Say Anything Blog

Nope, not yet…

Nope, not yet…

Duh—just what real scientist have been saying.  Still, some will continue to worship Al Gore and make him ever so much richer!

How did their Y2K theory turn out?

Bbbbuttt, now we have time to get ready for that cataclysmic event.  What to beat that the global warming loonies don’t spin it that way?

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

That’s Want to bet that the global warming loonies don’t spin it that way?

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

I’m skeptical of a minority of scientists who, in keeping with the economic and ideological interests of their paymasters, continue to defy the philosophy of science. It is true Gloabl Warming is not an abosolute certainty and that climate will change anyway, nevertheless the hypothesis that best fits the current body of scientific evidence tells us human activity is having consequenticial climate impacts. It is only those who don’t understand science per se that equate best theory with absolute certainty. Let us opporate on a basis of propability on this issue as we do daily, unconscienciously, with our use of devices and principles entirely owed to scientific inquiry.

It is true Gloabl (sic) Warming is not an abosolute (sic) certainty and that climate will change anyway, nevertheless the hypothesis that best fits the current body of scientific evidence tells us human activity is having consequenticial (sic) climate impacts...Let us opporate (sic) on a basis of propability (sic) on this issue as we do daily, unconscienciously, (sic) with our use of devices and principles entirely owed to scientific inquiry.

Who knew that when Reason finally showed up here, it would be semi-literate?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

You know all this AGW and anti-intelligence nonsense isn’t doing science any favors.  The more this kind of stuff is put out there, the less credible and the more unreasonable science appears.

Reason, skepticism is a good thing, especially when directed at a scientific consensus that is being used to advance liberalism.  Just think of all the money and power liberals could harness with this one issue!

Saying that mankind is responsible for the current global warming is like saying I have a weed problem in my yard because little johnny next door blew on a dandelion last week.

Do we contribute?  Perhaps.  Are we THE cause?  History would say NO.  Can WE stop it?  History would say NO.

When this hoax is over, those who wasted our time and money should be decertified and “dissed” forever.

Communism is evil

The most REDICULOUS aspect of the global warming BS is that it makes the assumption that temperatures during the last “Little Ice Age” were the IDEAL for planet earth.

The Little Ice Age gave us the Dark Ages and the Plague as I recall.

Bill Mitchell:

The most REDICULOUS RIDICULOUS aspect of the global warming BS is that it makes the assumption that temperatures during the last “Little Ice Age” were the IDEAL for planet earth.

Well said, even if it’s to illiterate for Proof!

That’s been one of my problems all along:  They are comparing ice coverage 150 years after the end of a 400 year ice age, to the ice coverage right after that ice age ended, and telling us how bad that is, as if that heavier coverage were normal for none ice-age-like conditions.

Just like with the Northwest Passage possibly becoming open every summer:  How do we know that it wasn’t open before the Little Ice Age too?

I am patiently waiting for the empirical evidence that proves man made global warming. Is that too much to expect from these warmers like “Reason”.

Science is being used every day to challenge the man made global warming hysteria and the warmers continue to ignore the data. The credibility of this AGW movement is losing ground little by little. Unfortunately our politicians smell tax revenue so it will never be resolved with integrity.

Mickey:  You will wait a long, lomng time, because there is no empirical evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.

Of course, there are all those ‘computer models’ which activists tout. 

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

Well, Mickey, we do know that CO2 gas contributes to atmospheric heating, the “classic CO2” effect I discussed on another thread.  And that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  So there is that.

The problem with human attribution to global warming is that one needs to invoke a theoretical, completely unproven mechanism, the so-called CO2-water vapor feedback mechanism to get enough warming from CO2 to explain the temperature increase from 1980-2002.

Recent downward trends in temperature are problematic for that argument because, if you can have natural variations that are large enough to swamp the anthropogenic signal to cause a net cooling, then the opposite is almost certainly true as well:  Likely part of the warming we say 1980-2000 was natural, in which case the C02 climate sensitivity is less extreme than some people have been claiming.

If you are left with the classic effect being the only mechanism at play, the net warming for a doubling of CO2 is small enough that it would undermine the global warming alarmist narrative.

To go beyond Carrick’s point where they assume a positive feedback due to the CO2 effect they also deny any possibility that the climate has natural negative feedback mechanisms, such as changes in the precipitation cycle when the Earth warms up.

Basically they’re assuming a worse case scenario and tweaking their models to work with that.  At the same time they ignore any historical evidence that the Earth can warm up and cool off on it’s own accord.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Actually, from a historical aspect, increased CO2 does NOT contribute to global warming.  Rather it RESULTS FROM global warming.

According to the fossil record, CO2 levels rose shortly AFTER a period of global warming rather than BEFORE.

This is a commonly accepted, yet untrue aspect of the global warming argument.

Bill, that is true on average.  There is somewhere between an 800 to 1200 year lag between temperature and CO2 increase in the geophysical record.

However, that is an average.  There are cases where the CO2 increase comes first (e.g, volcanic eruption).  But in general, not only is the lag negative, but the changes in CO2 concentration are minute (e.g., changes from 200-300 ppm) compared to the temperature swings (which are of order 8 C):

Whistler you are exactly right about ignoring potential negative feedback loops.  See for example Roy Spencer’s web site for details on his proposed “iris mechanism”, in which he proposes (and finds evidence for) a negative feedback mechanism in the tropics that tends to stabilize the Earth’s temperature against large changes in CO2 concentration.  We know such a mechanism has to exist, because otherwise a large increase in CO2 would lead to a run-away greenhouse gas effect, and there is evidence that the CO2 concentration has been twenty times it’s current value, yet… life still goes on (we haven’t turned into Venus yet).

Bill, that is true on average.  There is somewhere between an 800 to 1200 year lag between temperature and CO2 increase in the geophysical record.

However, that is an average.  There are cases where the CO2 increase comes first (e.g, volcanic eruption).  But in general, not only is the lag negative, but the changes in CO2 concentration are minute (e.g., changes from 200-300 ppm) compared to the temperature swings (which are of order 8 C):

Whistler you are exactly right about ignoring potential negative feedback loops.  See for example Roy Spencer’s web site for details on his proposed “iris mechanism”, in which he proposes (and finds evidence for) a negative feedback mechanism in the tropics that tends to stabilize the Earth’s temperature against large changes in CO2 concentration.  We know such a mechanism has to exist, because otherwise a large increase in CO2 would lead to a run-away greenhouse gas effect, and there is evidence that the CO2 concentration has been twenty times it’s current value, yet… life still goes on (we haven’t turned into Venus yet).

Well, Mickey, we do know that CO2 gas contributes to atmospheric heating, the “classic CO2” effect I discussed on another thread.  And that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  So there is that.

All gases retain heat in certain conditions.

However, in the Earth’s atmosphere, there are only a few that significantly contribute to the greenhouse gas effect, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and others, but in that order.

Remember the argument isn’t whether there is enough heating from CO2 to produce the recent global warming, but whether CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.  You can have the latter be true ("classic greenhouse gas effect") without the former being true (hypothetically dominant process, the “CO2 water vapor feedback cycle").

The mechanism is very basic, there are “windows” in the infrared portion of the absorption spectrum of the Earth’s atmosphere that get filled by CO2 excitations at 5.3 and 14.8 microns.  When the Earth radiates heat, part of that heat gets traped by CO2.  That’s pretty close to an unassailable argument.

A bit better picture of the absorption spectra via WIKI:

We know this happens because we can measure both the absorption properties of CO2 and other gases, and because we can measure the transmitted infrared radiation that makes it into space via satellites.  So it is an empirical fact that CO2 traps heat radiated from the Earth.

On the face of it, the portion of the infrared radiation trapped by CO2 is small (I think the number is 9% of the total heat trapped via the classic greenhouse gas effect), and further the CO2 absorption is heavily saturated even at the trace levels that CO2 is found in our atmosphere, meaning that increasing the amount of CO2 changes how much heat gets absorbed logarithmically.  A doubling of the CO2 does not double the greenhouse gas effect from CO2. 

Having a water vapor feedback loop be important, amplifies the classic greenhouse gas effect from CO2, but the strength of the effect still varies logarithmically with CO2 atmospheric concentration.

So the question for anybody who wants to argue this point, is to find a scientist who disagrees that the classic CO2 greenhouse exists and disagrees that the CO2 greenhouse gas significantly contributes to atmospheric heating. 

Again the question isn’t whether there is a classic greenhouse gas effect related to CO2, but whether an exotic mechanism, the CO2-water vapor feedback mechanism provides enough amplification of the classic greenhouse gas effect to produce significant warming effects from a 25% increase in CO2.

If we reduce CO2 enough trees and plants will die.  If all the trees and plants die, people will die from oxygen starvation.  Global warming problem solved. /sarc

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Actually DocDave, it’s even bigger issue than that.  If the climate sensitivity of CO2 is just that of the classical effect, then increasing the CO2 will likely improve the quality of life on the planet with none of the dire consequences that are being predicted by alarmists.

Notice the price of food recently?  Part of that is due to crop failures related to colder weather.

Whistler you are exactly right about ignoring potential negative feedback loops.  See for example Roy Spencer’s web site for details on his proposed “iris mechanism”, in which he proposes (and finds evidence for) a negative feedback mechanism in the tropics that tends to stabilize the Earth’s temperature against large changes in CO2 concentration.

Actually Mr. Spencer’s work was why I mentioned the possibility that there is a negative feedback effect.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.