JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick

This point is THE critical one. It was the first point raised in the Skeptics Handbook, developed in the Second Handbook; the point that Dr Glikson had no reply to; the point that tripped up Will Steffen, Deltoid, and John Cook. As a modeler there was the moment in August 2007 when David saw the graphs below and said, emphatically: This is it. It’s over for the climate models. –JN

 

The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating

Dr. David Evans
19 October 2010

[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third was on ocean temperatures, and fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures), the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick, and the seventh pointed out that the Chinese, Russian, and Indian climate establishments (which are financially independent of the western climate establishment) disagree with the western climate establishment about the cause of recent global warming and the eighth argued that hiring and firing policies and other government incentives created the consensus among western climate scientist that global warming is man-made.]

Click to download a pdf file containing the whole series

They Neglect To Mention That Evidence For One Link of their Theory Is Missing

The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links :

  1. We humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by our emissions.
  2. Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the “direct” warming effect of the extra CO2.
  3. The earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, called “feedbacks”. The feedbacks warm the earth further, amplifying the direct warming about threefold.

All three links must be true for the theory to be valid; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed. The third link is where the dispute lies. In the establishment’s climate models, this amplifying feedback provides about two-thirds of the projected warming—without it there is only mild warming due to human emissions and no cause for climate alarm. There is no evidence for this amplifying feedback, but it is built into the climate models. When skeptic scientists say “there is no evidence” for man-made global warming, they are generally referring to the lack of evidence for these amplifying feedbacks.

[Some in the establishment would say there is evidence: They assume that all the warming since 1700 is due to rising CO2 levels (except for a small increase in the sun’s light output). We know the amount of extra CO2 over that period (link 1), how much extra direct warming that causes (link 2), and how much extra warming actually occurred (Figure 17)—so we can calculate the required effect of the feedbacks (link 3) to make that happen, which turns out to be threefold amplification. But this just replaces the threefold amplification assumption with the assumption that only rising CO2 levels caused the warming. It’s still, at base, just an assumption without evidence—because there is (and can be) no evidence that there were no other forces that could have caused the global warming.

The climate establishment also argues, in other contexts, that there are no other forces that could have caused the warming by saying their climate models can only explain the observed warming if CO2 is the only cause of the warming. This logic is circular, because the climate models are only calibrated with threefold amplification based on the assumption that there were no other causes for the recent global warming trend. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The press apparently isn’t inquisitive enough to notice this trick. When critics outside the climate establishment point it out, the climate establishment just denigrates them and then announces in their most reassuring voice that they are the authorities and it’s all ok. What a bunch of charlatans! Finally, notice from Figure 21 that human CO2 emissions could not have caused the half of the global warming before 1850, so their assumption about no other causes is obviously wrong. So no evidence—just a logical trick that is sufficient to fool most of the audience.

They also on occasion offer up other historical instances as evidence for the threefold feedbacks amplification, but they are all very flimsy. The threefold amplification is really just based on the warming starting around 1700, which is the only instance for which we have decent numbers.]

If there was evidence for the threefold amplification by the feedbacks, surely we would have heard all about it, just like we hear about the evidence for the first two links? Instead we are just referred to climate models and told how terrific they are. But models are just computerized calculations; they are not evidence.

The climate establishment and media only talk about the first two links. Hardly anyone knows about the third link, which is responsible for most of the projected warming. If the case for man-made global warming is strong, why this obfuscation?

The effect of the feedbacks is the crucial question in climate science.

Empirical Test for the Link In Question

To appreciate the desperation and sheer chutzpah of the establishment’s shenanigans, you need to know a tiny bit about the feedbacks.

The dominant feedback involves the extra water vapor that evaporates, mainly off the oceans, due to the direct warming due to the extra CO2. (Water vapor is water in its gaseous form. When water vapor becomes liquid water again it forms droplets of water in the air, that is, clouds.)

There are basically two possible alternatives for this extra water vapor:

  • It can tend to accumulate in the atmosphere, increasing the depth of humid air in the atmosphere. Because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this further increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. This in turn causes more warming, thereby amplifying the direct warming. (Amplifying feedback increases the effect of an initial cause. Also called “positive” feedback.)
  • It can forms clouds, without increasing the depth of humid air in the atmosphere. Extra clouds reflect more sunlight back out to space, causing cooling which counteracts the direct warming of the extra CO2, thereby moderating the direct warming. (Moderating or dampening feedback decreases the effect of an initial cause. Also called “negative” feedback. Note that negative feedback does not reverse the initial effect; it just reduces it to less than it would have been in the absence of the negative feedback.)

Clouds reflect sunlight back to space and leave cool shadows, in this case, over the tropical Indian Ocean between Australia and Indonesia

The threefold amplification assumed by the climate establishment can only occur if the first alternative is correct. To confirm that the feedback is amplifying, we need to see the depth of humid air increase during a period of global warming. The humid air is also warmer than the dry air above it, so we need to see it become warmer at heights initially just above the humid air. The climate models all specifically say that this happens.

Here is a “prediction” by the climate establishment that the feedbacks are amplifying, expressed as a pattern of warming in the atmosphere. This prediction is empirically testable.

Figure 25: The theoretical warming patterns for 1958 to 1999, calculated by the establishment’s climate models, in °C per 42 years. From the US CCSP of 2006, Figure 1.3 on page 25. Covers the period 1958 to 1999, but since there was no net warming from 1958 to 1977 so it essentially covers the period of warming from 1977 to 1999. A similar “prediction” in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9 (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf), Figure 9.1, in Section 9.2.2.1 on page 675. There are many such published predictions; they all feature a prominent hotspot about 12 km up in the tropics.

This is the pattern of atmospheric warming that the climate establishment say occurred, according to their climate models. Each of the six diagrams shows temperature changes by latitude (x-axis) and by height in the atmosphere (y-axis, height in kilometers on the right).

Diagram A is the warming pattern due to an increase in greenhouse gases other than water vapor—that is, essentially from CO2 emissions. Diagram F is the warming pattern expected from the sum of all the five patterns A – E in the proportions the establishment believe those causes contributed to global warming; it is dominated by signature A because the establishment’s theory is that the warming was mainly due to CO2 emissions.

Notice the large prominent red “hotspot”, about 12 km high in the tropics, in F. The detection of this theoretical hotspot would go a long way to confirming that the feedbacks are amplifying; its absence would prove that the feedbacks are not amplifying.

The outcome of the climate debate hinges on this issue: a hotspot confirms their theory, its absence falsifies their theory.

The Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Failed an Empirical Test

The last period of global warming was about 1975 to 2001 (Figures 14 and 20). Fortunately, during the whole of this period there was a worldwide program of measuring the temperature at all altitudes using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as they ascend through the atmosphere.

During the early and middle 1990s the climate establishment were expecting the radiosondes to find the hotspot, confirm the presence of amplifying feedbacks, and thus prove the last link in their theory of man-made global warming. But then their world fell apart.

By 1999 the results were in, but there was no hotspot. Not even a small hotspot.

Why didn’t the climate establishment rush out to the world with the good news, that they had overestimated the projected temperature increases, that there was now little cause for alarm over the climate?

As it happens, around that time they were publicizing the hockey stick (Figure 23), and basking in the attention, status, and research grants from a concerned world.

They finally published the radiosonde observations in 2006, buried among four other diagrams from climate models at the back of a report. Here is that diagram:

Figure 26: The observed pattern of atmospheric warming, 1979 – 1999, as per the US CCSP of 2006, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116. (Axes deblurred.)

This is all the data we will ever have about that warming period, because we cannot go back in time and take more or better measurements. We are only interested in the atmospheric pattern when there is warming, so this is all the data we have about hotspots until there is another period of warming (see Figure 20).

Figure 27: Figures 26 and 25-F, side by side for comparison.

The observed pattern is nothing like the “predicted” pattern, so the climate models are wrong. There was no hotspot in reality, so the theory of man-made global warming is greatly exaggerated (because there are no amplifying feedbacks).

[The non-observation of the hotspot was later supported and extended by two independent observations, one on clouds (Spencer, 2008 and 2010) and the other on radiation leaving the earth (Lindzen and Choi, 2009 and 2010). In both cases the total feedbacks were observed to moderate the direct warming by roughly halving it, which suggests that the climate establishment are exaggerating future temperature changes by a factor of about six—that is, if they say 3°C hotter by the end of the century it will be about 0.5°C warmer.]

The Response of the Climate Establishment

First they ignored it, for several years. (It wasn’t like the media or politicians were asking them hard questions about the discrepancy in Figure 27. And it’s not like they wanted to jeopardize their new-found popularity and funding.)

Then, in 2008, they denied the data. Ben Santer emphasized the uncertainties in the data from the radiosonde thermometers. On the basis of a complex statistical argument he argued that it was possible that the observed data (Figure 26) was so error-ridden that the predicted hotspot (Figure 25) might in fact be present in the observed data. However radiosondes reliably detect temperature differences of 0.1°C when correctly calibrated and operated, and the hotspot is at least 0.6°C of warming. Some radiosondes may have been faulty, but hundreds of them could not all have failed to detect any hotspot.

Then, also in 2008, after nine years and with no new data, they claimed to have found the hotspot! Steven Sherwood adjusted the data in accordance with various theories and wind data from the radiosondes, and processed it on his computer to arrive at a new view of the data in Figure 26:

Figure 28: The atmospheric warming observations from Figure 26, after adjustments by Sherwood, including using radiosonde wind data, extended to 1979 – 2005. From Fig. 6 (top) of Sherwood 2008, “short thick bars indicate latitudes discussed in text where sonde adjustments in the troposphere still appear inadequate”.

Note the color of "zero". He pulled the old color-scale trick!

Looks like the predicted hotspot, right? But look closely at the color scale and note the color of zero change—it’s red! So if the atmosphere stayed at exactly the same temperature everywhere, Sherwood’s interpretation would be an all-red graph! The reds in his diagram blend together and it is impossible to see where his “hotspot” might be—but his “hotspot” is too faint anyway, because the hotspot in the climate models is at least 0.6°C over two decades.

If Sherwood used the same color scale as in Figures 25 or 26, it would be obvious that he had not found the hotspot. Why would a leading climate scientist play a “trick” like choosing the color scale such that no change or even slight cooling was in red?

What purpose could there be, except to mislead?

Even if you don’t understand the significance of the hotspot, isn’t a tricky color scale like this a sign of deception, a solid hint that they are trying to hide something?

Sherwood’s paper appeared in the Journal of Climate. Professor Sherwood was at Yale from 2001 to 2008, and is now at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW in Sydney.

————————————————-

Summary | PART I | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11

Full PDF versions for printing and emailing are available from the summary page.


Previous Posts about the missing hot spot include:

The one flaw that wipes out the crisis (Skeptics Handbook II)

The models are wrong (but only by 400%) (McKitrick et al 2010)

Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees

Round Five: Ignore the main point, repeat the irrelevant (Debate with Dr Glikson)

How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)

Reply to Deltoid

Even gurus of warming admit the hot spot went missing

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (6 votes cast)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick, 5.5 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/28h76pu

213 comments to Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick

  • #

    The hot spot is missing, positive feedbacks are rare in nature and there is no empirical proof that a positive feedback in the climate system exists and the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. Real scientists go back to the blackboard and start over at this point but not the climate science cabal. They have to much to lose.

    Climate scientists tend to ignore geology as the geological record shows no relationship between CO2 and temperatures over the last 600,000,000 years. In fact, EVERY ice core record shows that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise because temperatures ALWAYS rise before CO2 levels do. A runaway greenhouse gas effect has never occurred in the history of the planet. In fact, EVERY ice core record shows that temperatures decline WHILE CO2 levels continue to rise. If the runaway greenhouse effect were real life on Earth would have been extinguished millions of years ago and we wouldn’t be here to debate the matter.

    True, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The glue that has held this scam together so far is composed of avarice, pride and vanity. Climate science was an obscure and poorly funded discipline until the greens realized they could use it as a trojan horse to breach the gate of freedom and democracy in the civilized world. The scientists were told that their pay could not be guaranteed at the CRU. Once the global warming scare got legs money began to flow and the climate scientists became addicted to what it purchased: respect, financial security and power.

    They should start a twelve step program for these so called pillars of the scientific community CAA (Climate Alarmists Anonymous.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Then, in 2008, they denied the data. Ben Santer emphasized the uncertainties in the data from the radiosonde thermometers. On the basis of a complex statistical argument he argued that it was possible that the observed data (Figure 26) was so error-ridden that the predicted hotspot (Figure 25) might in fact be present in the observed data.

    Santer et al 2008 included many of the usual cast of characters like Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Gavin Schmidt, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl etc. Besides the usual statistical games that ‘the team’ plays the paper also only looked at data until 1999 (conveniently only looking up to the super El Nino of 1998). Just last month McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman published a new paper which includes statistics up until 2009. One of the unique characteristics about this paper is that it includes all data and code, something that is foreign to ‘the team’.

    ——–

    Connection to ‘big oil’ disclaimer: My opinions may be biased as when I was 4 years old I had a pet turtle named ‘Shell’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    There is also another evidence of low sensitivity of climatic system. Dr. Spencer besides his work about negative feedback of clouds along with Braswell wrote also posts at his blog, in which he confirms the main reason why the warmists calculated so high sensitivity factor is they attributed temperature effect of ocean oscillations to the high sensitivity. Actually most of temperature variability of the industrial era can be explained by PDO, SOI and AMO indices. You can find very graphic explanation of the variability with linear combination of the indices (adjusted with time lag). The effect of the ocean variability is missing in the GCM models and Dr. Spencer shows that most of the calculated sensitivity comes from misinterpreting the ocean effect as the sensitivity effect.

    Look here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    http://www.kosmo.cz/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=3&tid=1322&start=4020&page=135

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evidence-for-natural-climate-cycles-in-the-ipcc-climate-models-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/

    Warmists base their objections to these evidences on Trenberth “debunking” of Lindzen negative feedback while saying “debunking” of Spencer is on the way. They also usually tell history of climate cannot be explained without high climatic sensitivity for example very steep heating at ends of glacial periods.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Climatology does not use the scientific method and is therefore not a science. Climatologists (unlike scientists), don’t share their data, don’t adjust their theories to fit the data but instead fake the data to fit their theories. Climatologists don’t seek a deeper understanding but instead seek to prop up their dogma, which is more in keeping with institutionalized religion than science.

    Climatology is not a science, it is more akin to a branch of Scientology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Thank you Jo.

    You put things so succinctly – I appreciate how difficult that is, especially with complex scientific topics – and once again, you have exposed the truth of the matter for all to see.

    [Shucks, Thanks Rereke, but I do feel compelled to say that while David and I discuss these things behind the scenes ad infinitum, those are his succinct words and he deserves credit :-) JN]

    But unfortunately, lies have weight, so the truth will “float away”, while the real-politick continues unabated.

    The scientists involved in this scam are dead-meat. They know that. We know that. They are now a liability to those who sought, and still seek, to profit from the fear and confusion created in this latest scam.

    Phil Jones has worked out how the game is played at the top levels, and that is why he appeared to age twenty years in as many months. He was a two-ulcer man in a four-ulcer job. Others on the hockey team are probably faring no better. Even Al Gore, who thought he was capable of playing with the big boys, has now realised that he was no more than cannon fodder.

    Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately, for their own sanity) the great majority of the populace are incapable of comprehending a scam on such a grand scale. It is a tenet of propaganda that if you are going to tell a lie, then it has to be so big that nobody can believe it is a lie. “It must be the truth … surely”?

    So the little green fluff-bunnies are still bouncing around telling us that we are using the wrong light bulbs.

    And the politicians, who are the only group who can legally demand money with menaces, are still “taking advice” from their bureaucratic “policy advisors”, who also have long-term career investments in the scam.

    And then there are the “Names” – the celebrities who donate their money to green causes (mainly for tax reasons), and give their time to promote the cause (and themselves). They are hardly likely to accept that this was, “but a dream within a dream”.

    And finally, there are the trillions of pounds/euros/dollars now invested in “Green Industries” that have sprung up to provide the wind, tide, and solar technologies required to respond to “the greatest threat to mankind that the world has ever seen”. Are those investors going to be happy, if the bubble bursts? For none of these new technologies are viable without serious government subsidies.

    So you are right Jo. It was a scam, and still is a scam, built on a lie.

    But if you step back and look at the bigger picture, the surgery required to set the record straight may well be so traumatic that we end up killing the patient.

    This scam is now so big, and so involved, with so many conflicting (and conflicted) interests, that it may well be impossible to wind back out of it without destroying the world economy.

    That is the concern that keeps me awake at night.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    More CO2 May Mean More Cooling Cloud Cover (Complete with the the new ‘D’ word.)
    “Rising global carbon dioxide levels disrupt…..”

    “Lee says that these observations suggest that the CO2-rich conditions of the future may increase DMS production, which could then initiate more cloud formation. And because cloud cover scatters and reflects solar radiation, the process could possibly cool the atmosphere.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i42/8842news.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Looks like the IPCC will have embryonic Lead Authors before long

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/an-even-younger-senior-author/

    How the hell can you possibly arrive at sound conclusions with such a bunch of “wet behind the ears” idealists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    JO, BEAUTIFUL. I have been saying it for years GIGO that is how you spell climate computer models. I will be back in a few hours to see if Spatch comes out to play and see what he has to spout off about. He still has not answered my questions to him and many others about their proof with out bringing up models because that is the only evidence that I have ever been told about from any warmist!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Rereke Whaakaro:

    ‘The politicians, who are the only group who can legally demand money with menaces.’
    Brilliant! That is a one liner that deserves international recognition and universal uptake.

    It especially relevant for people in rural Australia where governments withdraw services. Citing economic rationalism but continue to charge (tax) rural people for those services, at the same rate as the urban population who still receive them.

    Getting this to the ‘Too big to fail’ stage has been the goal all along.
    It then takes on a life of it’s own and everyone involved has a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

    Eddy Aruda
    Spot on: What is keeping these guys awake at the moment is the thought, of ‘have they committed the legal definition of fraud’
    That is why all you seem to hear now is the continual bleating, the science is sound, the science is sound, CO2 can cause warming.
    I haven’t heard any mention of feedback loops and tipping points for quite so time.

    AGW Always was a very convenient Trojan horse, and it becomes obvious as soon as you pin any of the believers down on the science. And the fact that temperature rises (if any) are slowing and definitely not accelerating towards disaster in the way that the climate models predicted.
    They will then immediately changed tack to we have to reduce pollution/ solve the problems of the Third World/ have a fairer distribution of the world’s resources/ect.

    I always reply to that, identify a precise problem and we will start working on a precise solution to that problem. Anything else is simply hand wringing. Which is all they are really doing anyway, they don’t want to exert themselves on a solution, they simply want to create the illusion that they care.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iren

    Ference Miskolczi published a paper in 2007 which postulated a theory to explain feedbacks and found them to be in equilibrium.

    He was forced out of a senior role at NASA, which refused to publish his work. It was finally published in 2007 in the Hungarian Meteorological Journal –

    http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

    Another Hungarian scientist, Miklos Zagoni, who was an IPCC reviewer in 2007, discusses MISKOLCZI’S SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY here -

    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/

    As far as I know, this has never been refuted.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of … [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    well

    and you’re one eyed when it comes to climate sensitivity.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Rereke Whaakaro @ 6 and Binny @ 10.

    No lie is too big to overturn. Communist Russia was built on a lie and it died. Nazism was based on a lie and it died. Cheap housing for thr poor was based on a lie and it died. Painful? Hell yes but was the pain worth it. You bet.

    This AGW scam will not die on the altar of logic or good science. It will die because the people will see the world getting cooler. The jokes abound even now; “where is global warming?”. In itself that will not be sufficient to bury the carcass. What will cause the collapse of a political scam, as we all know it is, is the political process driven by the imposition of taxes. Increasing electricity prices associated with saving the planet from uncontrollable heating when everyone is freezing will raise the hackles and realisation of even the biggest schmuck.

    The realisation that the world is really cooling is the main driver behind the rush to introduce the Gillard/Green carbon tax so soon after telling the voters that she planned no such thing. The chance to cream a significant tax from voters is fast disappearing. Cold snowy winters in the UK and US are real. Water flowing down the Darling is real. Full dams in the cities just when the populace were told by Tim Flannery they needed expensive desal is real. The additional charges to pay for desal is also real.

    I may be an optimist but I suggest we all keep fighting because our cause is just, our science is right but most of all because the general population need our help. We can unseat the dishonest politicians and in turn turn off the grants tap to dishonest scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the “direct” warming effect of the extra CO2.

    “There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed.”

    There are a few cranks out there who dispute the above, and not all of them live in Germany.

    I don’t see how a greenhouse “feedback,” no matter how small, would not eventually or cyclically saturate the atmosphere.

    Strictly speaking Miskolczi found that positive and negative “feedbacks” equilibrate because he assumes the upper and lower regios of the atmosphere are in equilibrium, bit I hate to point out to anybody that no part of the ocean or the atmosphere is in “equilibrium” with anything.

    Thus, according to some cranks we have a pretty good reason why there’s no “hot spot” but we do however have some pretty good pictures of some forlorn looking polar bears and ought to be all the proof anybody needs


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well done series, Jo! But I think maybe the question is not, are they corrupt? It’s how corrupt are they?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    David nicely details the reasons behind the corruption, although I certainly don’t see any of them viewing themselves as “corrupt.”

    Any such thing endorsed by the likes of the Royal Society and one’s Prime Minister would hardly seem “corrupt” to anyone.

    True, most if not all are plagued by some nagging doubts, but those are easily dispelled by the “feedback” that will be observed if any such doubts are even hinted about.

    Everybody does what they do in what they view as humanity’s betterment, I’m quite sure, and the consequences of AGW alarmism are known detriment to humanity, perpetuating abject poverty and misery for many. This must be viewed by many as a sad but necessary consequence of ultimately making things better for everyone

    - as long as those promoting AGW alarmism aren’t compelled to suffer


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

    This is an excellent choice to show how little credibility there is in the whole feedback house of cards:

    It’s important to note that the surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance. The climate sensitivity to different radiative forcings differs depending on the efficacy of the forcing, but the climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides greenhouse gases.

    So sensitivity is all the same regardless of the forcing, but at the same time, it might be different thanks to an “efficacy” which means whatever you want it to mean, in order for everything to have the same sensitivity. Hmmmm, right I think I’ve got it. So what are the units of “efficacy”? Oh, it doesn’t have any units, it is unitless because all factors are scaled relative to CO2 forcing… except we have some of those forcings being solar radiation, others being a gas, and others as particulate matter. What sort of unitless scaling factor can relate particulate counts to solar radiation? Why, CO2 of course! Is that the LOG of CO2 vs the LOG of solar radiation (presumably giving an answer in decibels)? Maybe it is the small signal gain based on the first derivative about some arbitrary operating point? Who knows, who cares, just blurt some numbers on the table, no one is about to check any of this.

    In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.

    Unless you happen to argue for different “efficacy” factors, in which case you get any result you feel like getting.

    In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases.

    So some forcings are more equal than others, makes sense. Solidarnosk comrade, we will outlast them.

    Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet’s average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

    Well, the easiest way to explain it would be that the system is nonlinear so there’s no reason to presume sensitivity is the same as it was during the last glaciation. But with all of these excellent “efficacy” fudge factors (all of which probably are also nonlinear) we could comfortably explain anything at all. Really. So let’s go over those units again :-)

    People write learned papers about this $#!+ such as the following:

    We use a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change. We find a substantial range in the “efficacy” of different forcings, where the efficacy is the global temperature response per unit forcing relative to the response to CO2 forcing.

    You heard it, “per unit of forcing”. Under the IPCC system of units, forcing is a fundamental unit and well established property of all matter (a bit like mass, but only special people can measure it). The units of forcing are CO2′s. By gum, what I can’t understand is why I ever sat through high school science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks to PatC for emailing and letting me know the color scale was missing. Fixed! :-) JN

    Tel! Excellent commentary.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    SKEPTICALSCIENCE WEBSITE DEBUNKED – How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …efficacy” of different forcings…

    Efficacy of different forcings? Or is it how many pinhead climate scientists can dance on the head of a pin? Oh! Scuse me. That’s supposed to be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And it sounds like a more useful question to answer. Do you suppose I can get a couple of hundred million bucks to research it? I can write up a really impressive report…make em proud of how they spent the taxpayer’s money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Tel: #19

    … it might be different thanks to an “efficacy” which means whatever you want it to mean …

    And there you have it — the missing piece of the puzzle:

    “When I use a word, it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that is all.”

    (Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”)

    Humpty Dumpty was a Climate Scientist! … Wow!

    … Or is it that all climate scientists Humpty Dumpty’s … Hmm?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Roy Hogue:
    October 24th, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    That’s supposed to be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And it sounds like a more useful question to answer. Do you suppose I can get a couple of hundred million bucks to research it?

    Absolutely! Just word your grant request to show that you are studying the effect of anthropogenic global warming on the number of angels that can dance on the head of the pin and your funding is assured. Remember, if the bureaucrats don’t spend the money they will have a smaller budget next year!

    I am serious. Global warming causes almost everything “bad.” For a list see: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm. Yep, everything from acne to zoonotic disease!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Lawrie: #14

    Communist Russia was built on a lie and it died. Nazism was based on a lie and it died.

    On one level, I get your point, and it is well put.

    But technically, Communism (in Russia) didn’t die. The supporting political apparatus collapsed under its own weight and mismanagement. But the principles of Communism were not beaten, nor did they die, they morphed into the brand of European Socialism that we see behind Greenpeace, and WWF (formally known as the World Wildlife Fund, before it had a name change to get onto the climate bandwagon), and the other Green movements and political parties (Watermelons – right?).

    Nazism (or National Socialism, to give it its real name) didn’t die – it was killed. The National Socialist system worked very well in Germany, and would have probably spread throughout Europe anyway, if Hitler had been more stable, and less concerned with the economic and military restrictions placed on Germany after the First World War. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected. National Socialism is still around, and is showing some resurgence in central Europe as the war generation becomes no more. National Socialists are very much against loosing jobs to foreign workers, for example, sound familiar?

    But generally, I agree with you. However, to get past the current “big lie” will take something very dramatic, like a war, or a severe economic collapse. And this is just because of the huge numbers of people who receive a small but tangible benefit in it remaining. Whatever the dramatic event might be, it will need to be on a scale that is big enough to destroy or radically alter the UN.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Eddy is right. If water vapour is a net positive feedback the atmosphere overall would be unstable, which we observe is not the case. It is relevant that the proposed mechanism of amplification is not specific for CO2. Any increase in temperature will cause water to evaporate and set the positive feedback going.

    Also, this has to be a local effect (not over deserts, presumably; and much more active over the oceans than land) which becomes global only as the sum of all local effects. The tropics seem stable (if sometimes stormy) so the rest of the world can at least warm to tropical temperatures before any positive feedback.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy Aruda @24,

    Yes, I always suspected that global warming causes acne. It also causes UFOs and little green space aliens. I’ll bet you didn’t know that.

    I used to think that trolls were characters found only in children’s books. But now I know that global warming causes them too.

    I better quit while I’m behind — going off my rocker here!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Eddy Aruda:
    I’ve just had some practical experience in that regard. I’m the treasurer of our local sports club and last year we obtained a government grant to install a new ablutions block an administration building. After collecting commercial quotes on the cost of the entire project, we received a grant on a 2/3s government 1/3 us basis, and used the government 2/3s to purchase and have delivered the (demountable) buildings. We then engaged in some serious arm-twisting/emotional blackmail on everyone from the local electrical contractors to the Council to waive their normal commercial profit and install the buildings plumbing and electrical etc on an at cost basis. Everyone came to the party and as a result we saved $24,000 on the project.

    Even though we can account for the money given to us from the government we are now being asked to repay two thirds of money saved by the goodwill of local businesses and Council. In my opinion that $24,000 is essentially a donation given to the club by the businesses involved.

    I’ve told the people in question that I will repay the money when the minister involved is prepared to pose for a photo standing in front of the completed buildings handing a local community volunteer (me) a court order demanding the money.

    The bottom line is, that’s the way bureaucracy works, spend everything your given and asked for more, and you will probably get it.
    Save some money and you will be punished by having to pay it back.

    Ironically, I think if we had gone through the long and complicated process of having all the businesses and Council invoice the club for the full commercial cost of the work done. Have the club issue cheques for those full amounts, and then had the businesses and councils write out cheques for what would have been their commercial profit, and hand it back to us, the bureaucratic process would have been satisfied.
    Instead of the simpler more commonsense process, of okay we will just invoice you for our costs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Cross-posted from WUWT and tAV –

    Oh, beautiful!
    In an SA article subtly dissing Judith Curry, “Iconoclast” posts the following:

    14. Iconoclast 05:06 PM 10/23/10

    The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure

    It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational aveage can be derived.

    Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two

    The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.

    Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.

    No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.

    It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting sny future climate behsviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.

    There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric csrbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.

    After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud

    Every paragraph a gem, despite typos!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Adolf @ 4:29:
    You malign Scientology! It holds that “absolute truth is unobtainable”, and “what works better is truer”. CS accepts workability tests only between its computer games models.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Correction: Colin @ 5:02, not Adolf @4:29. (My browser is being very balky today).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Brian H:
    October 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pm (etc).
    “what works better is truer”.
    “My browser is being very balky today”
    Maybe you need a truer browser then.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Meg

    Here is another wonderful comment on the SciAmerican article by Curry – on the unregulated and unaudited nature of climate science despite its public policy impact:

    34. MichaelC58
    02:38 AM 10/24/10A hint of a rethink of blind faith in CAGW by the SciAmerican, even through the gritted teeth of Mr Lemonick, is most welcome.

    There is another point Dr Curry makes which is dear to my heart  peer reviewed vs regulated science.

    Industries affecting public safety, such as medicine and aviation are highly regulated. Peer review is fine for theoretical research, but if you want to inflict it on the public, you must use regulated science. This means complying with quality and performance standards in research, use independent test labs, government auditors and investigators such as the FDA and their gun-carrying enforcement officers. We, in the medical industry, must maintain all design, safety and all adjustments of data in auditable, incorruptible non-repudiatable forms, or we are not believed and are shut down. The public expect this – because lives are at risk.

    Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.

    Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review. To a medical researcher like myself, it’s utter surreal madness.

    And then you hear story after story of arbitrary adjustments, homogenization, lost data, breach of IPCC’s own protocol, conflicts of interests and colossal profiteering and even criminal activity (EU carbon trading) in the subsidized green industry. Has it not occurred to anyone that a trillion dollar industry may need independent scrutiny of its claims?

    Please ask yourself – would you buy a headache tablet made by the IPCC process? i.e. by peer review between a bunch of pharmaceutical researchers, without FDA oversight?

    Let me help you – NO, you would not. So why are we buying climate alarmism without the complete transparency and external audit of the assumptions, the data, the statistics and conclusions? After all, lives are at risk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Dessler has just produced a paper purporting to contradict Paltridge’s findings of less water vapour in the atmosphere; Lacis and Schmidt have also produced a new paper purporting to show that non-condesible gases like CO2 have a much greater greenhouse effect than water. If Dessler and Lacis are correct there must be a THS.

    However, another new paper:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.html

    shows that neither Dessler’s findings, even if correct, which apparently Paltridge refutes, or the Lacis paper have any efficacy. The Russian paper shows that water reduces pressure through condensation dynamics; and less pressure means less temperature. The models have not factored in this relationship between condensation and pressure and therefore temperature; this explains why their assumption of a THS is ill-founded and requires bizarre and unscientific analyses such as in the Sherwood paper on wind-shear, for support and validation.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of … [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Mourin

    So how do we get the message through to the politicians and the media?
    Politicians chose (or have chosen for them) advisors who are “on message”. The media ….

    Revolution? Taking to the streets? Mass e-mails? (they don’t read them). Letters to your MP? – they can’t understand anything to do with science or maths.

    Does anyone have any ideas?

    Kenam


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    no one is about to check any of this.

    (SNIPPED out trolling comment) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ken Mourin:
    October 24th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    So how do we get the message through to the politicians and the media?

    Mass e-mails? (they don’t read them). Letters to your MP? – they can’t understand anything to do with science or maths.

    Does anyone have any ideas?

    I have said this before there is one way to get through to politicians, that they can not ignore.
    Do not ever vote for any politician spouting AGW justified policies from any party whatsoever,
    because you know they are lying to you, for their own benefit, not yours.
    If that means there is no one to vote for, so be it. It will create a political vacuum someone will have to fill.
    Which is what we want. No AGW “science” in politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I love this:

    http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

    We recently read how German born chemist, Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser has published evidence that shows the Royal Society (RS), London, has made errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) persistence in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a leading Swedish mathematics professor, the revelation damages the credibility of the British science institute and casts doubt on its claims about climate change.

    An error in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so, as peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have highlighted the error and called for immediate correction.

    The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error, any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

    Climate writer and former US Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Hertzberg has referred to several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be “between 5 and 10 years.”

    Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser calculates that with a half-life of 5 years it means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

    Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser poses the question that if CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, then why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last hundred years?

    Good question, don’t you reckon!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser calculates that with a half-life of 5 years it means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

    it takes 5 years for it to be first absorbed into the ocean, but it will be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed many times. hence the atmospheric concentration will remain high.

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    Unless you happen to argue for different “efficacy” factors, in which case you get any result you feel like getting.

    what’s the reaon given in the report for the different values?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    no one is about to check any of this.

    except for you, blogging away all the lies. you really should publish one [per] day.

    Very well, here you are: You have something meaningful to contribute

    Next lie due tomorrow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Tel @ 19,
    Excellent!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anders

    There is certainly no ample evidence for any greenhouse effect what so ever. The lukewarmers position is illogical, untenable and just as politically motivated as that of the alarmists. Their only purpose is to hijac the “authority” of a few climatologists like Lindzen and Spencer. Just think about it for a moment. One of their pet arguments is that H2O is by far the most important greenhouse gas, yet they dispute the “water vapor feedback”. Can it become any more illogical. If we accept that the temperature would decrease close to -18C without water vapor the atmospheres capability to harbor water vapor would decrease significantly and the earth would turn into ice. The positive feedbacks are built into the system from the beginning and are in abundance.

    Under all normal circumstances water acts as a thermostat, not as some kind of self-exciting dynamite.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Not So Well:
    October 24th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    it takes 5 years for it to be first absorbed into the ocean, but it will be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed many times. hence the atmospheric concentration will remain high.

    Your understanding of the carbon cycle appears to be extremely limited. Try perusing other sites than skepticalscience and realclimate and you may actually learn something.
    Start by reading the following: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm

    Over time CO2 is absorbed into carbonate rock. CO 2 levels, as I have pointed out before, are historically low when viewed in the context of the geological record for the last 600,000,000 years. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    The IPCC pontificates: “The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr – yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 4th Assessment Report, 2007

    Not true, as the evidence shows that CO2 levels have varied by greater amounts in the past. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html.

    The Earth has seen ice ages when CO2 levels were more than an order of magnitude greater than they are today. Open the window of your mind and let some fresh air in. You may find it intellectually refreshing. There is life after trolling and I hope you get the help you so obviously need. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A little off topic but since we are getting near the start of the holiday season: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI&feature=player_embedded


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Under all normal circumstances water acts as a thermostat, not as some kind of self-exciting dynamite.

    Ha ha ha I would say so! The heat of decomposition of dynamite to water, nitrogen, and CO2 is about -350 kcal per mole

    and the heat of vaporization of water is about +10.7 kcal per mole

    Gerlich, Tsceuschner, Gerhard Kramm, and me, anyway, have faith in the Second Law

    But when it comes to global warming a lot of people’s faith in the second law seems to get a little shaky.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    When linking temperature increases directly to CO2, they should be rising on the same scale as the gas increase. But they are not!

    What is happening is a displacement of lighter gases for heavier gases. This has slowed down wind speeds across this planet. The rotating planet and this gas is in close senquence. This is displacing gases and adding pressure in the atmosphere.
    Notice how tornados start in the clouds and pull incredible widspeeds from that level of the atmosphere, yet it is theorized hurricanes and cyclones get their energy from the ocean. Evaporating water yes but not the wind speeds as these are 3-4 km in height in the atmosphere.
    So, compressing up more atmosphere gives more energy to these hurricanes and cyclones.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian H

    Meg;
    Your faith in the controls on medical science is misplaced.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/1/

    Only about 10% of medical research is even partially valid. The rest is garbage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Allen Ford

    “Lee says that these observations suggest that the CO2-rich conditions of the future may increase DMS production, which could then initiate more cloud formation. And because cloud cover scatters and reflects solar radiation, the process could possibly cool the atmosphere.”

    Gee, with all those mays and coulds, sounds like a rock solid hypothesis to me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Ken Mourin:
    October 24th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    So how do we get the message through to the politicians and the media?

    These kids are way ahead of you skeptics…

    Australian Youth Climate Coalition – We’ve just wrapped up a fantastic day of training for 30 amazing AYCCers from around the country who will be meeting with 50 politicians over the next two days! Biggest youth climate lobby day ever in Australia!

    Gillard agrees to face climate elephant

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard has indicated she will meet with a prominent symbol of discontent with Labor’s climate change policies.

    But now the Prime Minister has indicated on the social networking site Twitter that she will meet the elephant and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, which was behind the stunt.

    “ClimateElephant yes, we’ll meet to chat about climate change. My office is in contact with AYCC to organise a date and time. JG,” she tweeted.

    The Coalition’s Amanda Mackenzie says the elephant and other AYCC members will push Ms Gillard to put a price on carbon as soon as possible.

    Climate Change: The Latest Science

    An excellent outline of the latest climate science by expert Professor David Karoly at this year’s Power Shift summit in Geelong. It’s a must-see for everyone!

    Climate Champions Challenge

    Hear Amanda’s personal message on why we need you to get involved in the challenge!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Spatch@52;
    Ach! Sehr gut! Die Klimat-Jugend is ready to march!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Testing the AGW Hypothesis
    Sensitivity is very low, dominated by negative feedback mechanisms. And the NH and SH do not “average”.

    Inconvenient Data!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Meg

    Brian H,
    Actually I know nothing about medical research standards either here in Australia or elsewhere, to have faith in them or otherwise.
    I merely agreed with the comment to the extent that it would be a good idea to have the highest possible standards of oversight applied to scientific research where the results are of real public importance.
    If your source is right and regulated oversight of medical research is not screening out the bad science, then what hope is there for the pal-reviewed system prevalent in climate science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Macha

    Anders @44.

    Sorry to let you know – there IS a greenhouse effect.
    I’m sure you can find the references in past links on this site alone.

    To say there’s not, undoes a lot of the work trying to be done to clarify the case against CAGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Well in 40,

    You seem to have failed to grasp the concept of what is being discussed, let me break it down a bit for you.

    IPCC version of events:

    Man digs up coal and gas burns it, this process produces CO2 which despite it being heavier than air floats up into the atmosphere to cause AGW. If we continue to burn coal and gas then the ppm of CO2 will continue to rise. If we stop burning coal and gas as of now we will still experience a vast majority of AGW because the level of ppm in the atmosphere will not change much for 100′s or thousands of years because the residency of CO2 in the atmosphere (time it takes to be absorbed)is 100′ to 1000′s of years. Therefore CO2 is bad and we must stop producing it.

    A not widely discussed alternative is:

    The residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years and at best 10 years, there fore if we stopped producing CO2 it will take only a handful of years for CO2 levels to return to the preindustrial levels. This alternative theory means CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not going to cause AGW to continue for 1000′s of years thus the scare is stopped in its tracks.

    With the above in mind you said “it takes 5 years for it to be first absorbed into the ocean, but it will be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed many times. hence the atmospheric concentration will remain high.”

    If i dig up coal burn it to produce a molecule CO2 and a plant sucks in the molecule and releases the oxygen and puts the carbon into the ground how is this CO2 molecule that no longer exists going to be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed?

    Also the time taken between the release and absorption of a CO2 molecule is considered as the “residency time” the fact that it may get re released in say the next 10 million years has no bearing on what we are discussing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Spatch – Professor David Karoly is showing signs of going round the bend – 40% reduction in emissions within 10 years and 90% in 60 years – he’s mad.

    I hope they keep that video so we can sue in 10 years time for spreading lies to children when none of his crazy predictions have come to pass, just like Flannery.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Allen Ford

    Spatch:
    October 25th, 2010 at 10:36 am
    Climate Champions Challenge

    Hear Amanda’s personal message on why we need you to get involved in the challenge!

    Gee, Amanda has nice teeth. If the AGW balloon goes down, she has a great future as a toothpaste commercial model.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Spatch – the warming from 1975 – 1998 is not the fastest rate on record, another lie he’s told the children. 1910 – 1940 had a similar rate of warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Macha I have some wonderful news for you!

    You can share it with your mom

    You can share it with your lover or spouse

    You can share it with your best friend

    You can share it with Roy Spencer, Eli Rabbit, Tim Flannery, Al Gore, and Christine Milne

    There is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    isn’t that wonderful? Now you don’t have to worry any more!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Spatch 52

    Don’t you have some heart-warming stories of Hitlerjungen to share with us instead of that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    spatch and his children supporting AGW reminds me of this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    spatch;
    From the mouths of babes:
    http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1701226987

    Substitute “AlGore” for “Barack” as appropriate!

    ;p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    That, my friend, is vile

    The video raised some non-peaceful voices on some other web sites, I can tell you that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    WA MP calls for a royal commission into climate change
    Alan Jones talks to Dr Dennis Jensen – federal Liberal MP – who calls for a royal commission into the science of climate change.

    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=7288


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Spatch #52
    If Karoly had anything new to say, it would have been all over the ABC and The Age by now. Yawn……….
    Amanda and her youth group, are they REALLY paying power and water bills so soon ? I think we should hear from their Mummies and Daddies
    too


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ DiSpatched
    Wow, after failing to answer Roy Hogue’s question I am surprised that you soul have the gall to post again!
    You are pitiful. You need to get a life.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    DiSpatched, why don’t you change your name to something appropriate like Greased Weasel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    @ Janam
    Thanks for the link. I am at the hospital with my son (minor injury) and I will read it thoroughly later. I am waiting for some troll to play the “oil card” regarding the author.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Brian G Valentine

    Hitler youth…*rolls eyes

    ———-

    Time for some science…

    ———-

    This figure shows the degree to which carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions persist in the atmosphere over time.

    The lifetime of a gas in the atmosphere is generally known as its “residence time”, but unlike other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide does not undergo a simple decline over a single predictable timescale. Instead, the excess carbon is first diluted by the carbon cycle as it mixes into the oceans and biosphere (e.g. plants) over a period of a few hundred years, and then it is slowly removed over hundreds of thousands of years as it is gradually incorporated into carbonate rocks.

    The dilution of carbon is such that only 15-30% is expected to remain in the atmosphere after 200 years, with most of the rest being either incorporated into plants or dissolved into the oceans. This leads to a new equilibrium being established; however, the total amount of carbon in the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system remains elevated. To restore the system to a normal level, the excess carbon must be incorporated into carbonate rocks through geologic processes that progress exceedingly slowly. As a result, it is estimated that between 3 and 7% of carbon added to the atmosphere today will still be in the atmosphere after 100,000 years (Archer 2005, Lenton & Britton 2006).

    This is supported by studies of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a large naturally occurring release of carbon 55 million years ago that apparently took ~200,000 years to fully return to pre-event conditions (Zachos et al. 2001).

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time_png

    References

    Archer, David (2005). “Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time”. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: C09S05.

    Bender, Michael L., David T. Ho, Melissa B. Hendricks, Robert Mika, Mark O. Battle, Pieter P. Tans, Thomas J. Conway, Blake Sturtevant, Nicolas Cassar (2005). “Atmospheric O2/N2 changes, 1993-2002:

    Implications for the partitioning of fossil fuel CO2 sequestration”. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19: GB4017.

    Lenton, Timothy M. and Clare Britton (2006). “Enhanced carbonate and silicate weathering accelerates recovery from fossil fuel CO2 perturbations”. Global Biogeochemical cycles 20: GB3009.

    Wigley, TML (1993). “Balancing the carbon budget. Implications for projections of future carbon dioxide concentration changes”. Tellus 45B: 409-425.

    Zachos, James, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas, and Katharina Billups (2001). “Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present”. Science 292 (5517): 686–693.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Macha

    Brian @61.
    Sorry – my experience and research has led me to believe otherwise.
    That does not mean I subscribe to CAGW.
    Try readinfg some Roy Spencer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    we are next Mandarine when they suddenly realise how many have taken up the solar panels and want the 60c/kWh to pay off their investment but the Government and the power companies realise they can’t afford it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    yes – that would be right Eddy, he finally puts Mombiot and Tony in their place over volcanoes plus offers some good ideas on ocean acidification.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Macha, I’ve said it all before, there is no way that the stratosphere can cool and the troposphere warm without expending work, period. Spencer thinks that the troposphere warming via some intermediary that is cooler than the troposphere proves the “greenhouse” idea. It does not and I can’t be any more simple or straightforward.

    Every thing you or Spencer or anybody else can come up with to make the “greenhouse” idea work somehow is convoluted and simply wrong.

    At some point people are going to have to take that simple truth at face value and just accept it.

    It’s NOT THERE, Dude, and if it ain’t there it ain’t there, and I can’t take the barriers to accepting that truth out of your head and you can’t PUT IT THERE because you and Spencer or anybody else think it OUGHT to be there


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Spatch you’re wasting you time and making other people sick in the meanwhile. Take a powder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Climate Fools Day…

    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/climate-fools-day.pdf

    Climate Fools Day Rally in Brisbane
    This Wednesday 27th October
    12 noon, King George Square in front of city hall.
    Look for Tim Wells, Malcolm Roberts.

    More info contact Tim Wells: timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Sincere good wishes to Eddy, son, and all your family.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Hooray for Viv Forbes! Viv is to Australia what Tim Ball is to Canada and we really have no parallel here in the US.

    People with integrity and COMMON SENSE trying to protect ordinary people from the thoughtless actions of unthinking zealots


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isplantfood

    They’re is no greenhouse effect because there is no roof on our top.

    And we know that CO2 is rythmic in effect so it can’t have any effect at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Er.Indra Mohan Arora

    I am going to present your thoughts and work in forth comming INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COOLING THE EARTH AND My Paper is “Climate chaos? A Hysteria& simple myth.” You have and are doing a greate JOB.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    crakar24

    Spatch,

    Volcanos aside, just to be clear if i breathe in 0.04% of CO2 and 4.2% of the breath i exhale is CO2 then i am adding a small amount of co2 into the atmosphere, when you calculate how many species there are and their numbers on this planet who all do the same thing over and over again, this number begins to add up.

    Now if we are to believe that before the IR co2 levels remained almost constant for millions upon millions of years then surely you must be wrong with your residency time. If co2 levels remained constant and yet co2 levels must have been increasing “something else” must have been removing the co2….yes. [fixed]ED

    Please explain why you believe this to be wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    co2 levels must have been increasing “something else” must have been removing the oxygen….yes.

    That should read “co2 levels must have been increasing “something else” must have been removing the CO2….yes.”

    Sorry for any inconvenience caused


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    That’s a pretty good song, Mandarine, but I don’t think Dennis Boothby is going to be invited to appear with the dimmest of witted glitterati anytime soon.

    *WARNING* extremely nauseating video content


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Methinks Spatch et al have been snorting too many of the wrong sort of powders!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    83
    co2isplantfood:

    There is no greenhouse effect because there is no roof on our top.

    Spot on, the ost widely accepted, yet completely wrong simile in human history is the “blanket” used to describe “how” the so called “greenhouse effect” supposedly “works”.

    The blanket we wrap ourselves in at night keeps us warm, because,
    IT REDUCES CONDUCTION AND CONVECTION OF OUR BODIES HEAT AWAY FROM US BY THE COLDER AIR.

    Would the blanket “work” if it was suspended ten foot above us, of course not, that’s not how it works.
    But unfortunately for “standard” greenhouse effect, “THEORY” (for goodness sakes…)
    that is how it is supposed to “work”. – POPPYCOCK.
    Radiation plays no part in why a blanket keeps you warm, reduced conduction and convection looses of your bodies heat explains it all.

    AGW loves the blanket simile because it also implies “back radiation” when this is an imaginary AGW “force”,
    that the GH “theory” is centrally dependent upon, again – it’s pure POPPYCOCK.
    The atmospheric pressure gradient ensures most radiated photons escape to space, or are reabsorbed and emitted again,
    until they do escape to space.
    It is a simple case of by chance of absorption alone, emitted photons will escape to space in an atmospheric pressure gradient.

    http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Eureka%20Revisited/Slide9.jpg

    and,
    http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Eureka%20Revisited/Slide19.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @crakar24

    First up, get your head around this…

    This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years as measured from ice cores. Throughout most of the record, the large changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.

    Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels which are likely unprecedented in the last 20 million years.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch 91

    Is cut and paste all you can do? Your post at 91 was lifted from http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html and http://co2late.com/index2.htm. Your two posted links are different then the links you plagiarized. I noticed you never answered Roy’s question and I believe you lack the intellect and intelligence to do so. Or perhaps you can answer Roy’s question without cut and paste, posting links and engaging in ad hominems.

    While your at it, lets see if you can dispute the fact that over the last 600,000,000 years the geological record shows no relationship between CO2 and temps. Also, respond to my post at # 45 if you can or change your screen name to Greased Weasel!

    You take up valuable oxygen that someone else could be breathing!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    janama@66:

    I just listened to the chat between Alan Jones and MP Denis Jensen. Jensen points out that our current rate of warming, 0.76 degrees per hundred years, is tiny compared to the rate of warming at the end of the last ice age. He says, live on radio, that there was a rate of warming of 15 degrees per hundred years at the end of the last ice age!

    This is truly amazing. We went from ice age to current balmy climate in 100 years. I’d like to smoke whatever hi is gone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Well, gotta get some sleep. I know someone will respond to whatever lame crap that Spatch posts while I am enjoying the sleep of the rightous! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Spatch (91)

    Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2

    CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use did not start to escalate until c. 1945 and have skyrocketed since.

    Go back and do some revision.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isplantfood

    And we can just grow more plants to eat the nasty CO2. They do grow on trees you know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    John Brookes:

    If you’d bother to check before posting the usual flippant rubbish you would find that there were indeed wild temperature fluctuations up and down at the beginning and end of the last Ice Age. I’ve even seen docos on the (gasp) ABC reinforcing this.

    You could do with whatever Dennis Jensen snorted (and I’m certain he didn’t). As it is, once more you show that if brains were dynamite you still couldn’t blow your nose!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    93
    John Brookes:

    John read the article I posted regarding volcanoes.

    here it is again. http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Macha

    #78 & 83. I can only guess that you have mis-represented the information.

    It’s not about a colder bocy making a wamrer body any hotter. Read the relevant docs more carefully – colder body making it cool more slowly. A big difference – as is radiation versus convection.

    I’ll try post the specific references later (unless your a bigot and can’t tolerate other views/reasoning). I keep at this because its important not to misrepresent the ‘denier’ claims;: ie yes its warming, yes mandmade CO2 has an influence, but NOT so convinced its a driver not catastrophically imminent, such that we need to quarranteen CO2 emmissions or spend godzillions on mitigation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Here is a link to Physics World which unusually has a whole heap of its edition on PDF.
    Most of it covers the for and against debate for nuclear power including thorium, etc.
    I hope it is still open for downloading.

    With nuclear power set for a potential comeback, the October 2010 issue ofPhysics World takes a long, hard look at the challenges and opportunitiesfacing nuclear energy. And for a limited time only, you can download theissue for free at physicsworld.com.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1882/279338/download/oct2010


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Goody!
    It’s TROLL TAG TEAM “John Brookes” and “Spatch”.

    You two boys just good friends???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Eddy Aruda92

    Take note of the first part of the address of the first link.

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

    Yeah, you’ll notice that you were completly wrong.

    As for the posting of links being a form of plagarism – besides being utter nonsense and a non issue, you’ll notice the skeptics here also post links.

    And lastly, you, sir, are a serial Ad hominem abuser and cyber-bully. It’s a tired old tactic but if it gives you a cheap thrill then so be it.

    I find it amusing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    It won’t be long before we see this [snip] and “Spatch” in the news for perpertrating something like this:-

    Baby shot over global warming fears….

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss

    or this

    Green terror…

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/green_terror/

    At least they will be in fine company:-

    Charles Manson: Global Warming Prophet…

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/charles-manson-global-warming-prophet.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    “Spatch”, the lastest member of the [snip] Club….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    Your understanding of the carbon cycle appears to be extremely limited. Try perusing other sites than skepticalscience and realclimate and you may actually learn something.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    the link I posted was http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html . it is neither a skepticalscience or realclimate link.

    concentrate harder next time teddy.

    Start by reading the following: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm

    over time CO2 is absorbed into carbonate rock.

    we’re talking about longevity in the atmosphere, not the carbon cycle. learn the difference teddy.

    CO 2 levels, as I have pointed out before, are historically low when viewed in the context of the geological record for the last 600,000,000 years.

    and yet still higher than for the past 800,000 years. got a point?

    The Earth has seen ice ages when CO2 levels were more than an order of magnitude greater than they are today.

    and with a cooler sun too. got a point?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @mandarine.

    What’s your problem mate? Got nothing else to contribute other than being abusive?

    [snip]

    Do you do hurle insults at strangers in person, or do you only do it from the safety of your computer?

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    WA MP calls for a royal commission into climate change
    Alan Jones talks to Dr Dennis Jensen – federal Liberal MP – who calls for a royal commission into the science of climate change.

    http://www.2gb.com/flash/audioplayer.swf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    “Spatch” DON’T CALL BE MATE!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Forcing is generally taken to mean downward radiation measured at the TOA (top of atmosphere). The IPCC says that when TOA forcing changes, the surface temperature changes linearly with that TOA forcing change. If there is twice the forcing change (twice the change in solar radiation, for example), the IPCC says we’ll see twice the temperature change. The proportionality constant (not a variable but a constant) that the IPCC says linearly relates temperature and TOA forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”.

    Today I stumbled across the IPCC justification of this linearity assumption. This is the basis of their claim of the existence of a constant called “climate sensitivity”. I quote it below.”

    Read more of what Willis Eschenbach found at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/25/nature-hates-straight-lines/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    DON’T CALL BE MATE!!!

    roger that!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    The man-made links to dramatic climate changes continue – even from the remotely populated and industry sparse Antarctic, can mankind influence the temperature and have the dreaded man-made CO2 emission levels ‘transferred’ across the sea to Australia’s weather (oops, forgive me – I’m told its not dry weather, its a drier climate we are now experiencing).

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/8194348/antarctic-snowfall-link-to-wa-drought/

    We are continually asked forget its been hotter and drier and wetter and colder in the past, and that more importantly, the rate of changes have been both faster and slower than current news breaks refer to (despite rapid changes in CO2 levels).

    So if the snowfalls lower atmospheric moisture content and this makes the Ozzie air drier and hotter, does that not provide cause and effect evidence that water is the dominant driver and that CO2 is a ‘bit-player’? Else, why don’t these dastardly bad, rapidly increasing, CO2 levels ‘over-ride’ the obviously cold Antarctic?

    But then again, I am loathed to read and refer to temperature data anymore. After all, where did it come from? Certainly the BoM and CSIRO data needs to be dealt with alarming scepticism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    mandarine:
    October 25th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    “[snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @macha

    Yeah, you skeptics have a real problem. You use data gathered by scientists to back up your arguments, and then claim that all the data is rubbish, thereby invalidating your arguments.

    No wonder you’re all cranky and feel the need to abuse all and sundry.

    And macha, warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. So, CO2 is not a bit player. And yes, water vapor is an important GHG.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    Hey Spatch… I see you are living in absolutes.
    I did not say ALL data! ANY with some confidence be good enough for me, for now. Why do you think Roy Spencer spends so much time validating his sources to show the warming anomolie trending -abeit a a decreasing rate..now why would that be?.

    Where’s your stance on the PDO, sun cycle, influences? Or are you in full alliance with IPCC info.
    PS. The mention of GHG …does this mean there is a GHG effect too? just need to check.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Spatch.

    Overdone the onanism bit again have you? Stop it before you go blind!

    Mod: I’ll understand if this is [SNIPPED].


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Encouraging to hear on Q & A our longest serving PM declare he is is a climate change agnostic wrt to the seriousness of human CO2 emissions. Like all good agnostics/skeptics/ monarchists he does sit up and take notice when the Royal Society moves in the direction of agnosticism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Yes macha, there is a greenhouse effect. That’s a given. We’ve moved on from that.

    You said:

    does that not provide cause and effect evidence that water is the dominant driver

    I take it you meant to say that water vapor is an important GHG.

    Clarify what you meant by water is the dominant driver.

    Here’s a link that explains “drivers” or “forcings” of climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    after RG of course.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Mark@116

    Like I was telling mandarine earlier..

    Hurling childish insults at folks [snip]

    Mark – don’t you see how [snip] you look when you sit at your computer flinging insults at someone you’ve never met. [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Spatch:

    Your comment at #114 was undeserving of anything serious. Do some research will you. Nobody is going to give you special tuition so get busy.

    [snip]The nature of your comments is such as to rule out genuine curiosity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Spatch every time you read something you don’t like here’s the only response you need:

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Gets ‘em every time!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Read the relevant docs more carefully – colder body making it cool more slowly. A big difference – as is radiation versus convection.

    Macha, you’re not making sense. If the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere cooling, we have, for the heat transfer rate

    q = (sigma)[(eps1)T1**4 - (eps2)T2**4]

    and if ground temp T1 increases and upper atmosphere temp T2 decreases than the heat transfer rate has to increase.

    I had the exact same discussion with Joel Shore, nothing changed his mind, the only barrier present is that to diffusion of knowledge into cognition


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I really am insterested in this 15 degree global temperature increase per hundred years coming out of the last ice age, as mentioned by that WA MP to the queen of talkback radio, and defended by Mark.

    I am really interested in such a rapid change, one that absolutely dwarfs our current rate of change. If anyone has references to this cataclysmic event, please post them!

    Oh, and Brian Valentine – you really are wrong, and it is your mind that needs to change in this case….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh, and Brian Valentine – you really are wrong, and it is your mind that needs to change in this case….

    John don’t accept any statement that someone can’t back up with a sensible explanation.

    If somebody tells you that you’re wrong and they don’t tell you why then assume you’re right until proven otherwise


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Is there any doubt it is?

    I believe readers will find the following February 2010 article, at the following link, very interesting:

    http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/new-research-into-greenhouse-effect-challenges-theory-of-man-made-global-warming

    It is about a former NASA contractor, atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, and his theory demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is constant and self-regulating and that increases in human CO2 emissions are not the source of global warming.

    All conventional greenhouse concepts are based on the idea that rising greenhouse gases cause an increase in atmospheric absorption, which in turn leads to atmospheric warming and higher surface temperatures. But Miskolczi’s research upends that conventional theory.

    After studying hundreds of atmospheric profiles (extracted from the TIGR2 global radiosonde database from the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique in Paris), Dr. Miskolczi, discovered a self-regulating mechanism, or “constant,” that keeps Earth’s greenhouse gases in equilibrium. According to his equilibrium theory, this constant cannot be altered by increases in emissions of CO2 or other atmospheric gases such as methane.

    In simple terms, Miskolczi has discovered a new law of physics that sets an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. According to this law, the surplus temperature from greenhouse gases is constant and cannot be increased. Why? Because the earth’s greenhouse blanket functions dynamically to maintain equilibrium in response to changes in greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane and ozone.

    Miskolczi stated: “With relatively simple computations using NOAA’s annual mean temperature, H20 and CO2 time series, I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect. The anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie, unless somebody proves otherwise,” .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? YES

    Is the Western Science Establishment Corrupt? YES

    The AGW story is the fourth (4th) of a series of distortions and misrepresentations of experimental observations by the federally-financed, scientific-technological elite that President Eisenhower warned about in 1961:

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    The three earlier observations:

    1. All primordial Helium in the Solar System was initially labeled with excess Xe-136.

    2. Solar mass-fractionation covers the Sun’s surface with 91% H and 9% He.

    3. Neutron repulsion powers the Sun and heats planet Earth.

    A four-part video series has been initiated to explain changes in Earth’s climate, after first addressing distortions and misrepresentations of earlier experimental data:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    http://www.omatumr.com


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is only one establishment and they make most of their money from oil.

    According to Fortune’s 2007 Global 500 listing, the ten largest global oil companies took in over $167 billion in profits in 2006 alone, nearly $50 billion more than the top ten companies in the second most profitable industry, commercial and savings banks.

    The largest publicly traded oil companies operating in the United States and those with the greatest influence on U.S. policy- making are ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Valero (the forty-third largest global corporation), and Marathon (the ninety- second largest global corporation). Each is either a direct descendant or has purchased direct descendants of Standard Oil. They are among the most powerful corporations in the world. These companies are Big Oil.

    Big Oil is experiencing a level of power that has only one historical precedent: that of the Standard Oil era. And like Standard Oil, the companies appear willing to do anything to maintain their position. With over $40 billion in pure profit in 2007, ExxonMobil is the most profitable corporation both in the world and in world history. Its profits are larger than the entire economies of ninety-three of the world’s nations ranked by GDP. ExxonMobil had the most profitable year of any corporation ever in 2003 and then proceeded to surpass its own record every year for the next five years.

    Shell and BP are headquartered in The Hague and London, respectively, but each has powerful, influential, and sizable American affiliates. Each is a leading U.S. campaign spender, heavily influencing and benefiting from the American political system. Shell and BP, combined with the Big Five, made an incredible and unprecedented $133 billion in pure profit in 2007, the equivalent of the combined GDPs of the forty-two poorest nations in the world, including Fiji, Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan, and Sierra Leone.
    What does $133 billion in profits buy an industry?

    It bought the oil industry at least eight years of a U.S. “oligarchy”: a government ruled by a small number of oil interests. The oil industry spent more money to get the George W. Bush administration into office in 2000 than it has spent on any election before or since. In return it received, for the first time in American history, a president, vice president, and secretary of state who are all former oil company officials. Every agency and every level of bureaucracy was filled with former oil industry lobbyists, lawyers, staff, board members, and executives, or those on their way to work for the oil industry after a brief stint of government service. The oil industry got what it paid for: an administration that has arguably gone further than just about any other in American history to serve Big Oil’s interests through deregulation, lax enforcement, new access to America’s public lands and oceans, subsidies, tax breaks, and even war.

    Find out what the smartest people on the planet think.

    Read: The Edison of Our Age

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/the-edison-of-our-age/

    Read: Talent and Taste

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/talent-and-taste/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    *Big Oil* = bad guy, the cause of everybody’s problems

    Better to blame “energy consumers” who want “oil” products like petrol

    So we need “solar powered cars” and other laughable concepts that nobody can use or wants because they don’t work

    So we go back to “big oil” to blame them for digging it out of the ground and selling (refined) oil to people

    meanies, that’s what they are


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    BTW “oil” companies make most of their profits from trading the stuff, not producing it or (even less so), refining it

    Oil trades just like currency because it’s fungible, imagine that


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch:
    October 25th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
    @Eddy Aruda92

    Take note of the first part of the address of the first link.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
    Yeah, you’ll notice that you were completly wrong.

    You are a liar and a fraud. Your entire post at 92 was plagiarized from the this link: http://co2late.com/index2.htm.

    “This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years as measured from ice cores . Throughout most of the record, the large changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age . Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth ‘s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles ), these changes also influence the carbon cycle , which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.

    Since the Industrial Revolution , circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO 2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels which are likely unprecedented in the last 20 million years [1] . This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.”

    This is identical to your post at 91!

    When I clicked on your first link (“This figure”) it took me to the following link http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png It shows the same graph as the one I accused you of plagiarizing from, http://co2late.com/index2.htm. My link show the same graph but has a quote below the graph which you plagiarized. You could have posted the right link with the quote but you deliberately used a different link to give the false impression that the quote was yours. One again, you are a liar and a plagiarist. Does your computer have a quotation key?

    You called me a cyber bully? Wow, such hypocrisy from a troll that hides behind a screen name and a picture of an actor whom I am willing to bet you have never been mistaken for. You have made comments that are so rude they are often deleted by the editor.

    When I put your feet to the fire and call you out for your utter nonsense you get your poor little feelings hurt! Too bad! Man up like you’ve got a pair!

    One more time, are you going to answer Roy’s question or are you going to continue to lay there and intellectually bleed all over the field?

    BTW, you mentioned at an earlier post something about the safety of a keyboard? [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Post 131 contains a typo. This is identical to your post at 91! s/b 92.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    typo at 132. This is identical to your post at 91! was correct. Lots of distractions this morning!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Eddy Aruda

    Wrong!

    My post @91 was taken from the link below.

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

    Your link that you incorrectly said I used just so happens to have used original graphs and content from globalwarmingart.com.

    I’ve never been to http://co2late.com/index2.htm, other than to check up on your wildly inaccurate claims.

    Now apologise for falsly accusing me of being a liar and a fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Eddy Aruda

    As for Roy’s question. I’ll answer whatever I choose to answer. No amount of cyber-bullying from the likes of you will change that.

    You have made comments that are so rude they are often deleted by the editor.

    Oh looky @131, where you made a rude comment that has been deleted by the editor…pot-kettle-black

    [please stop taunting] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.”
    “Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.”

    Edison made that strong statement 100 years ago in 1910. About 20 years later, speaking shortly before his death, it became quite apparent that he felt as strongly about the issue as ever:

    “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

    Stanford Ovshinsky is a modern day Edison. For example, Ovshinsky is a self-taught inventor who chose to work in the fields of energy and information and has done so over a career that spans more than 50 years. More specifically, and more importantly, after two completely separate and very long lifetimes of research and learning, both men came to virtually the same conclusion about a key issue. Both men accepted as true that solar energy combined with electric cars is smart and that burning fossil fuels for energy is stupid. As a matter of fact, Edison accepted that as true long before global warming and climate change were an issue.

    Read: The Edison of Our Age

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/the-edison-of-our-age/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    So get an electric car and power it up with solar panels and drive it around, Harry, and don’t come crying when you have discovered what a crappy idea it is


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    mandarine

    SUBJECT: Carbon Tax needs a reality check!

    The Climate Sceptics’ (http://landshape.org/news/) president Leon Ashby says “a battle for the minds of the public on a CO2 tax is being waged”.

    The latest CS newsletter reports:

    Last night an ABC report said a carbon tax is inevitable while on 2GB Alan Jones asked – Do you want your MP to vote for a carbon tax ?

    A little over 200 voted – Yes

    Some 21,000 voted – No. – 98.7%

    If we are going to stop a CO2 tax, the public needs to hear our voices.

    I want to encourage you to email your politicians and newspapers with your views. Everyone of us needs too play our role.

    It was good to see Jennifer Marohasy had a small opportunity on Q and A and put a few points for our position.

    MORE:-

    http://australianconservative.com/2010/10/carbon-tax-needs-a-reality-check/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Eddy Aruda@131

    When I put your feet to the fire and call you out for your utter nonsense you get your poor little feelings hurt! Too bad! Man up like you’ve got a pair!

    Spoken like a true cyber-harassment artist.

    By standing up to your harasment and calling you out on it I’m hopefully setting an example to the younger readers here.

    Cyber-bullying is a real problem and adults should be aware that their online actions can influence youngsters.

    I hope you take note Eddy Aruda and in future act in a less antisocial manner.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    BRAINWASH YOUR CHILDREN as they fall asleep….

    Co2 Bedtime story….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdUW3-7Qyk&feature=player_embedded


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Spatch, other dung heads:

    You have other choices of blogs to go to, where you won’t feel “insulted” about your ridiculous beliefs, but if you come here, you get questioned about your ideas and get told when you’re wrong and when you can’t provide meaningful responses isn’t “cyber-bullying” it’s merely your own inability to accept the fact that the ideas you have been carrying around with you for a long time don’t happen to be true.

    So if you want to live in your glass menagerie all the rest of your lives DON’T TRY TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE HERE and don’t try to impress the denizens herein with a bunch of garbage you “don’t know nothin’ about”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”.

    Maurice strong.

    In other words: “screw you peons, I’m OK”.

    Seems there really are some out there who think this misanthrope (not to mention Gore, Hansen and Holdren amongst many others) actually cares about their welfare.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Brian G Valentine@145

    dung heads

    What is it with you guys needing to resort to insults all the time?

    If it’s a tactic to try to scare off users who happen to have an opinion different from yours then it’s a lame one.

    I’ll continue to post my opinions here as I see fit.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    Again, you are a liar. The first link to appear when I clicked on ” This Thing” at 91 is http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png not, as you posted at 134 http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png. Anybody that clicks on your link at 91 will see that it has the graph without the quote. The link I posted at 131 http://co2late.com/index2.htm contains a series of graphs including the one you used. Whether you plagiarized the link I posted or the one you posted at 134 is immaterial as they both contain the exact same verbiage. The first link you posted at 91 had a picture of the graph without the verbiage. You intentionally cut and pasted the verbiage without quotation marks. All you had to do was to use the correct link and the verbiage would have appeared with the graph. Instead, you committed plagiarism. You have no integrity.

    Spatch:
    October 26th, 2010 at 5:44 am
    @Eddy Aruda

    As for Roy’s question. I’ll answer whatever I choose to answer. No amount of cyber-bullying from the likes of you will change that.

    What a hypocrite. Here is a few quotes from you

    Gee, Amanda has nice teeth. If the AGW balloon goes down, she has a great future as a toothpaste commercial model.

    And when that day comes, blogs like this one, and the crusted on skeptics that inhabit it, will only become more irrelevant, much like the flat earthers are today.

    …snakeoil…or just plain oil…whatever

    Chew on this.

    Choke on this

    I choose to play by my own rules thank you very much.

    There’s not enough time to debunk all of the nonsense in your post

    The hard core sceptics/deniers are pretty much all conspiracy theory nutters. In their deluded minds AGW is just another conspiracy to add to their ever expanding list.

    cohenite – congratulations, your post qualifies for:
    rude
    lazy
    mindless

    If you don’t like it…tough.

    No worries, it’s just poking a bit fun at the silly post by mandarine:

    Maybe you’ll think twice next time hey buddy!

    Pathetic really.

    Ah, now, see, your problem is that you actually think that there is serious discussion here.

    Ha, serious discussion?? not! You’re like totally pwned dude!

    That of course does not include the comments that were so rude as to be removed by the editor. If you want posters to be “nice” to you then you should practice what you preach. Almost all of your content is cut and paste. You have yet to post an original, cogent comment that I am aware of. You are a typical bully. When you run across someone that won’t put up with your BS you cry like a little girl and start wailing “cyber bully”! How pathetic!

    The real reason you won’t answer Roy’s question (or any tough question from any other poster) is because you lack the intelligence to do so. The best you can do is cut and paste and evade.

    If you want to “set an example for the children” then I suggest you quit acting like one.

    Every time I see you post here with your mundane, trolling, insincere BS I am going to intellectually beat you into silly putty with your own words. As you would say, “choke on that.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Brian @123;
    A possible solution is that the heat transfers right past the stratosphere — by being redirected down into the tropopause whose H2O radiates it directly into space (little or no H2O higher up to intercept the radiation). More H2O in the tropopause makes the process more efficient as a negative feedback. (The higher mesopause is similar, but even colder, and uses CO2 radiation.)

    Note that the tropopause is defined as a stable temperature layer of cold air, that doesn’t heat up itself because it is too good at dumping heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Eddy Aruda

    Gee, Amanda has nice teeth. If the AGW balloon goes down, she has a great future as a toothpaste commercial model.

    Wrong, I didn’t say that.

    Nice job of quoting me out of context.

    I’m usually replying to some insulting post by a skeptic. Yep, I can give as good as I get.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    You finally got something right. The comment about amanda’s teeth was made by Allan Ford art 59. He was responding to a post of yours, my bad!

    You said

    I’m usually replying to some insulting post by a skeptic. Yep, I can give as good as I get.

    Actually, that is not true. You either cut and paste or when stymied resort to insults. The only people who “give” are people who are responding to your comments as a troll. If you were to give as good as you get you would answer Roy’s question as well as that of other sincere posters but you do not.

    So, now that you give as good as you get are you going to answer Roy’s question or would that be too taxing for you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Temp in troposphere decreases linearly with altitude in troposphere to about -55 deg.C at tropopause (if surface temp averages 15 deg.C), in stratosphere temp rises to about 0 deg.C as a result of the absorption of UV radiation by ozone in stratosphere. Temp decreases again to about -90 deg.C above the ozone layer in the mesosphere.

    The “greenhouse” effect is supposed to “trap” heat in the troposphere, so that the stratosphere cools because it never gets the radiant heat emitted from the Earth at night, and correspondingly, the radiation “stays in” the troposphere too long. The point Gerlich and Tscheuschner make, is that the tropopause nevertheless conducts heat, so that a “cooling” stratosphere and a “warming” troposphere by “greenhouse gas” forcing anyway means that heat flow by conduction is in the wrong direction and violates the second law.

    Note that this doesn’t prohibit heat to flow in the other direction and cool the troposphere! This probably does happen, but is buried in the noise of all other influences to the climate (after all, the change in entropy of the troposphere by climate change is itself something that could not be discerned amidst random fluctuations of solar radiation back and forth through the tropopause)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch:
    October 25th, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    @macha
    Yeah, you skeptics have a real problem. You use data gathered by scientists to back up your arguments, and then claim that all the data is rubbish, thereby invalidating your arguments.

    Your statement is non sequitur. The claim that all data is rubbish is a straw man. Perhaps you can quote where macha said that all data is rubbish. Moreover, the entire statement is a false syllogism. Your major premise that skeptics use data to “back up” their arguments is true. Your minor premise that all skeptics claim that “all data is rubbish” is false. Therefore, your conclusion about invalid arguments is false.

    Didn’t you take a course on logic or rhetoric in school?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hmmm. I think Eddy qualifies as the rudest bully. Others try and give him a run for his money, but mostly they just aren’t up to it. As for Spatch, his avatar is so much nicer than Eddy’s!

    Still waiting on a link to that 15 degrees/century temperature increase coming out of the last ice age….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I think Eddy qualifies as the rudest bully.

    He just doesn’t take the guff, John, because he doesn’t have to here.

    On other blogs he would “take it” all right because he would be edited right off the web page


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    October 26th, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Hmmm. I think Eddy qualifies as the rudest bully. Others try and give him a run for his money, but mostly they just aren’t up to it. As for Spatch, his avatar is so much nicer than Eddy’s!

    John, if I want [snip]. Maybe you should ask DiSpatched for his autograph. You do know that his avatar is a picture of a movie star named Tom Cruise? Don’t worry, he will probably give you his autograph if you ask him politely!

    @ Brian 155

    Thank you for your kind words


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    I truely fear for the safety of the families of these seriously disturbed individuals [snip] and this “Spatch”……..

    PSYCHOLOGY OF LEFTISM:-

    http://jonjayray.110mb.com/psychlef.html

    Audiences experience ‘Avatar’ blues:-

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Spatch,

    Since you’re so worried about CO2 in the atmosphere I figure you must be a real expert at worrying, not an amateur like me. And since you’re such an expert I’m going to turn over all my concern about the subject to you. So here it is. I put all my CO2 worries in your capable hands.

    [takes a deep breath and smiles] What a load off my shoulders! I should have thought of this years ago. Thanks Spatch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Within the fan community, suggestions for battling feelings of depression after seeing the movie include things like playing “Avatar” video games or downloading the movie soundtrack, in addition to encouraging members to relate to other people outside the virtual realm and to seek out positive and constructive activities.

    Positive and constructive activities, like being happy with reality and living with it rather than trying to re-write it according to the fantasies of others with ulterior objectives

    Hey Mandarine – Do you like playing “Avatar” video games and do you walk around whistling the “Avatar” tune?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    As you would say, time for some science. Your link http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png comes from a source that has a “relationship” with wikipedia.

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Global_Warming_Art:About#Relationship_to_Wikipedia

    Relationship to Wikipedia

    “This site has no direct relationship with Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or any of their projects; however, the founder of this site is a supporter, contributor, and administrator on the English Wikipedia. This site will incorporate and liberally link to content on Wikipedia, and intends to honor both the spirit and the letter of the GFDL under which that content is made available. In support of this, links (left-hand menu) are provided to both the “page history” and “page source” for every page on this site. This should allow content from Global Warming Art to be incorporated into Wikipedia at such times and places that this is appropriate. Similarly, original figures that are created for this site will be freely licensed and, when suitable, many will also be added to Wikipedia.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
    and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/

    “In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.”

    Quoting wikipedia or globalwarmingart which “will incorporate and liberally link to content on Wikipedia” should be an embarrassment to you. If you are going to cut and paste you may want to do a little research first. Did you look at the sources for the links you used? Maybe you can share the rationale behind your choices? Can you do that? After all, it will be difficult to do becuase you will not be able to cut and paste or plagiarize!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Do your own research John; there are a number of scholarly papers on rapid [within decades] and substantial[5-10C] temperature increases since the end of the last glacial period.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Eddy Aruda@156

    You do know that his avatar is a picture of a movie star named Tom Cruise?

    Bzzzzt – Wrong!

    Here’s a pic of Tom Cruise

    Looks nothing like my avatar. The chin, nose, teeth, mouth don’t match at all.

    That’s three times now today that you’ve been proven wrong – you’re prone to sloppiness I see.

    Oh yeah, something else I want to settle. Look around you. Plenty of the folk here use nicknames and most of their avatars are cartoon heads.

    My identity will remain anonymous. I get enough insults and abuse here as it is. I don’t want my inbox full of the same crap as well.

    Roy@158 – It’s your kids, if you have any, that should be worrying. I probably won’t be around to see the full impact from our current CO2 emissions let alone the future emissions if we continue on with BAU.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Eddy Aruda@160

    I don’t have a problem with wikipedia or globalwarmingart. You’ll notice that wikipedia articles list their sources of info in the reference section of each article. I use those references to further read up on a subject of interest. For example, an article on CO2 lists, at the bottom of it, these references:

    References

    ^ Plant Growth Factors: Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Transpiration
    ^ http://www.imok.ufl.edu/veghort/docs/physio_121202b.pdf
    ^ Carbon dioxide
    ^ Mauna Loa CO2 annual mean data from NOAA. “Trend” data was used. See also: Trends in Carbon Dioxide from NOAA.
    ^ “Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii”. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
    ^ Genthon, G.; Barnola, J. M.; Raynaud, D.; Lorius, C.; Jouzel, J.; Barkov, N. I.; Korotkevich, Y. S.; Kotlyakov, V. M. (1987). “Vostok ice core: climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle”. Nature 329: 414. doi:10.1038/329414a0. edit
    ^ Enting, I.G., 1987: Interannual variation in the seasonal cycle of carbon dioxide concentration at Mauna Loa. Journal of Geophysical Research 92:D5, 5497-5504.
    ^ a b c Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide Gas Exposure, CO2 Poisoning Symptoms, Carbon Dioxide Exposure Limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures By Daniel Friedman – InspectAPedia
    ^ “Carbon Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks”. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:.
    ^ Staff (16 August 2006). “Carbon dioxide: IDLH Documentation”. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved 2007-07-05.
    ^ “Phase change data for Carbon dioxide”. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2008-01-21.
    ^ Santoro, M.; Gorelli, FA; Bini, R; Ruocco, G; Scandolo, S; Crichton, WA (2006). “Amorphous silica-like carbon dioxide”. Nature 441 (7095): 857–860. doi:10.1038/nature04879. PMID 16778885.
    ^ Priestley, Joseph; Hey, Wm (1772). “Observations on Different Kinds of Air”. Philosophical Transactions 62: 147–264. doi:10.1098/rstl.1772.0021.
    ^ Davy, Humphry (1823). “On the Application of Liquids Formed by the Condensation of Gases as Mechanical Agents” (PDF). Philosophical Transactions 113: 199–205. doi:10.1098/rstl.1823.0020.
    ^ Duane, H.D. Roller; Thilorier, M. (1952). “Thilorier and the First Solidification of a “Permanent” Gas (1835)”. Isis 43 (2): 109–113. doi:10.1086/349402.
    ^ Strassburger, Julius (1969). Blast Furnace Theory and Practice. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. ISBN 0677104200.
    ^ a b Pierantozzi, Ronald (2001). “Carbon Dioxide”. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Wiley. doi:10.1002/0471238961.0301180216090518.a01.pub2.
    ^ M. Aresta (Ed.) “Carbon Dioxide as a Chemical Feedstock” 2010, Wiley-VCH: Weinheim. ISBN 978-3-527-32475-0
    ^ Stafford, Ned (2007). “Future crops: The other greenhouse effect”. Nature 448 (7153): 7153. doi:10.1038/448526a. PMID 17671477.
    ^ Clayton, Mark (2006-01-11). “Algae – like a breath mint for smokestacks”. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
    ^ Austell, J Michael (2005). “CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery Needs – Enhanced Fiscal Incentives”. Exploration & Production: the Oil & Gas Review. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
    ^ “The Coca-Cola Company Announces Adoption of HFC-Free Insulation in Refrigeration Units to Combat Global Warming”. The Coca-Cola Company. 2006-06-05. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
    ^ “Modine reinforces its CO2 research efforts”. R744.com. 2007-06-28.
    ^ “Enhanced coal bed methane recovery”. ETH Zurich. 2006-08-31.
    ^ NOAA ESRL, Trends in Carbon Dioxide, accessed 2010.06
    ^ Dr. Pieter Tans (3 May 2008) “Annual CO2 mole fraction increase (ppm)” for 1959-2007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division (additional details.)
    ^ “Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere”. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
    ^ Berner, Robert A.; Kothavala, Zavareth (2001). “GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time” (PDF). American Journal of Science 301: 182–204. doi:10.2475/ajs.301.2.182. Retrieved 2008-02-15.
    ^ “After two large annual gains, rate of atmospheric CO2 increase returns to average”. NOAA News Online, Story 2412. 2005-03-31.
    ^ Sigurdsson, Haraldur; Houghton, B. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of volcanoes. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 012643140X.
    ^ van Gardingen, P.R.; Grace, J.; Jeffree, C.E.; Byari, S.H.; Miglietta, F.; Raschi, A.; Bettarini, I. (1997). “Long-term effects of enhanced CO2 concentrations on leaf gas exchange: research opportunities using CO2 springs”. In Raschi, A.; Miglietta, F.; Tognetti, R.; van Gardingen, P.R. (Eds.). Plant responses to elevated CO2: Evidence from natural springs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 69–86. ISBN 0521582032.
    ^ Martini, M. (1997). “CO2 emissions in volcanic areas: case histories and hazaards”. In Raschi, A.; Miglietta, F.; Tognetti, R.; van Gardingen, P.R. (Eds.). Plant responses to elevated CO2: Evidence from natural springs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 69–86. ISBN 0521582032.
    ^ “Volcanic Gases and Their Effects”. Retrieved 2007-09-07.
    ^ Doney, Scott C.; Naomi M. Levine (2006-11-29). “How Long Can the Ocean Slow Global Warming?”. Oceanus. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
    ^ Duana, Zhenhao; Rui Sun (2003). “An improved model calculating CO2 solubility in pure water and aqueous NaCl solutions from 273 to 533 K and from 0 to 2000 bar”. Chemical Geology 193: 260–271.
    ^ Cai, W. -J.; Chen, L.; Chen, B.; Gao, Z.; Lee, S. H.; Chen, J.; Pierrot, D.; Sullivan, K. et al. (2010). “Decrease in the CO2 Uptake Capacity in an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean Basin”. Science 329 (5991): 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1189338. PMID 20651119. edit
    ^ Garrison, Tom (2004). Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science. Thomson Brooks. pp. 125. ISBN 0534408877.
    ^ Ries, Justin B.; Anne L. Cohen, Daniel C. McCorkle (2009-12-01). “Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification”. Geology.
    ^ Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC
    ^ PMEL Ocean Acidification Home Page
    ^ Lupton, J.; Lilley, M.; Butterfield, D.; Evans, L.; Embley, R.; Olson, E.; Proskurowski, G.; Resing, J.; Roe, K.; Greene, R.; Lebon, G. (2004). “Liquid Carbon Dioxide Venting at the Champagne Hydrothermal Site, NW Eifuku Volcano, Mariana Arc”. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (abstract #V43F-08). Retrieved 21 June 2010.
    ^ Blom, T.J.; W.A. Straver; F.J. Ingratta; Shalin Khosla; Wayne Brown (2002-12). “Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses”. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
    ^ Global Warming? What a load of poppycock! by Professor David Bellamy Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
    ^ F. Woodward and C. Kelly (1995). “The influence of CO2 concentration on stomatal density”. New Phytologist 131: 311–327. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x.
    ^ Bert G. Drake; Gonzalez-Meler, Miquel A.; Long, Steve P. (1997). “More efficient plants: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2?”. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609. PMID 15012276.
    ^ Loladze, I (2002). “Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry?”. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 457. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02587-9.
    ^ Carlos E. Coviella and John T. Trumble (1999). “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions”. Conservation Biology 13 (4): 700.
    ^ “Global Environment Division Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook – A Practical Guidance Document for the Assessment of Project-level Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. World Bank. Retrieved 2007-11-10.
    ^ Luyssaert, Sebastiaan; Schulze, E. -Detlef; Börner, Annett; Knohl, Alexander; Hessenmöller, Dominik; Law, Beverly E.; Ciais, Philippe; Grace, John (2008). “Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks”. Nature 455 (7210): 213. doi:10.1038/nature07276. PMID 18784722.
    ^ Falkowski, P.; Scholes, RJ; Boyle, E; Canadell, J; Canfield, D; Elser, J; Gruber, N; Hibbard, K et al. (2000). “The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as a system”. Science 290 (5490): 291–296. doi:10.1126/science.290.5490.291. PMID 11030643.
    ^ a b c d e Davidson, Clive. 7 February 2003. “Marine Notice: Carbon Dioxide: Health Hazard”. Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
    ^ “Graphical map of CO2″.
    ^ Gowda Shilpa (2 November 2007). “New Insight into Panic Attacks: Carbon Dioxide is the Culprit”.
    ^ “Inhaled carbon dioxide increases brain acidity and evokes fear behavior”. 26 November 2009.
    ^ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Chemical Sampling Information: Carbon Dioxide. Retrieved 5 June 2008 from: http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html
    ^ a b Glatte Jr H. A., Motsay G. J., Welch B. E. (1967). “Carbon Dioxide Tolerance Studies”. Brooks AFB, TX School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report SAM-TR-67-77. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
    ^ Lambertsen, C. J. (1971). “Carbon Dioxide Tolerance and Toxicity”. Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center (Philadelphia, PA) IFEM Report No. 2-71. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
    ^ How are people able to breathe inside a submarine?
    ^ a b c d “Carbon dioxide”. solarnavigator.net. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
    ^ “How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?”. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
    [edit]Further reading

    Tyler Volk (2008), CO2 Rising: The World’s Greatest Environmental Challenge, The MIT Press, 223 pages, ISBN 978-0262220835. A short, balanced primer on CO2′s role as a greenhouse gas. Review at Environmental Health Perspectives
    Shendell, Prill, Fisk, Apte1, Blake & Faulkner, Associations between classroom CO2 concentrations and student attendance in Washington and Idaho, Indoor Air 2004.
    Seppanen, Fisk and Mendell, Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2 Concentrations with Health and Other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings, Indoor Air 1999.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Oh “Spatch” has just woken up….

    The drugs must have worn off..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch:
    October 26th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    Eddy Aruda@160

    I don’t have a problem with wikipedia or globalwarmingart. You’ll notice that wikipedia articles list their sources of info in the reference section of each article. I use those references to further read up on a subject of interest.

    The editing at wikipedia is biased so why not just cite the source? Now pick one of the papers in the long list you cited and discuss it in your own words without plagiarizing or doing your usual cut and paste. Since you have cited this long list there must at least be one that you have a rudimentary understanding of and can use to bolster and support your position, right?

    BTW, just because there is a list of references does not mean that referenced literature is beyond dispute. There is no such thing as “settled science.” if there was, humans would still believe that the Earth was flat and that the sun, moon and stars revolved around it.

    I eagerly await your response. Gee, I wonder what paper you will discuss, the suspense is killing me! ;)

    The editing at wikipedia is biased so why not just cite the source?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Spatch:
    October 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    That’s three times now today that you’ve been proven wrong – you’re prone to sloppiness I see.

    Perhaps, but there are three things I am right about!
    1. You are a liar.
    2. You are a plagiarist.
    3. You are intellectually incapable of answering Roy’s question.

    Prone to sloppiness? I suppose that would be you being so sloppy with your cut and paste at 134 as to be caught red handed lying! You keep digging yourself in deeper with each post. Your next half witted reply should be interesting!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Spatch@138

    No disrespect but Nick Stokes is not an atmospheric physicist… but he is entitled to his opinion. Highly qualified scientists have examined the work of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and are convinced in what he has found. NASA was convinced too… it was just that NASA became so politicized on the subject of global warming that it could not be seen to be bucking the global warming mantra.

    The fact is that not a single scientist has formally stepped forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory of a greenhouse constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium and prevents carbon dioxide emissions from raising global temperatures.

    As Miskolczi has rightly stated:.

    “There are billions of dollars of research grants at stake. And nobody likes to admit his mistakes . . . and that hundreds of research papers in high-reputation scientific journals dealing with the classic greenhouse theory were a waste of time, effort and money.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well ,Spatch, what paper in the list you cited would you like to discuss? Are you busy right now actually reading one? Are you searching your bookmarks while you break out in a cold sweat? Oh my God, you have painted yourself in a corner! Oh yeah, you are a guy who plays by his own rules!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh “Spatch” has just woken up….

    The drugs must have worn off..

    No, his psychiatrist told Spatch that he couldn’t “really” live in “Avatar-land” because it was only “fantasy” so Spatch came here to “take it out” on everybody else

    Mom …. MOM!!! … Brian just called me a ‘dung-head’ !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh where oh where has my little spatch gone? Oh where oh where can he be? Here Spatchy, Spatchy! Come on, boy!

    Maybe we should post a Missing Troll Ad?

    (Please stop the pointless baiting) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Mervyn Sullivan@168

    Highly qualified scientists have examined the work of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and are convinced in what he has found.

    Please provide the names of those scientists and a link to any documentation of their examinations.

    Meanwhile the EPA has this to say about Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper.

    The hypothesis that increased CO2 forcing will lead to a counterbalancing decrease in water vapor is highly speculative, and is not supported by the vast body of scientific literature. Miskolczi claims that the greenhouse effect should maintain a balance, so that every increase in a GHG should lead to a corresponding decrease in water vapor (and vice versa), effectively implying a climate sensitivity of zero.

    A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures changes on all timescales.

    Miskolczi also claims that “On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work.” This demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms in the climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch, if you are going to cut and paste here is a better link http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%203.pdf

    Now, what paper did you want to discuss out of that list? Come on Spatch, you can do it!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What a coward you are, Spatch!

    Well, good night everyone.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch — posting long lists of references is not going to impress real scientists (aka skeptics). Just because there is a list of references doesn’t mean that there is not also a real rebuttal for each one (it might be irrelevant, old, out of date, flawed, consider the wrong data, based on flawed reasons…) Don’t you think it’s just a little impolite to turn up to a conversation, declare most people in the room are wrong, and then not be able to discuss the actual data, conclusions or reasoning in particular papers that are claimed to support the “rebuttal”. If you are going to post a paper, you need to be prepared to discuss the details of that paper. If you havent read the paper, be prepared to be exposed as being ignorant.

    We’ll discuss anything related to climate science, but it’s not a meaningful discussion if we can’t talk about one paper at a time. If you don’t know which paper supports your case and you can’t name and explain a single paper that supports your belief, then you are free to ask us polite questions.

    All people, please note, I allow “insults” here if they are backed up. So please throw them carefully.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Spatch@168

    In situations like this the only appropriate way to resolve such an issue is to go to the horse’s mouth.

    So Spatch, I invite you to contact Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi directly at the following address:

    fmiskolczi@cox.net

    Busy as he is, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi is a very accommodating scientist. I invite you to directly put your case to him explaining your theories as to why he is wrong. I also urge you to ask him whether any other top scientists agree with his work.

    I think you are going to be in for one incredibly huge surprise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    All people, please note, I allow “insults” here if they are backed up. So please throw them carefully.

    Even “Cherry Picker”?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ DiSpatch and his sidekick Not So Well

    I assume you read Jo’s comments at 175? So., what paper do you want to discuss out of the long list you tried to impress us with?

    Think about it, Spatch, you will actually attempt to make a logical argument instead of your usual cut and paste. Maybe it would help if you thought of yourself as a tiny little bird leaving the nest. Come on Spatch, spread your tiny little wings and fly away!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The question: “Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?”

    The answer: Thanks to the Climategate scandal, we now know that the corruption of Western science extends far beyond any specific field of science. It includes world leaders, the UN, the news media, funding agencies and research journals in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space science.

    Even when the Russian/USSR government was much less trustworthy than ours, their scientists and journals adhered to basic scientific principles and openly published experimental observations that directly falsified the obsolete SSM (Standard Solar Model):

    “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11 (2006).

    “The need to measure low energy, anti-neutrinos (E < 0.782 MeV) from the Sun", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67, 1959-1962 (2004); Yadernaya Fizika 67, 1983-1988 (2004).

    “Heterogeneity of isotopic and elemental compositions in meteorites: Evidence of local synthesis of the elements”, Geokhimiya (12) 1776-1801 (1981).

    Thank you for the question, JoNova. Yes indeed, the Western science establishment is corrupt to the core!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures changes on all timescales.

    yes a zero climate sensitivity is incomparable but a negative climate sensitivity is not

    Note that the EPA, under Bush, had advertised: EPA has no plans to regulate CO2 in any manner because the EPA is not structured to regulate anything that EPA cannot measure


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Mervyn Sullivan@176

    Surely you could’ve named just one highly qualified scientist.

    Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper came out in 2006 and was published in an obscure journal. Since then it has been shown to have serious flaws. The paper is a complete flop. It has had zero effect on climate science.

    The EPA states that Ferenc Miskolczi has a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms in the climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Eddy@171

    You’re a mere TROLL who gets his kicks from Cyber-Harrassment.

    I will no longer feed the TROLL.

    (While you point a finger at Eddy.Three more point right back at you.You have been a TROLL.Who has been corrected several times now.You appear to be a hypocrite in complaining about Eddy.Then Jo herself admonishes you to improve your postings.It does not look pretty at this stage.) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch:
    October 27th, 2010 at 8:02 am
    Eddy@171

    You’re a mere TROLL who gets his kicks from Cyber-Harrassment.
    I will no longer feed the TROLL.

    Translation: Hi, my name is Spatch and I say that I can give as good as I get but when push comes to shove I can dish it out but I can’t take it. I cry like a little girl. I am incapable of creating an independent thought so I cut and paste and plagiarize. When someone calls me out on my baby, bubble gum BS I cry “cyber bully” and hope others will feel sorry for me.

    I post lists of references from Wikipedia that I have never read and hope that it will impress people. I lie and say that I have read these papers so people will think that I am intelligent and well versed on the subject. I get really scared when people who post here want to discuss any of these papers that I never read because then I will be exposed for the phony fraudster that I am.

    I can’t answer any tough questions that are put to me so I make flippant remarks like “I play by my own rules” or else I pretend to take the moral high ground. I am a hypocrite and a cyber wimp!

    Did I miss something there, DiSpatched? As you would say “choke on that”!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    You just love to link to Wikipedia. Well, here is another link on trolling http://www.flayme.com/troll/#What

    What Is A Troll?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

    Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

    How can troll posts be recognised?

    No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
    Pedantic in the Extreme – Many trolls’ preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail – the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
    False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
    Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
    Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
    Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
    Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
    Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″

    Seems to define you accurately, DiSpatched!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper came out in 2006 and was published in an obscure journal. Since then it has been shown to have serious flaws. The paper is a complete flop. It has had zero effect on climate science.

    Wish Granted!

    Support of the highest calibre for Miskolczi comes in the person of Hans Jelbring, who is rare among AGW critics in having a Ph.D in Climatology.

    Read more at Suite101: No Greenhouse Effect in Semi-transparent Atmospheres http://www.suite101.com/content/no-greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-atmospheres-a243477#ixzz13VrtmvJy

    You claim to read papers. This may not be from Wikipedia but i am sure you will enjoy it. http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

    Maybe you can even comment on the paper IN YOUR OWN WORDS. However, you probably won’t read it and if you do you will probably respond with your usual cut and paste. See Missing the point at 184.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    What serious flaws are there in Miskolczi’s paper?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Spatch

    Here is someone who disagrees with Miskolczi’s paper. Is he right and if so why?

    Here is the link http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I doubt that ALL Western science is “corrupt.” However, recent experiences document a surprisingly high level of distortion in Western astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, solar and space sciences

    I. The Galileo probe entered Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1995 and observed excess Xe-136 there, as had been predicted in a controversial paper ["Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)]: http://tinyurl.com/224kz4

    Although the Galileo Mission cost the US taxpayers ~$1,000,000,000, the experimental data were not made available until 1998. Then the data were released in response to a request directed to NASA Administrator (Dr. Dan Goldin) when he was being interviewed by C-SPAN.

    Isotope data from the Galileo probe confirmed that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen ["Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, abstract 5011 (1998)]: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

    II. By the time of the 32nd Annual Lunar Science Conference in March 2001, other experimental measurements had falsified these mainstream models of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, nuclear, solar and space sciences:

    a) Formation of the Solar System from an interstellar cloud,
    b) The Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun, and
    c.) H-fusion as the source of solar energy.

    See: “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy,” Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII, Abstract 1041, available as 1041-pdf from Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX (CD-ROM, 2001)
    http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf

    It is intriguing that Physical Review Letters received a manuscript three months later, on 18 June 2001 that “revived” the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun.

    PRL published the manuscript by one hundred and seventy-eight (178) coauthors 25 July 2001, “Measurement of the Rate of νe+d→p+p+e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory” [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001)]: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e071301

    Science news reports claimed that the above measurements solved the solar neutrino puzzle and verified the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun.

    I doubt that solar neutrino oscillate, but it will be as difficult for government research agencies to admit that mistake as it will be for them to admit that CO2 did not induce global warming!

    Again, JoNova, I appreciate your asking if the Western climate establishment is corrupt. It appears
    that the unholy alliance of politicians and scientists benefitted them both, at great expense to the taxpayers and the free society.

    Thanks to the Climategate scandal, the next generation may break free of the tyranny of government science.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Spatch says At 135

    I’ll answer whatever I choose to answer.

    Spatch says at 147:

    I’ll continue to post my opinions here as I see fit.

    Spatch says at 182:

    I will no longer feed the TROLL.

    OK, are you lost? This is the skeptical site Jo Nova. It is not your favorite place to “hang”. You post here as a GUEST not as “you see fit”! Further, you cannot call a regular here a troll. YOU are the TROLL

    Start answering questions or you’ll look more the stupid ignorant part. No troll gets to post only what they want for very long.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Mark D. 189

    I have got DiSpatched cornered and (SNIP) CTS. The guy truly is a greased weasel. When it comes to Trolls like DiSpatched, I sort of see myself as the site sanitation engineer. Somebody has got to take out the garbage!

    Thanks for having my back, bro!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Prt 10 is up. Bye!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thank you for sharing with us, Oliver.

    I don’t think Spatch would become so angry if he realized that the objective of people around here was to prevent the perpetuation of falsehood that causes harm.

    Also, Spatch, you have to state your objections to physical reasoning in your own words, and make it simple so that people can understand what you’re talking about. If you simply throw what you think are “relevant” references to support your objections or your reasoning, you aren’t going to convince anybody of anything because people might assume you don’t understand what it is you are talking about

    In your case, I think you have decided to support a cause without having thought (the physical basis of it) through; don’t accept authority, use your own powers of reasoning


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian H @50 – Regulated research
    The article you refer to, alleging corruption in medical research, talks about peer-reviewed, not regulated medical research, so it amplifies my point that peer-review is inadequate safeguard for climate science driving public policy.

    In fact a joint investigation by the BMJ and a “Bureau of Investigative Journalism” recently exposed serious medical conflicts of interest in peers forming global policy: “Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing.” Link Here. For the BMJ to publish this is big! This is potentially a global scandal parallel to Climate Change. But wait, who the hell are these “Bureau of Investigative Journalism” SWAT team – and where have they been for the past 20 years when it comes to Climate Science?

    What I was saying is that once you start development & trials for actual medical products – drugs or devices, you have to go though the regulators like the FDA, and you’d better have you house in order, cause the FDA enforcers carry guns in the US. Would it not be a joy to have these guys pay a visit to CRU? “Do you feel lucky Phill, do you?” (OK, this is parody folks, I don’t think they are allowed to shoot me if I loose my data). Disclaimer – I admit I have never met an FDA auditor wearing a gun, but when they audit me here in Australia they always delight in scaring me with this. But I digress….

    Of course there is still a mountain of knowledge that comes straight out of theoretical research directly to medical practice or even public policy – such as surgical techniques, treatment choice and yes – vaccination programs like above – that’s where fads and conflicts arise and bodies such as the US Vet Affairs sometimes make independent trials, or the Cochrane database aims to get evidence-based medicine.

    My point is that without regulation, medicine would still be selling snake oil and charms to the gullible, which exactly where the Climate Industry is at present.

    PS: I exclude the plethora of mostly voluntary standards and audits available for ‘verifying’ unwarranted decarbonization of industry.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is a test. I posted a comment and it vanished. If this one appears, I will post the message again.

    [Oliver, I just looked in the Spam trap and the "pending" file and did not see a post from you.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JoNova asks, “Is the Western climate establishment corrupt?”

    Yes. I have foolishly used this fact to justify personal attacks and to focus years of repressed anger and frustration on pitiable science editors, leaders of the scientific community, and their well-funded consensus science followers.

    I suggest, JoNova, that we start over and consider the following answer and possible solutions:

    1. The Answer: “Yes, a large portion of the the Western science establishment is corrupt. In fact, the problem is one that threatens our science and our form of government.”

    2. The Problem: “Selfishness. Self-centeredness. Ambition. Greed. Instinctive drives for personal security and recognition.”

    3. The Solution: “Firm limits on the accumulation of power. Eliminate all concentrations of power without accountability.”

    4. Two Changes might salvage science from further self-destruction:

    A. End the concentration of power without accountability in NAS’s review of the budgets of research funding agencies (NSF, NASA, DOE, EPA, etc.) for Congress.

    B. End the concentration of power without accountability in ANONYMOUS review of proposals and papers.

    Your comments on these proposals would be appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    I’m late to the party here, and don’t know a better place to post this, so I am posting here.

    I am reading a thoroughly researched paper by the late Ernst-Georg Beck that provides documented evidence that much higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been measured reliably by many researchers over the past 180 years. In particular, a peak of about 470 ppm in about 1827 was equalled about 1942.

    Ernst-Georg Beck’s paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods

    Thanks to a reader I now have a copy of Ernst-Georg Beck’s paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short version) which argues that the IPCC reliance of Ice Core CO2 figures is wrong – It is only 10 pages long so I urge you to read it yourself and study such figures as:

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

    [fixed] ED

    10 pages long

    So it is not cut and dried that burning fossil fuels has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by 100 parts per million, as claimed by the IPCC. So another of the links in the chain is a little weaker than first claims suggest.

    Paul


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bobc

    Paul,

    Interesting paper. There is so much fraud in this area, it is discouraging trying to bring up facts. Zbigniew Jaworowski, in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, has been claiming that Keeling cherry-picked data from the last century to make his case and discarded perfectly good CO2 measurements that were much higher than they wanted (see here).

    Many of the newly elected members of the House of Representatives in the US are committed to holding hearings on AGW. The House has the power of subpoena (you have to show up) and you have to testify, unless you claim that by so doing you will admit to a crime. It’s pretty hard to duck and weave there — and if they do, it will be just as incriminating to AGW as not being able to rationally respond to questions.

    I’m looking forward to it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Paul, I’m glad that you have joined us. The way this blog works is that threads go “stale” because new ones are what people are reading and following. I usually subscribe to threads and so I still get e-mail notes when a new post is added (even to really old threads). Others “un-subscribe” after a while to minimize e-mail volume.

    Feel free to post on this thread all you want but don’t become discouraged if less and less people reply. Keep up on new threads by looking at the Nova home page as Jo adds new topics almost daily.

    I’d like to encourage Jo to open an “open thread” where we could have more exchanges and discussions about some of the material out there. I think such exchanges are very helpful.

    Thank you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Paul @196,

    Your second link is broken. I get a page can’t be found error.

    [link fixed] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Please allow me to quote from a message that I received today from John O’Sullivan:

    “I can also report that within 2 weeks time our book, Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, written by some of the world’s leading climate experts, . . . exposes the fraudulent equations NASA built into the calculations world governments use to assess climate.”

    My chapter in the book, “Deep Historical Roots of the Climate Scandal,” discusses four unpalatable, empirical facts** at the root of current climate scandal and traces them back in time to show that coincidence, serendipity or Fate advanced truth despite the inherent flaws of mankind.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BobC, Paul, (196, 197)

    Those are excellent papers and I’ve bookmarked them for future reference.

    With the evidence against the global warming scare getting more and more attention you would think that certain people would be too embarrassed to keep up their charade. Yet they go on and on…ad nauseam…

    Bob, a small bet I’m willing to make — if Gore and Hansen are called to testify before a House committee, they will stick to their guns and lie like their lives depended on it. What do you think?

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Roy Hogue:
    November 13th, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Bob, a small bet I’m willing to make — if Gore and Hansen are called to testify before a House committee, they will stick to their guns and lie like their lives depended on it. What do you think?

    Roy

    I think you’re right Roy. However, I expect the House experts to leave them looking like morons. They won’t be able to get out by bluster and bluff — they’ll have to answer specific questions.

    I would bet that the Left will be screaming “McCarthism!” at the top of their lungs. Just point out to them that the US government wasn’t paying the people who had to testify before the HUAC billions of dollars. At least we should be able to get a little actual accounting for our money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    “A little weaker”? The link is crumbled and broken.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bob C (202) November 13th, 2010 at 9:10 am

    “At least we should be able to get a little actual accounting for our money.”

    Literally billions of dollars in public funds were spent to obtain the best available data from the Apollo Mission to the Moon, the Galileo Mission to Jupiter, precise nuclear rest mass data on all 3,000 types of atoms, and numerous spacecraft observations on the Sun, only to have the results hidden, manipulated or distorted that would have given the public the best available information on:

    a.) The Sun’s origin.
    b.) The Sun’s composition.
    c.) The Sun’s source of energy.
    d.) The Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.

    Eisenhower warned of this fate for government-dominated science in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    You can hear his words yourself about the threats to our free society from a technological revolution at time (t = 9:30-11:32) of this video recording of his speech:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2465144342633379864

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    I can now verify that the linked PDF in my earlier post is the same as the PDF that I was reading. Why the link did not work I do not know or if the link I provided was to the current source, but it matters not.

    The conclusions of the paper, which is as yet unpublished as far as I know, state : –

    Summary
    Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared
    to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration
    of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm
    up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum
    it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm. Accurate
    measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm
    1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and
    Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934
    alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through
    which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol%
    =~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany,
    medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition
    science, biochemistry and ecology. Modern climatology ignored their work till today even
    though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with
    several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180
    year gave the following results:
    1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a
    variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a
    maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
    2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
    concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the
    average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338ppm.
    3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known
    several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in
    the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420
    pmm in 1942.
    4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical
    methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored
    reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
    5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse
    theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big
    part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of
    their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors
    discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a
    faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without
    having dealt with its chemical basis.
    6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been
    used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the
    several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.

    I have copied and pasted this quote because it is of such importance to this debate. Once people see just how much cherry-picking is needed in order to arrive at the ‘pre-industrial’ level of atmospheric carbon dioxide the assumption of 280ppm by all the GCM models used by the IPCC is clearly seen as falsified, along with all the supposedly sophisticated calculations of future warming, etc.

    The bottom line is : pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were higher than current levels and there is no monotonic increase due to the use of fossil fuels. The ‘Siple curve’ gives a totally false view of the progression of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past

    Paul


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    PS : I also would like to see a permanent thread discussing the actual science. Posting on comments to the ‘current’ offers a moving target that is not conducive to better understanding the actual science involved. IMHO.

    Paul

    [Paul, your link that didn't work was copied from the text:
    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_yea...cal_Methods.pdf
    Notice the dots "yea...cal" that was not an actual link. Instead it is better to highlight the link you want to copy and select "copy link location" Rather than just copy. Sometimes the actual link is hidden under the text. If you use "copy" you only get the text. Anything posted here that begins with http://xxx will LOOK like a link but may not really be a link. It is also a good practice to use the "preview" function button as you can then test your links before final posting.
    I was able to find the link and repair it for you] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BobC,

    I think you’re right Roy. However, I expect the House experts to leave them looking like morons. They won’t be able to get out by bluster and bluff — they’ll have to answer specific questions.

    I sure do hope they end up looking like morons. But they’ll each get the chance to make an opening statement and I can’t see how they have much choice but to stick to their story. And if they duck the chance to make their case known up front they’ll look as bad as if they take the fifth.

    I’d sure like to be on that House committee.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @Paul

    I read that Beck paper years ago. It amazes me that it’s still getting dredged up from it’s grave.

    Beck to the Future May 2007

    Comment on “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” by Ernst-Georg Beck
    Energy&Environment 18, 2 (2007)

    By Harro A.J. Meijer, Centrum voor IsotopenOnderzoek, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

    Beck has re-interpreted various 19th and early 20th century chemical CO2 measurements, and derived very far-reaching conclusions. His work, however, contains major flaws, such that the conclusions are completely wrong, as they are based on poor understanding of the atmosphere.

    The concentration of CO2 as measured close to the earth’s surface is fully governed by atmospheric mixing, and lack thereof. The two main effects are:
    (1) The general build-up of an inversion layer during the night, causing the lowest parts of the atmosphere (some nights lower than 100 meters) to be isolated from the large free troposphere. The normal nocturnal production of CO2 by soil and vegetation mixes only into this small layer, and this leads to highly elevated concentrations of CO2. During the day, the contact between the lower layer and the free troposphere is gradually restored, causing the CO2 concentration to sink towards the free troposphere background concentration. The lowest concentrations of CO2 are generally reached in the local afternoon, when the mixing between lower layer and free troposphere is near to completion. Yet, close to ground level, a distinct difference in concentration will remain, its size depending on weather conditions. At an elevation of only 2 meters, one will never observe background concentration (unless in vast, completely source/sink free areas such as deserts or polar ice caps), but at higher elevations (say >40 meters) one can get close. Still, also at those elevations, one measures a CO2 concentration signal that is far from “Mauna Loa-like”. If one uses the daily period between 2- 4 PM, however, one gets a reasonable average CO2 concentration and seasonal cycle. At much lower elevations, such as all the measurements used in the article, however, this is doomed to fail.
    (2) The difference in atmospheric behaviour in summer and winter. Generally, the process of nocturnal inversion and lack of daily mixing is stronger in winter than in summer. This is the reason why CO2 take-up through photosynthesis is much harder to observe than CO2 production through organic material decay and respiration: During the day in summer the atmosphere tends to be well-mixed, and the CO2 loss to photo-synthesis is diluted in the total atmosphere, whereas during night in winter the decay and respiration only mix into a thin layer of atmosphere and are thus clearly visible as considerable increase of the CO2 concentration.
    The effects are respectively called the “diurnal” and the “seasonal” rectifier in the literature. Like a diode, namely, they rectify the observation of the CO2 flux: Sources are well visible, but sinks are much harder to observe. “Simple” pictures like figure 1 in Beck’s paper are therefore misleading: In reality the source and sinks effects indicated there are not well visible in the atmosphere, since they are obscured by the variability of the mixing processes.
    The characteristics above are common knowledge among the scientists monitoring and modelling atmospheric CO2. Apparently, however, it is totally unknown to the author and his supporting group. (Compare for example the clear example of the diurnal rectifier in figure 8 with the author’s comment in the caption).
    I suspect they never studied modern real-time continental CO2 registrations. This is a pity, because only a short look at measurements at different altitudes from continental towers such as the Wisconsin tower (NOAA, available on-line), the Hungarian Hegyhatsal tower, the Dutch Cabauw and Lutjewad towers, or even the on-line registrations made by Dutch secondary schools (available, soon in completion, on http://www.rug.nl/fwn/school-CO2-net), would have shown that the measurements presented in the paper are indeed useless for the purpose the author wants to use them, certainly in the way the author interprets them. If anything, a measurement place close to the sea would be the best try (since nocturnal inversion is much weaker over water), and then selecting only those measurements between 2 pm and 4 pm with wind from the direction of the sea. However, based on the information given in the paper, it is not possible to tell if such potentially useful measurement series do exist. The necessary data to judge, namely measurement height, consecutive length of a record and especially temporal resolution, are lacking in table 2.
    In the light of the above, the whole “Discussion and Conclusion” section is invalid, including figures 11-14.
    In summary, the paper lacks the very basic knowledge necessary to treat atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements properly. The author even accuses the pioneers Callendar and Keeling of selective data use, errors or even something close to data manipulation, but contrary to the author, Callendar and Keeling took the above into account.
    It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    Bingi @208

    That was a good copy and paste you made. So much for original thought.

    By the way, the web site you quote, realclimate.org, has no scientific credibility being nothing less than an advocacy site for CAGW. If you choose to base your beliefs on that source I am sure that you will never understand the real climate, though you will be able to maintain your beliefs, unassailed by reason or contrary data, for the immediate future. That is their mission – to keep the masses from giving credence to anything that might upset their faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The cloak of apparent ‘science’ is just to keep you from suspecting their ulterior motive.

    In all, I find the ‘refutation’ to be nothing less than an ad hominem. Why, when looking back at the speculations of someone like Arrhenius, is he almost made a god of, but when someone researches the work of many investigators who went to elaborate measures to take thousands of accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide he and they are derided as knowing nothing about what they undertook? The answer is that they did not ascribe to the ‘Nobel Cause’ of saving the environment from humanity and that was their fatal mistake.

    Perhaps you can tell me why measurements at Mauna Loa, near a volcano which is emitting CO2 continuously and near the equatorial oceans which also are outgassing CO2, are so reliable a measure of human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide?

    Perhaps you would also like to comment on the assumption of CO2 being ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere? Is this a valid assumption or not?

    Paul


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oliver @ 204, Thank you for the information. It should be part of a congressional investigation don’t you think?

    We may have an opportunity come 2011!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, Mark, the above information should be part of a congressional investigation.

    The climate scandal exposed a serious threat to the foundation of our free society: The very threat that former President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

    1. First Eisenhower warned about the threat to a free society from an Industrial Military Complex.

    2. Next he warned “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    His warning about the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite” is at time (t = 9:30-11:32) of this video recording of his speech:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2465144342633379864

    This danger to very foundation of our free society is now my greatest concern.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oliver, you and I are in agreement. Eisenhower was my fathers peer. I came into politics as a Nixon fan in the early 70′s. My dad is a WW2 veteran. I am willing to help with any effort you have in mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] I'm not certain if this link has been published on here or not, if so I apologise. Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Tr… [...]


    Report this

    00