I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
So we have about a 1.5 watt/m^2 variation on a 1366 watt/m^2 mean over a 30 year period. This 0.1% variation obviously does not explain the temperature trend in the last 50 years. Sure the EUV and UV end of the spectrum varies more, but it has not exhibited any robust trend in the last 50 years and is a small part of the picture. The shorter the wavelength the higher the altitude it is absorbed at. The EUV doesn't even reach the stratosphere. The thermodynamic budget of the atmosphere is dominated by absorption in the visible band by the surface and the contribution by UV and EUV is much less than secondary. The contribution of UV and EUV to the solar constant is small as clearly evident from the small variation (0.1%) that they manage to produce (EUV variation can be as high as 300%).
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 1009 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: Nature, Not Human Activity Rules The Climate
RHfactor wrote:
No, moronic Ideology that dismisses man's effect on the planet rule the debates cuz we just can't have reality entering it can we.
Sorry too late! The moronic ideology has already been established by the denial crowd. _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: Nature, Not Human Activity Rules The Climate
RHfactor wrote:
No, moronic Ideology that dismisses man's effect on the planet rule the debates cuz we just can't have reality entering it can we.
Can you prove anthropogenic global warming via documented and repeatable experiments that have contributed to empirical evidence? If not, then all you have is a theory, and an unverifiable one at that. Also, if excessive CO2, (from whatever source derived), is a major contributing factor to "global warming", then why isn't mars boiling, instead of having an average temperature of only 218 K, (-55.15° C, -67.27° F)? The atmospheric composition of Mars is as follows:
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 1009 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
After all that, here is a rather simple experiment to prove the point. Remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and you'll find that temperature will soon follow downward.
No scientist would deny that this would indeed occur.
You’re going to have to do better if you’re trying to over turn the GHG Theory which has stood the test of time and the acceptance of science for well over 100 years.
Ocean temperature changes due to natural variability doesn't cut it. _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Lore wrote:
1. After all that, here is a rather simple experiment to prove the point. Remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and you'll find that temperature will soon follow downward.
2. No scientist would deny that this would indeed occur.
3. You’re going to have to do better if you’re trying to over turn the GHG Theory which has stood the test of time and the acceptance of science for well over 100 years.
4. Ocean temperature changes due to natural variability doesn't cut it.
1. How do you propose to do such a radical experiment? And if you are successful in doing this, how do you plan to sustain all plant life, (and animal life as a direct consequence), without the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? Removing all CO2 from the planet would extinguish all life on earth.
2. No scientist would be alive to get proof. Life on Earth would cease to exist.
3. So, why isn't mars as hot as Venus, considering both planets atmospheres are mostly composed of CO2? (Venus's atmospheric content of CO2 is 96.5 %). The sun is why. By contrast to these two planets, the atmospheric content of CO2 on planet Earth is 0.0383%. And who determined that this particular climate we now are experiencing, (out of the over 1.4 billion years multicellular organisms have existed), is the "optimum". The climate WILL change again, just as it has in the past without any intervention by mankind.
4. Oh, so the Earth having natural heating and cooling cycles doesn't factor into the equation of supposed anthropogenic global warming? The Earth has had many fluctuations in climate in the past, (from a tropical paradise, to a frozen waste land, to a mixture [like it is now]), and it will continue to do so for as long as the Earth exists. How do you think that oil and coal got into Alaska and Wyoming? Alaska and Wyoming weren't always the frozen hell holes they now are. Greenland was once much more hospitable to life. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
The global warmers are becoming increasingly desperate to prop up their failing prophesy in every way possible. Behaving just as Leon Festinger predicted in When Prophecies Fail. As the earth shows no net warming in a decade and cooling into its 7th year, as new models suggest cooling may continue because of natural ocean cycles, as the sun stays quiet now 12 years since the last solar minimum, usually a signal of cooling, as more and more peer review calls into question the importance of CO2 and of the the accuracy of the models and the entire greenhouse theory because of the failure of fingerprinting, the alarmists begin a frantic effort to save their failing theory. You see so many have won the lottery and want to ensure the annuity checks keep coming.
As we indicated in an earlier blog, they are now busy reinventing old data. NASA and NOAA continually revises old data and makes gross assumptions that always result in more warming. The old reliable radiosonde weather balloon data gets challenged because it (and the satellite derived data) do not show the warming the models and theory predict for the high tropical atmophere. A legitimate scientist would trust the data and assume the models are in error (as models so often are) but to these agenda driven alarmists, the models must be right and the data wrong. But because they can’t challenge the satellite data which has been quality assured and passed the sniff test, they go after the weather balloon data. They use some of the same unsound tricks that get more warming in the global data and revise the old balloon data to get better agreement with the models. See the ludicrous adusted data (RAOB 1.4 in black) in the diagram below.
They don’t stop there. They try a left end run by using winds as a proxy for temperatures to show the warming not shown by the balloon temperature measurements was really there (see May 26 Warm Winds Comfort Climate Models). In the same Natural Geoscience Journal issue, coincidentally, Peter Thorne of Britain Met Office Hadley Centre in a commentary wrote “The new study “provides ... long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions.” All these efforts were “fast-tracked” through the Journal of Climate and Nature in record time to show the complicity of the AMS and Nature in the whole scam.
Then there is that mid-century cold period, well-documented in many cold and snow records that were set in the 1960s into the 1970s but a thorn in the side of the alarmists as when combined with the apparent current cooling might imply cyclical behavior which would be hard to explain away without considering natural factors. So the solution - again find fault with the data. NASA and NOAA make adjustments to their “adjustments” to minimize the cooling then and now. Now they suddenly discover in a paper in the latest Nature that the ocean temperature measurement techniques did not change at once but gradually (something well known for years) and making that slower correction for the ocean changes results in at least part of the mid-century cold period become an artifact. This now will allow models to tweak back on the aerosol “fudge factor” adjustment they had to use to explain the cooling (since they downplay the sun and don’t handle ocean cycles well). Diminishing the cyclical look will allow them to argue this current cooling is a brief anomaly not totally inconsistent with their models, at least for a while longer. Unfortunately it may be a long enough period to allow congress and the new President to do something stupid. No on further reflection, that would be nothing unusual, I should have said REALLY stupid. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
k_dude (as this generation would refer to you)
great posts...althought I worry you have opened this up to the old thats not science argument.
On probably way too many posts, in way too many threads I've been taking on the folks who swallowed the Gore Koolaid. I did this through posting links to the scientific lliterature that puts in doubt much of the idea that AGW has any credibility. I have also challenged everyone on this site to debate me on this issue (I am a scientist) and show me an actual dependant correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and rising temps. Ain't happened yet., other than foks saying go to RealClimate.thatshowmehowicangetcash.com
To make your arguments cogent you need the weight of the so-called scieintific community. What does that comprise?...the folks that your are told are credible or the folks that really are credible?
I am currently gobsmacked with the amount of AGW coolaid drinkers who refuse to acknowledge we have had a decade of "non-warming" that the most current GCMs can't replicate (hello...smoking gun). My question is how much negative evidence does it take to tell you that your favorite "science guru" is actually wrong, perhaps not an idiiot, but over enthusiastic and now in serious danger of losing his funding? At what point do you as a scientifically uninformed person say....hold on...these jerks have been wanking my chain...that's not right. I have been here for a few years telling those that would listen....it ain't science you're hearing, it's politics.
I hurt for everyone who hasn't figured out how they are being gamed on this issue.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Guess there's a major cocktail party going on on Mars and the Arctic ice cap was the closest available supply of ice. Them aliens must be really busy carting all that ice away unless you have another explanation that doesn't involve melting.
I still find it hard to believe there are people who lack the ability to engage in critical thinking.
I guess your life is filled with superstition and non-rational sources of knowledge. _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Cid_Yama wrote:
Guess there's a major cocktail party going on on Mars and the Arctic ice cap was the closest available supply of ice. Them aliens must be really busy carting all that ice away unless you have another explanation that doesn't involve melting.
I still find it hard to believe there are people who lack the ability to engage in critical thinking.
I guess your life is filled with superstition and non-rational sources of knowledge.
It's summer in the northern hemisphere of Mars right now. Of course the CO2 is going to melt and release into the atmosphere. However, it is still deathly cold on Mars. The Martian temperatures in the summer can reach up to -23 C, and as you are well aware, the freezing temperature of CO2 is -78.5 C. Expecting CO2 to freeze at -23 is equivalent to expecting H2O to freeze at 55 C. It is obvious that the ambient temperature on Mars is not cold enough to freeze CO2, and "melts", (more like instantaneously evaporates), into the Martian atmosphere.
A gradual warming I am not contesting. Natural fluctuations in the climate have happened over the eons, and will continue to do so for as long as the sun is radiating heat upon the various satellites which orbit it. I am contesting anthropogenic climate change. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim. If it was a valid hypothesis, then why is there speculation that a massive project to terraform mars by initiating anthropogenic global warming would take over 100,000 years?
Mankind has only been capable of industrial production for a very short time. The modern steam engine was only invented 245 years ago. Claiming that the process of terra-forming mars to be even remotely hospitable to life, while simultaneously claiming that in 245 short years, mankind has managed to "irreversibly damage Earth, and cause an artificially induced ELE" simply do not make any sense. Short of detonating every nuclear weapon on the face of the planet, (and probably even then, [as it would mostly affect the northern hemisphere]), mankind causing an ELE event is nearly impossible. (Unless you count the capacity to eliminate the human race, that most certainly is possible.)
The last time I heard, there are no coal fired plants, deforestation, oil drilling, urban sprawl, or equipment which is fueled by petroleum products on Mars. Surely, the pollutants from Earth are not drifting through space and affecting the prevailing climate on Mars. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Did you have an explanation that did not involve melting to explain the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap? If you did I guess I missed it. Could you elaborate? _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
