I don’t deny Climate Change, though I will seriously question the politicization of it to espouse the fearmongering through alarmist/warmist propaganda supporting agendas claiming that the Climate Change is unprecedented, dangerous or catastrophic. I will also question the extent that any change that is occurring is significantly contributed to or caused by humans.

I will also question that the Science is settled or that all is known about it.

There are numerous leading scientists doing likewise & without getting too caught up in the politicization & denigration of the science.

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

The people behind it need to be dragged out into the sunlight for everyone to know who they are IMO. Jeff Immelt? Ted Turner? Maurice Strong?

You’re missing the last and most important lot, namely

….and everyone who knows this and does nothing to stop it…

With freedom comes responsibility. If one ignores this responsibility freedom will be lost, IMHO.

Report this

00

I have just made the link between this video and the make a bear workshop. This is a company where ou can get a teddy bear for your kids where they’re stuffed onsite etc. A really cool kids store, actually.

The good news is that they’ve taken the videos off their site and apologized. Of course, I want a reassurance that they’re not going to try and push any political again.

I am so incredibly disappointed that a company with the most innocuous and good approach managed to stoop this low. I have sent the following email to them:

To whom it may concern,

As the father of a toddler, i have been thoroughly impressed with the Build a bear workshop located here in XXXXXXXXX. It is absolutely fantastic to see a store such as this for the little ones. Great work.

Unfortunately, today I have been made aware of certain videos on the Build a bear workshop which can only be described as political propaganda combined with brainwashing targeting an audience who are not old enough to make up their own minds.

You can imagine our extreme disappointment at seeing such a good and well intentioned company managing to sink itself to the most low of low acts – the attempted grooming of children for political ends.

Whether you agree with Man Made Global Warming or not, I am sure you can sympathize with my concerns as a father.

Please can you provide some form of public reassurance to parents around that world that there will be NEVER be any political (or religious for that matter) statements made via your company ever again.

Thank you for your time.

If anyone else wants to contact these guys, the email address is : vwhelp@buildabear.com

Report this

00

They’re getting so frustrated by their failure to scare us into accepting global socialist domination that they’re coming after our children. The people behind it need to be dragged out into the sunlight for everyone to know who they are IMO. Jeff Immelt? Ted Turner? Maurice Strong?

Report this

00

I’ve seen enough of that to be just as disgusted as you. The website where this game is located has now become the first website to be put into my firewalls blocked list. I won’t name the website specifically, but it is obviously an extremely well funded propoganda machine targeting little kids.

Yes, it’s even worse than Clive Goebels Hamiltons letter.

To the people who create this crap – seeing as you think the end justifies the means, you can expect the same treatment from me you worthless peice of toejam.

Have a Merry Xmas everyone.

Report this

00

Watch these two videos part 2 and part 3 to see if you don’t become as equally enraged as I.

Children must know that Santa is way too smart to believe propaganda cartoons. He looks at real satellite data to track the Arctic Sea Ice Extent and can see that he and his reindeer have nothing to be concerned about … other than helping us all have a Merry Christmas that is!

Report this

10

The IPCC considers the relationship between power and temperature to be linear. This may come from the idea that energy linearly increases the temperature of water (1 cal per cc of water per degreeC). However, this is for incident energy and as the temperature increases linearly, the energy radiated away increases at an even faster rate (T^4) requiring the incident energy to increase by more in order to maintain the higher temperature.

For sufficiently small perturbations around a known operating point, the presumption of linearity is reasonably accurate. As the perturbation gets larger, it gets less accurate. The operating point itself cannot be calculated by linear means, it would need to be measured or calculated some other way.

The trouble is that looking at past perturbations (which happened at a different part of the nonlinear curve) does not provide workable linear gain values for present perturbations, so it requires recalculation of gain values (or direct measurement of the same). From what I’ve seen there’s a bit of a presumption that the same warming gains that pulled us out of last ice age (at 200 ppm CO2 or less) would be equally applicable in today’s substantially warmer climate (at 400 ppm CO2) and that’s when the presumption of linearity hits some serious problems.

Report this

00

Many on both sides frequently confuse energy, power and temperature. Power is what the Sun delivers to the surface and what the Earth radiates back into space and has units of energy per unit time, or a rate of energy. Energy is what’s conserved and while there are certainly non thermal forms of energy, thermal energy makes up well over 95% of the energy stored in the Earth. For example, less than 1% of all of the incident solar power is stored as the chemical energy of biomass. Temperature is a macroscopic property manifested by a specific energy flux (power), as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which says that the power associated with a specific temperature is proportional to the temperature raised to the forth power.

The IPCC considers the relationship between power and temperature to be linear. This may come from the idea that energy linearly increases the temperature of water (1 cal per cc of water per degreeC). However, this is for incident energy and as the temperature increases linearly, the energy radiated away increases at an even faster rate (T^4) requiring the incident energy to increase by more in order to maintain the higher temperature.

The maximum temperature is not a function of humidity. It’s rate of decrease at the surface depends on how quickly surface energy is allowed to escape into space. High humidity means that the water vapor absorption spectrum is at it’s peak. It also generally means clouds, which also blocks energy from escaping. The reverse of this is radiation cooling on a cold, dry winter night. In this case, there’s little water vapor absorption and energy is allowed to quickly escape into space. The latent heat in the atmospheric water vapor is not insignificant, but is still small relative to the latent heat stored in the surface.

As for how models handle these, it’s hard to tell. Usually, the atmosphere is divided into layers, each with it’s own water vapor concentration, but if the model is sensitive to a small change caused by increased CO2, it will be far more sensitive to incorrectly setting water vapor concentrations.

My base model uses 3 layers of atmosphere approximately corresponding to the layer between clouds and the surface, the layer between cloud tops and space and the layer containing clouds, where each 22.5 degree slice of latitude is modeled separately. I can slice it more finely in all dimensions, but this topology offers the best speed/accuracy/memory trade offs.

George

Report this

00