Natural Selection was discredited before Darwin DIED.

Smart Tip: The Luddites were the folks that were anti-Industrial Revolution. Weird that you would pick that word, huh? Seems like the term is more fitting to you, my friend.

Dude, go play Halo, the adults are sick of your silliness.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I hurt your feelings. Your comments re: higher CO2 in the past represent a straw man argument, as I predicted they would. No reputable climate scientist would argue that CO2 is the ONLY way to change climate. It's just the dominant one now..... period. If you're interested in learning, ask specific questions about deep time in the Earth's past and I'll address them.

Temperatures have NOT been falling the past 12 years. You're cherry picking the 1998 El Niño year as a starting point... and you KNOW that, don't you? Take out the effect of El Niño and volcanic eruptions and you get a steady increase in temperature over the past several decades due to increasing long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann did NOT falsify records. He was caught being snarky in emails stolen by an as-yet at large felon and hurt some skeptics feelings (sound familiar?). So, they're responding by telling lies about him. NOTHING in those emails affects in the least bit any temperature reconstructions. But you probably know that, too, don't you?

Ahhh. I love the old, "CO2 came from the oceans" argument. If that's the case, why is pCO2 in the oceans INCREASING over the past few decades? You know, data actually matters. Also, why is the del13C in atmospheric CO2 DECREASING over the past few decades as predicted due to fossil fuel burning? Yep, your pseudoscience eviscerated again. Go back to your blogs written late at night by some disgruntled dude in his underwear who fancies himself Einstein because he flunked out of....errrr.... didn't go to school and dig up some other crap that I'll shoot down effortlessly.

Oh.... sorry. I just read that you're an anti-evolutionist. Didn't realize I was debating with the handicapped. No, wait. That's insensitive to people with real handicaps... ones they have no control over. For that I'm sorry.

No wonder you're so sensitive, so prone to rants, so rabbit-eared. You have nothing to hang your hat on scientifically, so you have to have some arrow in your polemicist quiver.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, you did not hurt my feelings. I get people here all the time that have no clue what they are talking about. You are no different, but your arguments are less informed than most of the other people's. Others actually try to find mathematical data or scientific data that backs up their argument, but you, you are so different. Seriously, do you get e-mail blasts from James Hansen or something?

When YOU brought up CO^2 being a problem, I simply pointed out that YOUR standard had existed many times in the past at a greater volume. You know, HISTORY? Of course you do not, that might knock over you house of cards. Of course, when it is pointed out that YOUR standard is ridiculous, you wheel out "Strawman." Again, you do not know what YOUR word means, just like Luddite.

When Michael Mann used data that supported his idiocy and deleted data that did not, that is called FRAUD. The e-mails sent by him requested that his colleagues do the same. Do you actually know anything about what you speak? Obviously not.

Yes, you are arguing with an anti-evolutionist. Since I am not an idiot and have a desire to hang on to "science" that has been discredited over 150 years ago, I guess that I am handicapped. That is cute.

Enjoy your echo chamber in Stupidityland, my friend. When you get off the dope and decide to join the productive population, give me a shout out. Maybe I can point you to some past posts that I have written that can truncate your learning curve.

Anonymous said...

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "my standard had existed many times in the past at a greater volume". If, by that, you mean that CO2 was higher than now but there were still glaciations (e.g., the Ordovician), then this was possible because the sun was dimmer 400 million years ago (by about 4%, 40x more than the piddly changes it goes through in today's sunspot cycles). Under those conditions, you can still get glaciations with high CO2 because CO2 isn't ALL that mattered in the geologic past. However, it IS the most important driver today, in part because the sun is so constant. I have other examples, if you're interested. We can measure more relevant variables than ever before at increasingly better resolution. With these we can apply physics (e.g., the Stephan Boltzmann Law).... and that all tells us unequivocally that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming... at least 2 degrees C by 2100.

2. You didn't respond to my comment about how impossible your suggestion is where you claim that the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is sourced from the ocean. Why didn't you respond? Do you not believe the measurements that show pCO2 RISING in the ocean, data that disprove your idea? Do you not believe the increasingly light carbon isotope signature of atmospheric CO2, an observation that strongly supports a fossil fuel source?

paul mitchell said...

Anon, You chose to die on the hill of CO^2 is a bad thing. Real scientists have pointed out that is a dumb way to argue for leftist science because CO^2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher in the past and the temperature was at varying assumed levels. I say "assumed" because the means to measure those levels, much less temperature, have only recently been standardized.

My point, which is only rooted in SCIENCE and MATHEMATICS, (rather than ridiculous leftist theories from people that were on the other end of the gloom and doom temperature spectrum as recently as the 1970s) points to the FACT that until 1955, we had no means to even compare one temperature with another. Being off 0.7 degrees is monumental, in case you were unaware, and by all appearances, you are utterly misinformed on pretty much everything regarding science because you are a global warming nutter.

Also, you cannot say, CO^2 levels were LOWER at another time when temperatures were HIGHER and also argue the point that now that CO^2 levels are HIGHER and temperatures are LOWER that CO^2 is causing warming. You fail to realize that there IS NO WARMING. Weirdo.

Also, I never made the suggestion that CO^2 levels in the ocean were the reason for CO^2 levels in the atmosphere, but it does seem logical since water evaporates and stuff. My point was that since CO^2 levels are HIGHER in the ocean, if you are going to argue that CO^2 is BAD!, then you better attack the ocean rather than the atmosphere. I was trying to help your argument which is totally devoid of any logic, facts, science, or mathematics. Sorry if you could not understand that, but I understand that is understandable.

Understand?

Final question, because to debate an obvious crazy person does nothing to further the successes of the human species, what is your solution to your imagined global warming? Eradication of ALL humans? Or do you just want to kill Jews or black people, Hitler?

Anonymous said...

You said: "Real scientists have pointed out...."
Name three...two... even one. Be specific with names. I don't want vague references to thousands of 90-yr-old veterinarians, TV weathermen, etc. Name actual climate scientists. This should be good.

You said: "(rather than ridiculous leftist theories from people that were on the other end of the gloom and doom temperature spectrum as recently as the 1970s)"

This is a myth. Read Peterson et al.'s 2008 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. They found that "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

W.r.t to your rant re: CO2 and temperature: Once more, no reputable climate scientist has ever said that CO2 was the only influence on temperature. But it dominates today. Plenty of data to back that up. Read the free IPCC AR4 report for a summary (www.ipcc.ch). Smoking guns abound, too (e.g., stratosphere is cooling while troposphere is warming, a classic greenhouse gas signature).

You said: "Eradication of ALL humans? Or do you just want to kill Jews or black people, Hitler?"

OooooK. You've really gone off the deep end, haven't you?

paul mitchell said...

Anon, you do realize that the ENTIRE IPCC has been totally discredited because of the Mann and Jones falsifying of U of East Anglia data, right? Then James Hansen pushing the same stuff knowing it was fraud kinda hurts their attempt at embezzling US tax money, too.

By the way, I linked an "In Search Of" special yesterday with Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the LOUDEST AGW proponents (today) talking about the coming ice age in 1979 and all the data that "PROVES" that it is coming. Are you sure you do not want to retract your misinformed comment about that? I mean, I only have it on VIDEO from a nationally televised program. WITH MR. SPOCK, TOO!!! So, either "Peterson et al.'s 2008 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society" doesn't believe that yesterday exists, or their research is faulty. Take your pick, I HAVE VIDEO!!!

Also, "scientific consensus" is a hilarious phrase. Leftists always have to have polling data to know what they believe. What is up with that? Chickshit much?

By the way, here is JUST ONE of the scientists that signed a letter to the United States Senate saying this whole AGW bullshit was...um...bullshit. They kinda know a thing or two, too.

Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology", Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists", Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand (who actually resigned because of the fraud at the IPCC), French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin, World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University, Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia, Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway, Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Among over 300 others that later backed the letter. Oddly enough, every single ONE of them is a 90 year old veterinarian, too. But, not one of those veterinarians has been busted for falsifying data just to get rich on their fraud. Weird.

This letter was delivered to Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Subcommittee and is SURPRISINGLY STILL ON THE WEBPAGE: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360

Really, you are obviously very misinformed, so quit showing your ignorance here and making me smack you around like Barry Obama or better still, go to DailyKos where they are stupid enough and misinformed enough to buy your hokum. I'll continue to do my own research to debunk idiotic leftist bullshit and keep making y'all look stupid, mmmmkay?

Anonymous said...

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. "In Search Of" is your authority? No wonder you're an anti-evolutionist.

Going through your list, where are the active climate scientists? Lindzen? Every paper he writes now (which is a rare occurrence) is ripped to shreds as soon as it comes out because the science sucks. For example, his latest paper purports that the radiative balance of the Earth is even, thus no significant greenhouse effect. What he doesn't say, however, (and I'm presuming he knows this... he HAS to know this), is that he limited his analysis to the tropics and thus missed all of the heat that, of course, travelled poleward, something someone in a freshman meteorology course would know. Want an expert from MIT? Why don't you ask the OTHER 20 meteorologists all whom are at the top of their game and consider Lindzen, rightly so, to be an over-the-hill angry old man that embarrasses that hallowed institution every time he's trotted out in public by some anti-science group. Robert Carter?.... the guy who claimed that his paper that took out the long-term trend of a temperature series using a first derivative "had no long term trend"? A student in the FIRST WEEK of calculus wouldn't make that mistake. Wegman, the plagiarist? Pretty sad list, buddy, if that's the best you can come up with.

Like I said before... no wonder our country's going to hell and we're being outcompeted economically. Other countries take science seriously. Too bad. I love mine and it's being taken over by misanthropes like you. There is hope, though.. At least characters like you have a voice that's only heard on obscure blogs...

paul mitchell said...

Anon, I agree, this IS like shooting fish in a barrel. And I am an anti-idiotarian, not anti-evolution. When the Messiah Darwin discredited his own "science," I kinda never took it seriously because his ideology was faulty over one hundred forty years ago. To continue to study something that was proven wrong before the end of the Civil War is really, really stupid. You Flat-Earthers are HI-larious.

By the way, one of YOUR GUYS is on video on In Search Of saying that we were about to be frozen in 1979. Of course, you could not even be bothered to watch it, it might dethrone one of the Liberal Chosen. You see, if you actually had any clue what you were debating, then you would realize a "scientist" that vacillates from one extreme to the other in 20 short years on a planet that has an atmosphere nearly 3.5 BILLION years old is kinda beclowning himself. I don't even have to help.

The fun part of going back and forth with someone that doesn't even have a basic grasp of facts is...well, there is nothing fun about it. When presented with FACTS, you turtle up and ignore them. Of course that can be expected from someone that thinks that "Climate Science" is an actual legitimate field of study. What, pray tell, could that field possibly entail, Dear Person?

By the way, "characters" like me are in the majority on the subject of "Libtardology of Global Warming." We actually DO have consensus, for what that's worth. And using you as proof, we are head and shoulders more intelligent.

Just wondering, what country do you live in and love so much, Morontovia?

paul mitchell said...

Anon, I agree, this IS like shooting fish in a barrel. And I am an anti-idiotarian, not anti-evolution. When the Messiah Darwin discredited his own "science," I kinda never took it seriously because his ideology was faulty over one hundred forty years ago. To continue to study something that was proven wrong before the end of the Civil War is really, really stupid. You Flat-Earthers are HI-larious.

By the way, one of YOUR GUYS is on video on In Search Of saying that we were about to be frozen in 1979. Of course, you could not even be bothered to watch it, it might dethrone one of the Liberal Chosen. You see, if you actually had any clue what you were debating, then you would realize a "scientist" that vacillates from one extreme to the other in 20 short years on a planet that has an atmosphere nearly 3.5 BILLION years old is kinda beclowning himself. I don't even have to help.

The fun part of going back and forth with someone that doesn't even have a basic grasp of facts is...well, there is nothing fun about it. When presented with FACTS, you turtle up and ignore them. Of course that can be expected from someone that thinks that "Climate Science" is an actual legitimate field of study. What, pray tell, could that field possibly entail, Dear Person?

By the way, "characters" like me are in the majority on the subject of "Libtardology of Global Warming." We actually DO have consensus, for what that's worth. And using you as proof, we are head and shoulders more intelligent.

Just wondering, what country do you live in and love so much, Morontovia?

paul mitchell said...

Anon, You chose to die on the hill of CO^2 is a bad thing. Real scientists have pointed out that is a dumb way to argue for leftist science because CO^2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher in the past and the temperature was at varying assumed levels. I say "assumed" because the means to measure those levels, much less temperature, have only recently been standardized.

My point, which is only rooted in SCIENCE and MATHEMATICS, (rather than ridiculous leftist theories from people that were on the other end of the gloom and doom temperature spectrum as recently as the 1970s) points to the FACT that until 1955, we had no means to even compare one temperature with another. Being off 0.7 degrees is monumental, in case you were unaware, and by all appearances, you are utterly misinformed on pretty much everything regarding science because you are a global warming nutter.

Also, you cannot say, CO^2 levels were LOWER at another time when temperatures were HIGHER and also argue the point that now that CO^2 levels are HIGHER and temperatures are LOWER that CO^2 is causing warming. You fail to realize that there IS NO WARMING. Weirdo.

Also, I never made the suggestion that CO^2 levels in the ocean were the reason for CO^2 levels in the atmosphere, but it does seem logical since water evaporates and stuff. My point was that since CO^2 levels are HIGHER in the ocean, if you are going to argue that CO^2 is BAD!, then you better attack the ocean rather than the atmosphere. I was trying to help your argument which is totally devoid of any logic, facts, science, or mathematics. Sorry if you could not understand that, but I understand that is understandable.

Understand?

Final question, because to debate an obvious crazy person does nothing to further the successes of the human species, what is your solution to your imagined global warming? Eradication of ALL humans? Or do you just want to kill Jews or black people, Hitler?

Anonymous said...

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "my standard had existed many times in the past at a greater volume". If, by that, you mean that CO2 was higher than now but there were still glaciations (e.g., the Ordovician), then this was possible because the sun was dimmer 400 million years ago (by about 4%, 40x more than the piddly changes it goes through in today's sunspot cycles). Under those conditions, you can still get glaciations with high CO2 because CO2 isn't ALL that mattered in the geologic past. However, it IS the most important driver today, in part because the sun is so constant. I have other examples, if you're interested. We can measure more relevant variables than ever before at increasingly better resolution. With these we can apply physics (e.g., the Stephan Boltzmann Law).... and that all tells us unequivocally that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming... at least 2 degrees C by 2100.

2. You didn't respond to my comment about how impossible your suggestion is where you claim that the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is sourced from the ocean. Why didn't you respond? Do you not believe the measurements that show pCO2 RISING in the ocean, data that disprove your idea? Do you not believe the increasingly light carbon isotope signature of atmospheric CO2, an observation that strongly supports a fossil fuel source?

Post a Comment