Gore’s 24 Hours of Fantasy About To Begin
Unfortunately for Al Gore, but fortunately for the rest of us, much of what we will hear in his 24 Hours of Reality extravaganza starting Wednesday evening is pure fantasy.
Gore is completely wrong when he tells us that the science of climate change is settled. If his “Climate Reality Project” actually did promote climate realism, he would tell us that the science is in a period of negative discovery — the more we learn, the more we realize we do not understand about this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled. Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Gore says, we need to recognize the doubt.
Many of the ideas expressed by climate campaigners such as Gore and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are the consequence of a belief in what Canadian professors Chris Essex (University of Western Ontario) and Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph) call the “Doctrine of Certainty,” “a collection of now familiar assertions about climate that are to be accepted without question” (Taken by Storm, 2007).
Essex and McKitrick write,
But the Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know is false. Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.
Yet, as long ago as 1989, Gore insisted there was “no dispute worthy of recognition” about the dangers of man-made greenhouse gas-driven climate change. Since then his certainty has solidified into dogma.
But that dogma is being contested by more and more reputable scientists who are finally speaking out in an organized fashion. For example, on August 29, a blockbuster science document was published that totally refutes Gore and Ban — the Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Coauthored by a team of scientists recruited and led by climate experts Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor Fred Singer, the NIPCC shows that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas controls. In other words, the science being relied upon by governments worldwide to create multi-billion dollar climate policies is almost certainly wrong.
Gore doesn’t care whether or not the climate science is true. Gore is in ideologue
partnered-up with all the talking-head internationalists like their Guru Maurice Strong. This is a deliberate and carefully manufactured scam designed to fulfill the dreams of the Club Of Rome in establishing a worldwide crisis that is a vehicle to redistribute wealth – more especially into their own pockets – and further their internationalist agenda using the U.N. as one of its primary vehicles.
Gore reminds me so much of the “Repo Man” and “Tin Men” movies that I chuckle every time I hear of his latest frantic antics. Gotta hand it to him though; he’s made millions selling the AGW garbage. I guess even delusional con men can make money these daze. Heh!!
Libruls cling to The Big Lie forever. No amount of evidence, no discovery of facts will enlighten their dark souls. This is true for Gore’s “settled science” lie and for the “Bush lied” lie.
Despicable Krugman and his despicable recent blog regarding 9/11 amply demonstrate this sad fact, as do the musings and fantasies of The[self-described] Physicist (see below).
Here is another Big Lie promoter caught repeating one of the main whoppers of the modern era. Fortunately he was called out on it, even though he clearly won’t change his mind. And this person is paid in part by taxpayers to spread this intellectual garbage.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/09/12/morning-joe-skirmish-smiley-recycles-bush-lied
Why modern liberals are 100 percent wrong about everything
What they believe is a type of nihilistic religion in and of itself. They have not only their hearts, minds, and souls invested in it, but also their entire social network and peer group, their families, and, very often, their sources of income.
It takes a big person to admit that he was wrong and to try to make amends. There are precious few of those around these days.
In the 20th century, the then-American oil company Exxon acquired huge tracts of Texas and Gulf of Mexico oil land.
In the 21st century, the now-global oil company Exxon now is giving all those American resources to Russia.
The deal depends wholly upon the accelerating reality of AGW. The hard-nosed leaders of Russia and Exxon now know that AGW is real … and they are acting upon that knowledge.
America’s politicians did nothing to stop the deal, because they were blinded by their foolish ideology-first AGW denialism … and by massive political donations from Big Carbon.
———————————–
Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/global/exxon-and-rosneft-partner-in-russian-oil-deal.html
If you really are a physicist, you are a charlatan.
He’s a psychopath, and a fraud.
“In the 20th century, the then-American oil company Exxon acquired huge tracts of Texas and Gulf of Mexico oil land.
In the 21st century, the now-global oil company Exxon now is giving all those American resources to Russia.
Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians”
What gives?? The last time I checked the Arctic is not in Texas or the Gulf of Mexico!
Dennis, the story below explains how the deal works.
Bottom line: AGW has opened the Russia’s Kara Sea to oil exploration. Russian offered Exxon a piece of the Kara Sea pie, in return for Exxon’s Texas and Gulf oil holdings. The deal ensures that Exxon “plays nice” with Russia.
The deal is a money-maker for Exxon — *if* AGW is real, such that the Kara Sea becomes ice-free.
One hopes that Americans in Texas and the Gulf enjoy working for their new bosses: Russia and globalized Big Carbon.
It’s just one more story that the IFM (Ideology-First Media) won’t tell you … that AGW is real and accelerating … and that Big Carbon knows no patriotism.
Now do yah get it, Dennis?
——————————–
Exxon makes deal with Russia for Arctic, Texas oil fields
URL: http://www.statesman.com/news/world/exxon-makes-deal-with-russia-for-arctic-texas-1806800.html
Well, “physicist,” maybe you didn’t know this, but it turns out that oil companies can drill for and produce oil even in ice covered areas. So global warming or the lack of it has no effect on whether or not Exxon can exploit it’s new deal with Russia. Maybe you could take some time away from your posting on this site and watch “Ice Road Truckers.” There you would find out that it’s easier to do oil exploration when the land or sea is frozen than during the summer months.
The area in question is ice free in summer and iced in in winter. There is no reason they can’t drill in the summer and then move the rigs in winter. Gulf rigs move when hurricanes come. Agw has nothing to do with it. Shell wants to drill in the arctic 3 months a year in the beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Danimal, what you say regarding “ice-free in summer and iced-in in winter” is a reality *today* … in consequence of accelerating Arctic AGW … but it sure wasn’t true ten years ago.
Ten years ago, Russia’s high Arctic islands were surrounded by thick, shifting, multi-year pack ice. Now these same islands are completely melted-free. And even in winter, in coming years the Arctic ice will be thin one-year ice … because the old thick multi-year Arctic pack ice has just plain disappeared.
That’s the strategic reality of accelerating AGW, eh?
And willful ignorance sure ain’t much help dealing with it.
——————————————
New Historic Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2011
Daily Updated AMSR-E Sea Ice Maps
URL: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
I don’t get it. “Big Carbon” is pretty funny though, but the punchline needs work. If you’re serious, I get that you’re way out there.
PHYSICIST?
You obviously spend a lot of time in your own mind … a fact that I don’t find offensive. I’m gonna quote George Boykin in my response to your AGW stuff:
“All socialist theory is based on scientific or secular humanism. Secular humanism espouses that reason, ethics and justice are the basis of human evolution and happiness. It specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making in ordering ones life.”
What has that got to do with AGW you ask?
I dunno … just something for you to contemplate. But there’s something else – there’s a need to belong that causes many to rush to group-think without reason and without God because it’s easier.
Just sayin’
Yet another in his endless (and boring) string of arguments from “authority”.
I have a brother-in-law with a PHD in Physics. He too is an Idiot.
Nobel Physicist Quits Global Warming Group
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-physicist-quits-global-warming-group
Scientists gave careful warning to American politicians …
… but only the Russians and the Big Carbon executives were listening.
—————————–
The unnoticed melt
URL: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/the-unnoticed-melt/
Al, calling yourself a physicist isn’t going to work here. By the way, isn’t that the dinner bell?
Johnny’s on topic, as usual. At 3 in the morning in Seattle, I might add. Maybe Johnny should see a doctor about his insomnia? Trolling PJM in the middle of the night isn’t normal. I hope he’s wide awake for his day job, because that would suck if he screwed up his radiology because he was trolling PJ in the middle of the night, and somebody got hurt.
Brands of conservatism that can’t responsibly answer even The Onion are weak indeed …
… so weak, that these willfully ignorant ideologies do not deserve even the name “conservatism.”
———————————
We Need To Do More When It Comes To Having Brief, Panicked Thoughts About Climate Change
URL: http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-need-to-do-more-when-it-comes-to-having-brief-p,21295/
Wow. Just wow.
Citing The Onion as if it’s somehow authoritative? Citing our refusal to bow to its wisdom as proof of our backwardness?????
It’s hard even to type that, it’s so ridiculous!
Okay, I get it! I finally get it!
This is all satire! You are really a conservative making fun of liberals!
Mark v, the message from The Onion is the same message that many thoughtful conservative groups now are saying … except that The Onion is reaching thousands of times more voters.
That’s not a constituency that conservatism can afford to disrespect, is it?
———————————
Republicans for Environmental Protection
A Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
“Physicist” is a physicist in exactly the same way that Trofim Lysenko was an agriculturalist.
What he doesn’t want to discuss is the simple fact that “climate scientists” are not scientists. There is no actual science behind the claims of “unprecedented” warming. There is no actual science behind the Hockey Stick.
A scientist is someone who follows the Scientific Method. That requires allowing independent verification of one’s work by making the raw data, computer codes, algorithms, etc., available to anyone who wants to know if the claims made are accurate. “Climate scientists” keep their data and methods secret as POLICY – they are not scientists.
Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit for years – even before Climategate – exposed this policy by the leading lights of the CAGW movement: Michael Mann and the Hockey Team, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Lonnie Thompson, and all the core IPCC “lead authors”.
The reason for the policy of secret data and methods has become clear when they are discovered (like Mann’s “CENSORED” ftp directory) or forced out (like Briffa’s Yamal data by a Royal Society publication) – the raw data is cherry picked, then massaged with phony statistical methods, or just literally turned upside down. Phrases like ‘short-centered PCA’, ‘Yamal’, and ‘Upside Down Tijlander’ are infamous among those who have dared take an honest look behind the “climate science” curtain.
“The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” by Andrew Montford is a very readable history of the CAGW movement up to the release of the Climategate emails.
Andrew, it seems to me that American conservatism is slowly making progress.
(1) Pretty much everyone things that 9-11 “truthers” are nutjobs.
(2) Even RedState regards Bachman’s vaccine theories as cuckoo.
(3) No-one thinks Ron Paul’s isolationism matches reality.
(4) Abolishing Social Security is an election-year non-starter.
(5) Perry is right that Hispanics are here to stay.
So gee … maybe abandoning AGW denialism is next-on-the-reality-list?
`Cuz in the end “Mother Nature cannot be fooled” … and she is telling us loud-and-clear that AGW is a rapidly accelerating reality. Responsible conservatism doesn’t hide from this reality, eh?
—————————
IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration
URL: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JC007110.shtml
Didn’t currents change and cause the Antarctic to start building up ice while the Arctic is losing it?
Yes you are correct. But agw proponents call that weather, and arctic ice loss as climate. You can’t win. They’re always right
In response to your reply above , that’s false. According to nsidc.org maps the 1979-2000 average shows the area clearly ice free in summer. Regardless, less sea ice does not indicate agw. Coincidence does not equal causation. Maybe tv viewing is causing some warming, they are coincident too.
Well *something* sure is different up in the Arctic, eh danimal?
Why keep quibbling & burying your head in the sand about it?
———————————————————
Supertanker sets speed record on Northern Sea Route
The Barents Maritime Observer
URL: http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4954241
I catch you with an outright lie, and that’s your response? Let me ask you, if arctic ice melt is proof of agw, than what does antarctic ice increase prove?
What’s my response? … oh I dunno maybe … that the inshore channels of Russia’s high-Arctic Novosibirskiye Ostrova and Severnaya Zemlya archipelagos are too shallow for SuezMax vessels … whereas the outer waters are ice-bound year-round?
That is … Russia’s high-Arctic outer waters *used* to be ice-bound year round. Before AGW accelerated.
See, that’s pretty simple, eh?
—————————————-
Russian’s Northern Sea Route setting Arctic commerce records
URL: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/northern-sea-route-setting-arctic-commerce-records
THAT’S what you consider a scientific argument? Something is up in the Arctic? What evidence do you have that something unnatural is up? The natural history of the planet did not begin the day you were born (or indoctrinated, take your pick).
A review of the history of the Arctic shows many natural cycles of warming and thawing, thinning ice packs and expanding ice packs.
Nobel Physicist Quits Global Warming Group
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-physicist-quits-global-warming-group
I will personally pledge to watch the entire 24 hours if–and only if–I am guaranteed that Al Gore will close the show, bowtie undone, cummerbund gone, shirt unbuttoned and sweat-stained, singing “You’ll Never Walk Alone” with teary eyes.
Other than that, no dice.
Nice. You’ll forgive me if I skip the first 23 hours and 56 minutes. I’ll just tune in for your fabulous ending.
I wonder if Gore is trying to out-do the Jerry Lewis Telethon? If he is, he’s going to have to spruce up his show with more celebrities, like Liza Minelli or Regis Philbin. He will not get any of the younger ones, because they will be too stoned to stay up with him. As for the far left, they’re still chanting “Bush lied and people died” to have much time for Gore. Nope, Gore is going to have to get some older celebrities to help him out. I wonder if Jack Nicholson, Susan Sarandon, and Geena Davis believe in global warming? It’s not too late to get them, Al.
Didn’t Al Gore recently compare AGW scepticts to racists who wanted to deny Blacks their rights in the 1960′s? Al went on to say that the racists were marginalized by making them social outcasts and he wants to do to climate change deniers.
Al Gore’s father was at the forefront of those who would have denied Blacks their basic rights. Now we have the farcial picture of Al Gore Jr, just like dear old dad, being on the exact wrong side of a natioal debate. AGW like racial bigotry is an idea whose time is long past. The jury is in and both Albert Gore Sr and Jr have been proven bankrupt of clear thinking and moral character.
It is nowhere near the most complex scientific phenomena being studied. It is simply a large chaotic system with self-balancing features into which we are adding a very small amount of a trace gas to no scientifically measurable effect.
I would be surprised that anyone is even talking about this nonsense anymore except I know many of our “leaders” are simply deranged imbeciles.
LOL. Nice.
Gore is of course wrong. But I don’t care if he is correct. The AGW crowd warns that if we keep releasing CO2 into the atmosphere (I refuse to hold my breath for the rest of my life) then Chicago will have the climate of Lexington, Kentucky. Having lived in the Chicago area my whole life and having visited Lexington, I say “Bring it on!”
Gore is a snake oil salesman. And his CCX Chicago Carbon Exchange closed up and blew away in the wind…..I wonder why. And where did the money go?…..
There is nothing as dangerous as a marginalized politician, hell-bent on creating history about himself.
The basis for Mr. Gore’s Carbon Credit scam is that human activity (burning fossil fuels) is pumping billions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, creating a “greenhouse effect”, which in turn, is causing the earth temperatures to increase (global warming). Listed below are four studies published in the journal Science. The first three studies, published in 1995, 1998, and 2001, looked at the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere in the United States. The results of those studies indicated there is no build-up of CO2 occurring in the Unites States. The studies discovered an “enormous carbon sink” exists in the eastern one-third of the Unites States. The “North American Carbon Sink”, as determined the studies, is large enough to absorb “every ton of carbon discharged annually by fossil fuel burning in the United States and Canada” combined.
The fourth study, published this year, looked at the atmospheric CO2 build-up on a global scale. That study, as did the others, found “zero residuals” of CO2 over the study period. In other words, there is no Carbon Dioxide build-up in the atmosphere. So, why do we need to waste money on phony carbon credits? We do have some real problems to address – like our collapsing economy.
Please, do not take my word for any of the claims about the North American Carbon Sink. Go to the web site for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org) and see the journal Science publications listed below – and others – for yourself. (Note: these studies have been ignored by the global warming conspirators and the, so-called, Main Stream Media
Science 25 August 1995, Vol. 269, no. 5227, pp 1098 – 1102 report titled: “A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the C13/C12 Ratio of Atmospheric CO2.”
Science 16 October 1998, Vol. 282, no. 5388, pp 442 – 446 report titled: “A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide data and Models.”
Science 23 November 2001, Vol. 294, no. 5547, pp 1688 – 1691 report titled: “Factors Controlling Long- and Short-Term Sequestration of Atmospheric CO2 in a Mid-Latitude Forest.”
Science 19 August 2011, Vol. 333, pp 988 – 993 report titled: “A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forest’s.”
It is simply incorrect to say that there is no buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming).
“Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[39] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[40][41][42][43]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
The graph in the Keeling Curve link above shows the measured accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Note that because the winds mix the air, the accumulation is global. There is no place, anywhere, that is exempt. Not North America, in particular. To imagine that the winds will not mix the CO2 in the air is the height of absurdity. Does WIND stop at our borders??
Any child can see how wrong such notions are.
So, an appeal to the authority of Wikipedia or actual published scientific research in the actual Journal Science…
I believe I’ll go with the peer-reviewed research, thanks.
BTW, since you’re a fan of Wiki, look up Edward Lorenz.
The Keeling curve is to historical CO2 levels what the Hockey Stick curve is to historical temperatures.
The underlying premise of the Keeling curve is that the air extracted from the ice cores is the same as the air trapped decades / centuries / millennia ago. This premise is almost certainly incorrect as there are over 20 chemical processes going on in the ice which can affect the air, some of which preferentially affect CO2. For example, despite its sub-zero temperature, the ice contains a lot of liquid water. Gasses can dissolve in water and the colder it is, the more dissolved gas can be retained. CO2 is 70x more soluble than nitrogen and 30x more soluble than oxygen in super-cool water. So proportionately more CO2 gets dissolved and the concentration left behind in the air is seriously under-representative of the original concentration.
Furthermore, it takes years, even decades, for snow to compact to such an extent that it forms an airtight seal. So gas trapped in the ice is likely to be an average of the surface air over many years. This means that any decadal variation in CO2 concentrations is ironed out giving a spurious impression of stability.
It is also worth noting that the Keeling curve is a splice of ice core data on to the actual CO2 readings made at Mauna Loa. Unfortunately, the 2 curves did not meet up. The ice core values were much too high – the value for 1890 was the same as the Mauna Loa reading for 1973. So the scientists simply made an assumption that the air trapped in the ice was all exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped and they altered all the data by 83 years. Some average age differential was probable for the reason given above, but choice of this particular adjustment was purely to make the data fit the theory.
In addition to these objections to the Keeling curve, we also have contradictory evidence. The scientific archive contains over 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the air, dating back to the early 1800s. These were made by the best scientists of the day using methods still employed today in disciplines other than climate research. From the 1850s the methods were accurate to less than 3% and this improved to less than 1%. These readings show that CO2 levels averaged well above 300 ppm and that there was significant decadal variation. More than once, levels exceeded 400 ppm, for example around 1940. Why would climate scientists reject actual measurements of CO2 made at the time by accurate methods in favour of estimates made decades / centuries later by methods suspected to be highly inaccurate ? The answer is because it would be totally impossible to construct a theory of global warming based on CO2 using the actual measurements. In most scientific fields, if the theory and the data disagree the scientists will reject or amend the theory. But in AGW climate science they keep the theory and reject or amend the data. In this case, they did both.
Want a best of 3 ? Leaf stomata are the pores on the undersides of leaves through which the plant respires. Botany tells us that there are more stomata when CO2 concentrations are lower and fewer stomata when CO2 is more plentiful. Leaves preserved from millennia ago, dated by carbon dating, therefore give a proxy indicator of historical CO2 levels. Studies of leaf stomata going right back to the early Holocene show that CO2 concentrations have averaged well above 300 ppm and did vary by 10s ppm over a few decades. In other words, leaf stomata studies are entirely consistent with the direct measurements of CO2 made in the period 1800-1957 and entirely inconsistent with the ice core record.
Finally, let’s forget the appeals to authority and do some thinking for ourselves. The Keeling curve says that CO2 concentrations for the last 800,000 years have been below 280 ppm and stable. Yet the previous few interglacials are known to have been warmer than today by anything up to 5 degrees. What this tells us is that either CO2 levels do not control the temperature, or the Keeling curve is incorrect, or both.
I have found that if you assess and evaluate the scientific evidence instead of just accepting that anything published must be right then there is no aspect of the CO2 global warming hypothesis which stands up to scrutiny. Perhaps you can now see why so many people reject the hypothesis.
So global warming = more atmospheric CO2? I wonder how it is the ice core data shows global warming precedes atmospheric CO2 by an average of 8 centuries?
Yah need wonder no more, Nuke Nemesis!
————————————
CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-basic.htm
Naked fat man should not expose anything.
Remember to position your Al Gore and Captain Planet action figures so they can watch the show too.
If Al Gore does the 24 hour tap dance on his network, no one will be watching. We’re all safe!
The National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), among other prestigious scientific organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere, have all issued statements accepting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
While some conservatives continue to cherry-pick the very few dissenters like Fred Singer. Who, AFAIK, have not published their findings in the peer-reviewed scientific journals on climatology.
That’s like going to six different respected doctors, all of whom say you’ve got a serious illness and need to have surgery. The seventh doctor insists there’s nothing wrong with you. So you decide to ignore the first six doctors and go with the seventh, only because that seventh doctor is telling you what you want to hear.
It’s too bad that Al Gore–rather than a real scientist with real scientific credibility–appointed himself as the spokesperson for this issue. That delighted the Left for whom environmentalism is a cause celebre. But it was a red flag to conservatives, for whom Al Gore is a Democratic partisan and a reminder of the disastrous Florida recount in 2000.
But the fact that Al Gore is a buffoon, doesn’t change what 99% of the world’s climatologists have concluded–that AGW is real enough.
Simple prudence would suggest that we ought to figure out what we, as conservatives, would propose to deal with AGW–if it’s real. By not doing so, we’re sending a clear message that we don’t know of any conservative, market-based solutions to AGW.
That’s just what the Left wants to hear.
[sinz54 says: The National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), among other prestigious scientific organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere, have all issued statements accepting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).]
The science organizations you mention have allowed politics to creep into their judgments, and are therefore less credible, less prestigious than before. The more they double down on their notions of certainty, and the more they try to stifle true scientific debate and honest skepticism, the less credible and prestigious they will become.
I’m not even sure climate modeling, as it’s being practiced today, qualifies as science. What’s being offered for falsification? Nothing. They claim some vague theory is “proved” when seven of nine models agree (or, when convenient, six of nine). What if one of the “wrong” computer models more closely approximates reality? Didn’t they see the movie “Minority Report?”
Models which support the alarmists are all prejudiced to the notion of a feedback loop that accelerates warming. There is no evidence to support this notion, and some good analysis that suggests the climate is not as sensitive to a CO2 feedback loop as they have programmed. Initial heating of the oceans may quickly quelch short term positive feedback by causing more evaporation, more clouds, higher albedo, more reflection of sunlight. Or the biosphere may more quickly absorb CO2 via increased plant growth, therefore rebalancing. Too, some of the computer program models had “constants” which adjusted results, but which now cannot be explained.
The early climate models, later judged by the alamists to have been “verified” were not saved, fully intact. So no replication can be done. Repeating a scientific experiment by independent followers is a critical part of science and it’s peer review process. So the men who lorded over their models, and their turf, failed in their obligations as faithful archivists of their processes and theories. Then alarmist community commited what I consider to be a horrible scientific crime, in that they actually tried to subvert the peer-review process, allowing only those with pre-approved CO2 feedback beliefs to play. In the vein of personal corruption, read the Climate Gate e-mails to see how the IPCC scientists were scratching each other’s backs to nominate each other for membership in the Geophysical Union.
Solar astronomers believe they can establish stronger correlations between solar activity and temperature swings on the Earth’s surface than the CO2 alarmists. Instead of listening to them, the AGW alamists call the solar astronomers irrelevant.
What the IPCC and East Anglia studies actually reveal is that tree ring data makes a lousy historical temperature proxy. Now we can throw away that failed approach, and perhaps try some new ways of estimating historical temperature records.
The land based temp data aggregations are being massaged and “adjusted” by men with a tendentious point of view. I’m not claiming that the Earth has not warmed. I believe that it has. But this heating, based on glacial retreat, seems to have started several hundred years ago, before large amounts of fossil fuels were being burned by humans. If that’s true, then is suggests some factors in play that we have not yet described in AGW warmist models.
In short, we are in the crawling stages of understanding a very complex system. Anyone who says this debate has been decided is a charlatan. No one should accept this crap, not conservatives or liberals.
The market — the collective actions of free people — decided there is not a problem that requires a solution.
But have you noticed that billions of dollars of green and environmentally friendly products are sold each year? People buy those freely. That’s the market in action.
That is a solid post, sinz54.
The sober & accelerating reality of AGW is an opportunity for American conservatism to prove that it can (in Gen. Petraeus’ phrase) “learn and adapt” to the sober & accelerating realities of the 21st century.
That’s why AGW never was about Al Gore … and that’s why it’s foolish of PJM/Tatler to pitch it that way.
Not to long ago a lot of prestigious consensus “scientific” organizations accepted that race is an independent variable for explaining human behavior, and further back that the sun revolved around the earth. I’m sure a lot of enlightened material interests–the Yankee and Dutch slave traders and the Church as well as the Arabs–profited from such sober consensual scientific theories, but I’m always amused that you Gore types refuse to apply the same standards for validating legitimate knowledge to yourselves by denying or refusing to entertain the underlying economic motives and sources of income for your pet theory of AGW–namely government grants, including donations from the corporations you whine about. At least Standard Oil produced a cheap energy source to better produce food to feed the world while all you guys can come up with is ethanol, burning food crops, and Van Jones, the model from Mao to emulate for modern climate ethics. If it wasn’t about Gore, and the empirical facts don’t fit the GHG models, then it must be about better ruling the unwashed for fun and profit by the educated liberal elite, from which Al Gore is the most visible face.
don, the increasing desperation of fact-free denialist rants is becoming even more effective than sober science, in making the accelerating reality of AGW plain to thoughtful American citizens.
So, thanks!
————————
Texas wildfires: More evidence of climate change
URL: http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2011/09/texas-wildfires-more-evidence-of-climate-change/
Dude, you’re projecting desperation, not to mention excess carbon production; may I suggest some anxiety management, as in get a life, get laid, perhaps experience some real working class facts for a change? Since Al Gore refuses to, you could even be an ascetic monk and make a difference, perhaps even save the planet. Remember, only you and Smokey the bear can prevent climate change.
Oh yes, Texas never had a drought before. Therefore agw. Pathetic
Hey Johnny. Ever wonder why Seattle hasn’t had a summer since 2009? Clue: it’s related to the Texas wild fires. I’ll give you another hint: it means “little girl” en Espanol.
http://kocoweatherblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/lanina2.png
Now don’t you feel like a complete moron for trying to pin it on “climate change”?
Well? Do you?
Yes Snork, it’s definitely true …
… that other conservative coalitions are making a better case than I have.
————————————
Climate for Change
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/comment/1252513/
Comparing skeptics of the Imminent! Global! Catastrophy! claims you promote here to Holocaust deniers is a despicable slander. But that’s all you have to defend your religious beliefs that The End Is Near, isn’t it?
““At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” – that Talking Points Memo philosophy really appeals you, doesn’t it, “physicist”?
I’m surprised that “a physicist” posted the link to the hysterical chron.com article he mentioned above, since it’s a highly unscientific and illogical article, consisting mainly of several non sequiturs pasted together with rhetoric. Not to mention the contradictions such as [paraphrased] “It’s folly to blame everything on CO2, but droughts, heat, and wildfires should be blamed on CO2.” Just an utterly risible screed.
Wow. I’m convinced. Especially after I saw the NOAA charts recording 600 degree F temps in Egg Harbor, WI. It could only get worse. Where do I sign up…Not.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
CAGW has 3 components.
GW ( global warming ) is accepted by skeptics although the magnitude is massaged in the surface temperature records. The phenomenon follows natural cycles and we are currently in a period of remission.
C ( catastrophic ) – there is no catastrophe in the real world. Sea level rise and all weather related events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc are within the normal parameters of natural variation. The only catastrophes lie in what the computer models predict will happen. These models are hopelessly flawed and have never successfully predicted anything.
A ( anthropogenic ) – i.e. driven by man-made CO2. This hypothesis depends critically on the idea of strong positive feedbacks from water vapor. But the missing hotspot is conclusive in telling us that these feedbacks just do not happen. Without the positive water vapor feedback there is no human caused climate crisis. And, of course, every few weeks we hear of more and more evidence that feedbacks are actually net negative so the world has a natural self-correcting thermostat.
I confidently expect that the “scientific evidence” part of Al Gore’s performance will comprise evidence of GW only, with the role of CO2 simply being asserted. He can’t produce empirical evidence that CO2 drives the climate because there isn’t any. Go on, Al, explain away the missing hotspot.
The rest of his event will be an appeal to authority plus a suggestion that the source of funding is relevant in assessing scientific evidence. ( If this were so then the billions spent by government on the pro-CAGW gravy train would invalidate all their results.)
Personally, I am delighted that Al Gore is undertaking this exercise. The more that people are stimulated into investigating the climate change issues, the more they will realize that proposed policies are unnecessary, futile and hugely damaging.
There no global warming. It is impossible in theory, and temperature histories show no long term global trend. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide does not cause anthropogenic global warming because additional carbon dioxide has a “diminishing returns” effect and is already at the level of being miniscule.
See URL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
And URL: http://www.randombio.com/co2.html
sinz54 seems to have not read my piece – check out nipccreport.org for many many references opposing the hypothesis (it has not graduated to a theory yet and probably never will) of human-caused dangerous climate change.
Do you know how many of the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), among other prestigious scientific organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere, that have all issued statements accepting the theory of [dangerous] anthropogenic global warming (AGW).” actually polled their members and showed that a majority of their members supported the hypothesis?
ZERO.
It could be a good show. I hear Rev. Al will start it with a prayer to save our Solyndras and then turn some water vapor into whine.
The self-playing GIF picture I link to below shows the reconstructed temperature record based on ice cores held at NOAA. The graph starts with showing a recent timespan ending on the present and then keeps zooming out to show the deep history of the earth’s temperature variations, none of which were man-made.
URL: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Oh wow … animated graphics from the ideology-first denialist site “wattsupwiththat” … say, weren’t those guys among the *worst* performers in this year’s ice-melt prediction contest (link below)?
The world’s CEO’s, military leaders, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, farmers, hunters, and fishers all understand perfectly well that AGW is real and accelerating … and oh yeah, the Vatican does too.
Heck, the denialist community is shrinking even faster than the Arctic sea-ice!
——————-
September Sea Ice Outlook: June Report
URL: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2011/june
You really ought to read the things you link to. September is not over yet. The dashed line is the median of opinions, not the correct answer.
Is this the level of attention you give to all technical reading? No wonder.
Present ice levels are at-or-below all but four of the 19 posted predictions. So it seems to me that the scientists are doing reasonably well … except that their models may be underestimating the accelerating pace of AGW.
Future Arctic ice-melts will tell the tale, because “Mother Nature cannot be fooled.”
It is getting cold fast this year. Ice is accumulating again.
See the Danish Meteorological Institute: Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel, as a function of the day of year.
URL: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Thanks, Paul R … your link to the Danish Center for Ice and Snow site is outstanding.
Yep, that Danish data *does* shows plainly that radically warm 2010-11 winter temperatures has led to thin, easily-melted 2011 summer ice. As the Danes explain it (from their site):
It’s mighty good to see more-and-more PJM/Tatler regulars waking up the accelerating reality of AGW!
`Cuz the sobering strategic reality of AGW never *really* was about a minor politician like Al Gore, was it?
Reality is far more serious than *that*.
—————————————-
Centre for Ocean and Ice at the Danish Meteorological Institute
URL: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
There is nothing radical about the variations in artic ice extent, which naturally varies over a great extent. For the ludicrous scaremongering about sea level rise to have any validity the total amount of ice on the globe would have to decrease. That means both the north and south pole would have to melt at the same time. It is not happening:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Paul R, your post is wrong-on-the-facts.
The global ice-mass balance is negative … and accelerating.
Conservatism recognizes that sustained negative balances are bad, eh?
———————————–
Increasing rates of ice mass loss
from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
revealed by GRACE
URL: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Assuming the GRACE data is even still valid given the error found in the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, you are equivocating the subjects of that paper (Greenland and Antartic ice sheets) with global ice mass, which neglects sea ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing.
Error in GIA model fixed URL: http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=32
It *is* impressive how the GRACE team keeps improving its measurement methods. The GRACE technology *already* is utterly amazing … and the GRACE findings are utterly sobering.
The accelerating ice-mass loss, both Arctic and Antarctic, as observed by GRACE, has become large enough to perceptibly alter the rotation of the entire planet.
——————————————-
Recent changes in the Earth’s oblateness
driven by Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss
URL: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047879.shtml
Tom, legalistic quibbling doesn’t change the plain fact … that sinz54′s post is spot-on.
Duh.
——————————————
Expert credibility in climate change
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)
URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
A physicist, you are wrong.
The skeptics post their arguments and in turn you…ridicule them personally.
Go collect your payoff, er..paycheck.
Michael, I stand corrected, and I apologize for it.
Specifically, my use of the word “duh” served no good purpose.
The facts of my post, however, were wholly correct …
… and Tom Harris’ post *was* legalistically phrased to obscure those plain facts.
That’s not good.
———————————-
Climate change: How do we know?
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I’ve always had trouble believing the global warming theory, for a number of different reasons. I remember in 1972 going to Mesa Verde and hearing why that “civilization” ended. I figured that the reason was settled, at least until I went back in 1982 and heard a whole new theory. That’s when I realized that science is only settled until someone comes up with a better mousetrap.
A second reason global warming didn’t resonate was because I had lived through the impending mini-ice age of the 1970s. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .
But the real dealbreaker for believing in global warming and climate change is the dinosaurs. The science has always been that the world was a much warmer place in that age than it is today. It’s also agreed that man wasn’t around yet. So if the world was warmer then, how could it have happened without us?
This is not to say that we need to be aware of the damage we can cause. I still remember the river on fire around 1970 and the pollution in the LA Basin and other places during that decade. We can cause harm, I just am not convinced we alone can do what the climate scientists claim.
Maybe the scientists give us humans way to much power and credit – and expect guilt and unquestioning compliance in return.
Blue Button, almost anywhere a person digs in Florida, they’ll find shark teeth.
That’s because every time the Arctic and/or Antarctic ice melts, most of the state of Florida goes underwater.
This melting can happen from wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or from CO2 emitted in vast volcanic eruptions …
… or it can happen real soon, if humans burn too much carbon, too fast.
No it wouldn’t be cool to have sharks swimming where New York, Washington DC, Miami, New Orleans, and Galveston used to be. The no-nonsense Dutch regard the sea-rise disaster very seriously … America should too.
——————————————-
Fossil and modern shark teeth in Florida
URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/fossils/fossil_modernsharkteeth.html
To quote your own words (even if your argument makes no sense):
A physicist
Danimal, what you say regarding “ice-free in summer and iced-in in winter” is a reality *today* … in consequence of accelerating Arctic AGW … but it sure wasn’t true ten years ago.
Ten years ago, Russia’s high Arctic islands were surrounded by thick, shifting, multi-year pack ice. Now these same islands are completely melted-free. And even in winter, in coming years the Arctic ice will be thin one-year ice … because the old thick multi-year Arctic pack ice has just plain disappeared.
That’s the strategic reality of accelerating AGW, eh?
And willful ignorance sure ain’t much help dealing with it.
——————————————
New Historic Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2011
Daily Updated AMSR-E Sea Ice Maps
URL: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
I may be mistaken, but I do believe Florida was not submerged ten years ago, and according to my family in Tampa, it was still there last weekend.
Lol melting sea ice raises ocean above Florida. ya sure? Really? Most estimates say maybe 3-4 centimeters if all sea ice and ice shelves melted. That’ll sink florida? U just make some of this up, like the sea ice lie posted above.
Lol again. Volcanos cause warming? Really? Lol this is getting fun. Volcanos cool the earth. If you don’t know that how can you even debate the more complicated stuff.Lol
No science is ever really “settled”. A fundamental tenet of the scientific method is that all current knowledge is subject to review and revision, based on new information and methods to obtain such. Matter of fact, Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962) observes that most major discoveries come from the occasional paradigm shift in thinking, not from the incremental accretion of minor refinements.
I believe Kuhn also made the point that these shifts come not from the mainstream of a given scientific discipline, but tend to come from non-experts, people who were only marginally associated with the subject.
Hey physicyst I’ll ask again, if arctic ice melt is proof of agw, then what does antarctic ice increase prove?
Hmmmm … that the Arctic is a shallow ocean surrounded by land? Hence feels AGW first?
That the Antarctic is an island surrounded by deep ocean? Hence feels AGW last?
The Antarctic ain’t immune to AGW … it just takes a little longer …
As climate scientist have long foreseen … and as satellites now are seeing.
—————————-
Increasing rates of ice mass loss
from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
revealed by [the satellite] GRACE
URL: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
As climate scientist have long foreseen … and as satellites now are seeing.
Satellites?
What about the other satellites that haven’t measured appreciable warming in the upper atmosphere?
Will he cry at the end like Jerry Lewis used to do?
No. He’ll have sex with a masseuse, and do the Chakra Dance. He will then sit down to a twelve-course dinner.
Hey, I just realized something:
This “warming” tend could be part of a long-term natural cycle. After all, large and small-scale cycles occur with considerable regularity. There may be “warming” because we are still doing a slow crawl out of the so-called Little Ice Age. Man’s contribution to CO2 levels are largely absorbed by natural defense in the ecosystem.
The worst part about this AGW scam is that it sems to have hijacked the traditional environmental movement.
I’m sorry I wrote all that nonsense above, but that was because I fell hard on my head after a two-day meth bender, and have only just recovered. I now relaize that “AGW” is the mother of all scaremongering “scientific” scams, bigger than silicone implants cause autoimmune disorders, or powerlines cause cancer, or Radon is killing whole bunches of people, or fat is bad for you, or . . . whatever.
:-):-):-):-)
SHEESH! I’ve made such a fool of myself. Will I ever recover?
Lol … gosh, *real* posts by “A physicist” generally include references.
Like this (outstanding) one.
—————————————
Republicans for Environmental Protection
A Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
Are you ever on topic? Do you understand what the phrase “on topic” means?
Just a reminder:
Snork, if you care to download Katherine Hayhoe’s fact-based pro-conservatism presentation Climate for Change (which has beautiful artwork, but is a rather large PDF file), you’ll find that (1) she’s very much on-target, and (2) she answers many of the AGW questions that you and others have raised.
Kudos to Republicans for Environmental Protection for hosting this outstanding work, which (to my mind) represents the future of thoughtful, responsible, fact-based, foresighted American conservatism.
Snork, ya’ll can thank me later.
————————————
Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf
The Earth has undergone dramatic climate change over its entire existence. In the past 3,000 years there have been four periods with much greater warmth than today. The Human race has only excelled in warmer periods of the Middle Ages, the Roman warming and the Minoan age. In the past 8,000 years there have only been three colder dips than we are experiencing today.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2572865/1500-yr-Climate-Cycle
The Sun’s solar radiation varies on earth due to more active sun spots and the variation of the earth’s orbit, tilt and wobbles. Additionally during these active solar periods the solar wind forces fewer cosmic rays to strike the atmosphere and reduces cloud formation, allowing more solar heating. When the sun is inactive, fewer sunspots and the inverse applies. We are at a near historic low of sunspots.
Finally The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a 20-30 year long cycle of warmer and cooler temperatures in the Pacific Ocean that has dramatic impact on the global climate. The PDO recently shifted to cool.
More than1,000 Scientists oppose http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
In Summary it is folly for the AGW supporters to propose drastic measures in Government, Energy and lifestyle based on a time scale of 150 years when there is clear evidence we should fear a cooling planet than one that is failing to reach previous warming periods. Mankind should be very thankful for its current warming period. Earlier warming periods allowed us to thrive. The Human race may survive a much greater threat of an asteroid or comet impact because warmth allowed us to grow food and advance to the technical levels of today.
Visionar, NASA’s survey of the last 650,000 years of earth’s climate …
… establishes that the claims in your post are irrelevant and/or bogus.
Check it out, eh? :) ;) :)
—————————————
Climate change: How do we know?
NASA’s vital signs of the planet
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth’s surface in the Northern Hemisphere. observed in the atmosphere. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Taught in every high school earth science class I know of. So several major eruptions at one time and the cooling would be very significant. No matter the CO2 output.
#1 the basic dispute is do higher temps drive co2 higher or does co2 drive temperatures higher ? This basic fact is still in dispute.
Core samples prove co2 was 8 times higher in the past with no negative effects
Do we want to drive business to it’s knees as the EPA is doing now and will continue to do the next 2 years ? Even if it was an irrefutable fact the unemployed wouldn’t want a damn thing to do with it knowing it cost them employment.
Global Warming is a eco-religion not science
NC-Mike, why don’cha look-up the residence time of aerosols like SO2 (months) versus CO2 (centuries) & then get back to us. That’s why climate scientists are becoming steadily more worried about AGW. `Cuz we humans nowadays are pumping CO2 into the air at a rate much faster than rates that FUBAR’d the planet in the past.
What does American conservatism have to say about this sobering planetary reality?
At least one thing is clear … AGW denialism is no kind of American conservatism.
————————————-
Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
URL: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/abs/ngeo1179.html
Atmospheric CO2 has been rising throughout the 20th Century and yet in that same time period temperatures have gone up and down, again and again.
In fact we have experienced a pronounced drop in global temperatures in the last decade or so.
AGW can not explain this. In fact AGW says this can not happen.
Yet it has.
Climate outcomes are poorly predicted by CO2 levels, but track quite nicely with energy flux from the Sun and solar influence on cosmic particle flux.
Isn’t it funny how the thing that creates the Earth’s climate in the first place also has the most powerful influence on the Earth’s climate.
The Sun will get blamed for Global Warming if and when the Socialists figure out how to levy a tax on it.
But eman, doesn’t the simple graph on page 6 of Katherine Hayhoe’s Republican-sponsored Climate for Change hilariously refute the non-factual claims of your post?
Kudos outbound to Republicans for Environmental Protection!
—————————————————–
Republicans for Environmental Protection
A Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
The first cyclical variation, known as eccentricity, controls the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
The second cyclical variation results from the fact that as the Earth rotates on its polar axis, it wobbles like a spinning top changing the orbital timing of the equinoxes and solstices.
The third cyclical variation is related to the changes in the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth’s axis of rotation over a 41,000 year period. During the 41,000 year cycle the tilt can deviate from approximately 22.5 to 24.5°.
the Milankovitch theory
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_climate_change#gen1
These three cycles vary in range from 26, 000 to 100,00 years and each cause variations in the amount of solar energy received by the earth. No dispute here, simple physics of motion. How can anyone say with certainty that any of the three can’t/will not alter the climate for periods of thousands of years as they progress? I think it is fairly obvious that we have cycled through these changes many times during the last 2 billion years and will again during the next several million. To take a split second’s snap shot of climate and lay blame on any one thing is seriously conceited, IMHO.
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/do-not-feed-the-trolls.jpg
NC-Mike, the simple graph on page 31 of Katherine Hayhoe’s Republican-sponsored Climate for Change provides solid answers to your (excellent and thoughtful) questions.
Kudos outbound to Republicans for Environmental Protection!
(and a tip-of-the-hat is outbound to Jon Huntsman too)
—————————————————–
Republicans for Environmental Protection
A Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
What is your explaination for the the development and subsequent thawing of ice ages? And please don’t send me to her book, I looked on page 6 and no graph on that page (online).
NC-Mike, it’s pages 30-31 of the PDF file of her presentation. The essence is, the climate changes we’re seeing are far too rapid to be explained by the orbital wobbles of Milankovitch theory.
—————————————–
Climate for Change
URL: http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf
I’ll look tomorrow, but your answer to ice ages???
NC-MIike, Milankovitch (but AGW is occurring thousands of times faster).
Human activity has sent CO2 into the atmosphere since fire was mastered. The amounts were tiny and only became measurable in the last century or so.
And yet the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period took place centuries before our time and went far beyond recent climate boundaries.
Again, AGW has no explanation for this and predicts otherwise.
LOL, what, no reference eman? … `cuz your posts quote *many* high-grade “classics of AGW denialism.”
Now, it’s true that AGE denialism’s strategy of “fact-free claiming” *does* have the advantage of speed … and other advantages too … as described by America’s own Mark Twain:
Twain’s maxims supply the short & simple reasons the scientific community has little regard for the cherry-picked anecdotes and unreferenced claims that are so common in AGW denialist writings.
Conservatism’s highest respect should be reserved for organizations like the above-referenced Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), that for many years have fought “the good fight” on behalf of old-fashioned, honest, foresighted American conservatism.
——————————————-
Skeptic arguments matching the search ‘Little Ice Age’:
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Little+Ice+Age
The Earth is now in a relatively warm period within an unusual Ice Age period that began about 3 million years ago.
It is too bad AGW is not true.
The Earth would be a much nicer and much more productive planet if it were a few degrees warmer.
You know, we scientists can smell a bad hypothesis and bad data a mile away, and no amount of perfume can hide it.
The experiment continues. The world will not ever reduce CO2 levels down to where the AGW hoaxers say it should go. In fact the opposite will happen.
All the while the ice will persist.
Gee eman … what’s your beef with the Dutch, claiming that low-elevation nations like the Netherlands are better-off drowned? Are you pretending to speak for them? `Cuz you don’t, do you?
A pretty fair fraction of Americans, and around the world, do *not* agree that rising-ocean submersion will make their lives “much nicer and much more productive”.
That’s common-sense, eh?
———————————
Sea Level Rise and the Future of the Netherlands
URL: http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm
Physicist, you’re still a idiot.
But since I live about 2 feet above sea level, I’ll be sure to let you know when you are finally right.
Anyone who thinks that melting Arctic (floating) ice raises sea level even the tiniest bit doesn’t understand even simple bouyancy, let alone something as complex as tiny changes to the entire climate, acting over millennia. Antarctic ice shelves, you might have a point, but Arctic Ice? Please! Haven’t you ever had a drink with ice cubes in it, for chrissakes? Floating ice always displaces exactly its own weight in water. It is the building block of life on earth. If ice sank, instead of floated, as almost every other solid does in its liquid state, there would be very little habitable planet to live on. If you don’t know that, you don’t know much.
And what’s with the annoying smiley faces? Key stuck?
Oh, that’s right. You’re just a pathetic troll. An ignorant, pathetic troll.
A physicist. More like a physic.
A physicist September 14, 2011 – 1:14 am
A physicist September 14, 2011 – 1:52 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 2:48 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 3:00 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 6:44 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 8:00 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 9:39 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 10:46 am
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 12:02 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 12:39 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 12:46 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 1:05 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 1:38 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 1:53 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 2:01 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 2:55 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 3:11 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 3:46 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 4:05 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 4:26 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 5:02 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 5:06 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 5:28 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 6:03 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 7:13 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 7:17 pm
A physicist September 13, 2011 – 7:54 pm
A physicist September 14, 2011 – 5:16 am
A physicist September 14, 2011 – 8:23 am
A physicist September 14, 2011 – 10:49 am
Ok, class. AP is:
a) insomniac
b) several people
c) strung out on crack
d) forking off on the job
e) bipolar
f) all of the above.
Snork,
The most likely explanation is that “physicist” is a paid troll by SS colaborator George Soros. Or possibly paid by Gore.
Either way, he has exposed himself as nothing but another disciple of Trofim Lysenko.
For me, code-writing binges are also PJM/Tatler binges … while Mathematica crunches away, running validation suites on each successive newly-written code section (yes, it’s quantum transport theory, albeit *not* associated to climate change), it’s relaxing and fun to educate PJM/Tatler readers on the latest scientific findings.
But this forum’s denialists need not worry *too* much … `cuz the code’s looking mighty near done. The sobering physical reality of AGW ain’t going away, though. Jon Huntsman and the REP are both right about that.
A very real consequence of all this global warming BS are State Renewable Mandates – mandating that a percentage (usually 20-30%) of power generation must come from “renewable” sources like wind and solar.
The problem is that wind and solar can’t provide reliable energy. Wind is so variable that it needs backup from a conventional power plant which is used in an unconventional way. Cycling power plants up and down causes them to use more fuel and generate more pollution.
Wind is not only many times more expensive but much dirtier than fossil fuel alone. Here’s a video explaining that and showing what an organization is doing to stop it in court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F21i4TxDOUk
David, your post is *SOOOOOOOOOO* right!
————————————————–
In The Know: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit
… And Solar Panels Are Sucking the Sun Dry
… So Just Say “No” to Green Energy!
URL: http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-coal-lobby-warns-wind-farms-may-blow-e,20876/
Just follow the money. Wind turbine manufacturers and other carpet baggers are making out like bandits, while a growing portion of the relatively powerless rural populations are forced to endure the injustices that are created for the profits of the privileged few. Donations, “blind” trusts, stock options…not that the scientific aspects are unimportant, but look at who is guiding and benefiting by these well orchestrated, trendy decisions.
Face it fellas, it is STILL bucks that makes the world go ’round (Does Gore have enough yet?)
Michael, you’re right! That’s why America’s rural folks are up-in-arms! They purely *hate* getting those monthly royalty-checks from clean-running wind turbines … and they just purely *love* Big Carbon’s latest strip-mining and mountain-topping technologies.
Heck, never before has parking-lot space been so widely available in America’s (formerly-beautiful) Appalachian mountains.
——————————–
When Mountains Move
URL: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html
Al’s 24 hour hysteria extravaganza is a distraction he hopes will draw attention away from Tipper Gore’s startling confession to the Daily Rash that her ex-husband was addicted to auto erotic asphyxiation! http://www.thedailyrash.com/tipper-talks-al-gore-addicted-to-auto-erotic-asphyxiation
When your soda pop warms up it out-gasses (goes flat). The gass of course, is CO2. The CO2 does not cause the warming, but is the results of warming. CO2 is necessary for plant growth. It is not going to destroy the earth. It is NOT dangerous. But fools will say anything.
To “a physicist”: Please explain a couple of things:
(A) 31 years ago, all we heard about was “global COOLING” (a.k.a. “nuclear winter”); remember that? The same people that advocate global warming now, were those advocating global cooling in the late 1970′s/early 1980′s.
While I acknowledge the difference between weather and climate, how do you explain the heat and drought in Texas (such as in Dallas, 33 or so days in a row over 100 degrees) in 1980 vs. 2011 (about 40 days over 100 degrees in a row in Dallas, with drought and heat in…. Texas; why does this sound familiar?). It surely can not be both cooling and warming!
(B) In all the current debate, the gas which seems to be the problem is “CO2″, carbon DIOXIDE. Since trees and plants use CO2 to emit oxygen, it seems that there is something badly wrong here (as well, six billion-plus humans emit CO2 when they breath out, not counting all of the animals). Wouldn’t the gas be “CO”, carbon MONOXIDE, instead?
(C) Global warming took place long before humans could have had even a small effect; otherwise we would be living under a half-mile or so of ice across a large part of the Northern Hemisphere…..with little or no fossil fuel burning, few if any humans, no cities, etc. How do those like yourself, trying to push the global warming theory, explain that?
George, different folks like to learn about AGW in different ways.
• Purist math-and-science folks like the American Institute of Physics site The Discovery of Global Warming
The AIP is a good place to start, for folks who like to read the original articles.
• Politics-minded folks will like Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP)
REP is great site with plenty of conservative-minded solutions!
• Skeptical folks will like the SkepticalScience site.
Critically examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism.
• Technology-minded folks will like NASA’s Global Climate Change site.
Incredible views of our planet from space (NOAA and the EPA are good too).
• Nature-minded folks will like the site Season’s End: Global Warming’s Threat to Hunting and Fishing
Dozens of leading American conservation organizations, belong to Season’s End … including many organizations with impeccable conservative credentials. If you love hunting and fishing, then this is the site for you.
At these sites, george, you’ll find solid answers to all your questions!
But george, I think the one you’ll especially enjoy is US military goes to war with climate sceptics (link below). Because a huge part of winning GWOT, is winning the struggle against willful ignorance. And the US Military understands the struggle against willful ignorance, much better than America’s politicians do.
George, why not ask yourself, what do AGW denialists have to offer, that compares in quality, depth, and scope, to even any *one* of the above sites … much less all of them?
Relative to the science, the AGW denialists have zip … zero … nada.
And that’s the plain fact.
———————————————
US military goes to war with climate sceptics
URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
Looks like these comments are winding-down … so fare-thee-well, PJM/Tatler AGW coverage!
As a fitting coda, the Arctic ice-melt season has just ended, smashing the old record for low Arctic ice volume, and establishing a second-worst-ever record for Arctic ice area (link below).
This constitutes still more evidence to confirm what the Catholic Church, every submarine commander, the US Navy’s admirals and metereologists, America’s farmers and hunters and fishers, every ship captain, every shipping-company CEO, every economist, and 98% of scientists all have come to appreciate …
… AGW is a sobering, accelerating reality on our planet.
That’s why it’s *far* overdue for American conservatism to reject AGW denialism, and grow up.
———————————————–
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly
Polar Science Center, UW Applied Physics Laboratory
URL: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Nobel Laureate Physicist Quits Global Warming Group
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-physicist-quits-global-warming-group
One-out-of-six Republican candidates says HPV vaccine causes retardation.
… Who’s right? (`cuz they can’t all be right)
One-out-of-twenty Nobelists is skeptical of AGW.
… Who’s right? (`cuz they can’t all be right)
The evidence just keeps getting stronger that the skeptics are wrong.
———————————-
Nobellists urge action on climate change
URL: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090528/full/news.2009.528.html
In fact, it appears that there is no consensus of scientists on man-made global warming, and there never has been. The allegation that the consensus exists has long been one of the tactics used by proponents to suppress dissent. In 2007, a series in Canada’s National Post cited findings of a Gallup poll taken in 1992 (the same year in which Al Gore declared that “only an insignificant fraction” of scientists denied the global warming crisis) that 53% of the scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe that man-made global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure, and only 17% believed that such warming had begun.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
Years later, a consensus had yet to develop. While it was alleged that some 2,500 of the world’s top scientists had endorsed the 1995 United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report on man-made global warming, in 1998, more than 17,000 scientists had signed a petition opposing the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty based on that report.
The theory that man is responsible for global warming, chiefly by burning fossil fuels such as coal, was birthed in the 1990 in the United Nations. Since then, it has been largely driven by international politics and greatly influenced by environmental extremists, many of whom are antagonistic toward the United States because of its economic system, affluence, and power. Thus, it has been argued by some that the U.S. was the real target of the United Nations’ war on global warming.
The person that calls himself/herself “A physicist” is monopolizing this conversation and pretending that he/she has superior knowledge. The fact is that there is no proof that anthropogenic global warming is happening. It’s not even a scientific theory yet. It’s an “hypothesis” – an assumption that is yet to be proven. The climate models can’t even correctly predict the past century’s climate and that alone makes them highly suspect.
The main principle this hopped up “physicist” violates over and over again is that “correlation is not causation”. The ice packs have been melting and freezing back again every year for eons. Connecting the melting of some polar ice to man’s tiny production of a very poor greenhouse gas – CO2 – is not a mistake that any real physicist with any self respect is going to make.
50 years ago, anyone saying that man could change the weather would be put into a mental institution.
This so called “physicist” needs to take “Scientific Method 101″ over again.
Will and “Not a physicist”, you folks seem to think that scientists seek to suppress dissent.
Nothing could be farther from the truth! We scientists purely *love* dissent!
The reason is simple: the open dialog associated to dissent gives us a chance to deploy the facts and reason of science … against the quibbling, smears, and cherry-picking of willfully ignorant denialism.
For example, it’s purely wonderful to match Admiral Titley’s clear exposition of the strategic reality of AGW … against the hilariously bogus, non-sourced, denialist claims that have appeared here on PJM/Tatler.
Admiral Titley changed his mind about AGW … American conservatism should too.
————————-
US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
Is this summer’s Arctic ice-melt the death-knell of politics-first AGW denialism?
Yes … soon AGW denialism will be as scarce as Arctic summer ice.
That is, there won’t be any of it left.
——————————————
A Brief History Of Arctic Warming
URL: http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/brief_history_arctic_warming-82545
In response to the September 16th article in the New York Times “Gore Takes Climate Change Slide Show Around the World in 24 Hours” (see http://tinyurl.com/6l8ffqx), “Media Matters for America” published a scathing attack against Climatewire, the Times, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris.
Mr. Harris submitted a response as a posting on the “Media Matters for America” Website but it has yet to be allowed on their site so it has been posted by Heartland Institute:
http://blog.heartland.org/2011/09/defending-climate-skeptics-icsc-and-even-the-new-york-times-from-media-matters/
Or, as a tiny URL at:
http://tinyurl.com/6gmomp8
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org