So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

[Btodd]

I also wanted to point out the hilarious nature of a Christian throwing out 'lols' at people believing in myths. Priceless!

I'll be looking forward to your theory of resurrection. It's magic!


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

Notice that 2004 is marked on the left, and is higher than any other period on the plot. The trend for the past 5000 years or so has been cooling, then when you hit the industrial period, all of a sudden the temperatures rise at an unprecedented rate:

How does this possibly show that we are cooling?

Maybe there is good reason to question the validly of those more recent temperatures?

http://www.surfacestations.org/

They've surveyed 43% of the temperature stations in the United States, and 56% of the stations they've surveyed have an artificial heating source within 10 meters, and 13% of the temperature sensors are located next to artificial heating sources.

Which means the most recent measurements from these temperature stations must be called into question.

 

[chaim]

Except that the temperature agrees with bore hole temperatures, bouys, satellite temperatures and climate reference stations:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png)

The investigators who use this data are well aware that a lot of the stations are less than ideal that is why they look at anomalies not temperature and filter their data very carefully.

Maybe there is good reason to question the validly of those more recent temperatures?

http://www.surfacestations.org/

They've surveyed 43% of the temperature stations in the United States, and 56% of the stations they've surveyed have an artificial heating source within 10 meters, and 13% of the temperature sensors are located next to artificial heating sources.

Which means the most recent measurements from these temperature stations must be called into question.

 

[Braunwyn]

There is no reason to believe Co2 has any effect at all as far as I can tell.

I don't understand why not. Again, this is only intuitive for me but if CO2 and other greenhouse gases at certain levels keep us warm to a certain degree than why wouldn't we expect a linear trend, providing all feedback mechanisms stay the same? Of coure, maybe they won't but I don't understand that either.

It is just the air that plants breathe. Maybe we should stop cutting down all the forests? That is the engine that turns that Co2 into oxygen for animals to breathe again.

But what you're talking about here is a system in equilibrium. The cause for concern is saturating that system, which would bring it out of equilibrium, no?

This whole issue is purely political, there is no scientific consensus.

It really doesn't look that way.

 

[joebudda]

Joe, this is just ridiculous. EVERY climate science organization in the world endorses anthropogenic climate change. There are thousands of scientifc journal

Secondly if CO2 had no effect on temperature we would all be dead. The Earths black body equilibrium temperature is about 250K or -13C, without the greenhouse effect, thats what the temperature would be. Luckily we have some CO2 to keep us warm, the question is how much.

The problem is there is no physical evidence that shows Co2 levels have any effect at all.

And your appeals to authority mean nothing when other "authorities" on the matter disagree.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html

Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine would seem to trump the 600 or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, the White House has taken such a beating over the years on climate that facts no longer matter.

As further evidence of its shell-shocked state of fact avoidance, just last week the Bush administration announced that it was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act — even though there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago and predictions of the bear’s demise are entirely based on politically inspired speculation.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026

A recent study in the journal Nature by scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, postulates that global temperatures are unlikely to rise again until around 2015-2020, after a decade-long leveling-off since the 1998 recorded high. In other words, it is possible that by 2020, the world will not have warmed for over 20 years.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp

Here's a little fact that you will never see reported in the press, 31,072 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence of greenhouse gasses causing global warming. And the media tells me that the argument is over and that everyone is in agreement. I think the media is in agreement, and I think some people that are in power are in agreement, but I would venture a guess that there aren't 31,000 scientists that agree that man is causing global warming. I hate when facts get the way.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621

One hundred scientists voiced strong opposition on December 13 to United Nations' efforts to create an illusion of scientific consensus regarding global warming. In an open letter to the UN, the scientists noted attempts to ration carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate alleged global warming would be "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, noted, "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

Dr. Jim O'Brien, State Climatologist of Florida and Emeritus Professor at Florida State University, explains why he is a Global Warming Skeptic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNe2YGbBVj0&eurl=http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2070


And do yourselves a favor and look at the actual evidence and stop believing everything the TV and Al Gore tells you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAGYKsCJyI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HcashWNFs&watch_response

 

[Braunwyn]

C'mon, joebudda. Why repost a previous post? The fox news story has just been discredited. Why use a source that you know has questionable credibility?

 

[chaim]

Yeah there is Joe. It is very simple physics. CO2 has an absorption feature in the Infra Red and not in the visible. As such it allows incoming solar radiation (visible) to pass and absorbs out going longwave (IR) radiation. Why is earth 20 degrees warmer than black body equilibrium temperature?

If you want actual evidence why is it that you aren't posting evidence to scientific organizations? I prefer to get my science from scientific journals, not youtube and the heartland institute. If you are interested in science and not politics I would suggest you do the same.

The problem is there is no physical evidence that shows Co2 levels have any effect at all.

And your appeals to authority mean nothing when other "authorities" on the matter disagree.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html



http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621



Dr. Jim O'Brien, State Climatologist of Florida and Emeritus Professor at Florida State University, explains why he is a Global Warming Skeptic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNe2YGbBVj0&eurl=http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2070


And do yourselves a favor and look at the actual evidence and stop believing everything the TV and Al Gore tells you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAGYKsCJyI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HcashWNFs&watch_response

 

[joebudda]

I don't understand why not. Again, this is only intuitive for me but if CO2 and other greenhouse gases at certain levels keep us warm to a certain degree than why wouldn't we expect a linear trend, providing all feedback mechanisms stay the same? Of coure, maybe they won't but I don't understand that either.

There is really no hard evidence that shows that the "greenhouse gases" play much of a role at all. And there is good reason to believe the temperature of the sun and the earths orbit around it play a dominant role.

Like with the ice core charts, the warm periods correspond with the earth being closer to the sun because of the inherent wobble of the earths orbit.

But what you're talking about here is a system in equilibrium. The cause for concern is saturating that system, which would bring it out of equilibrium, no?

Yes, which is why I believe we should stop cutting down all the forests. Not because of the temperature though, but because of the unforeseen things we haven't even conceived of yet.

It really doesn't look that way.

It does when the realization that politics and what goes on the media are being controlled by the same few.

 

[chaim]

Again, if you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, how is the Earths temperature 20 degrees warmer than radiative equilibrium?

There is really no hard evidence that shows that the "greenhouse gases" play much of a role at all. And there is good reason to believe the temperature of the sun and the earths orbit around it play a dominant role.

Like with the ice core charts, the warm periods correspond with the earth being closer to the sun because of the inherent wobble of the earths orbit.


Yes, which is why I believe we should stop cutting down all the forests. Not because of the temperature though, but because of the unforeseen things we haven't even conceived of yet.

It does when the realization that politics and what goes on the media are being controlled by the same few.

 

[joebudda]

C'mon, joebudda. Why repost a previous post? The fox news story has just been discredited. Why use a source that you know has questionable credibility?

Who discredited the claim that:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..."

And how was this discredited? It is just showing there is no scientific consensus on the issue.

 

[joebudda]

Again, if you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, how is the Earths temperature 20 degrees warmer than radiative equilibrium?

It has been much warmer and much colder according to the ice core charts. What we are seeing now with current trends corresponds with the much bigger trends we see within the ice cores. There is zero reason to think otherwise.

 

[Braunwyn]

There is really no hard evidence that shows that the "greenhouse gases" play much of a role at all.

That's news to me although maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that greenhouse gases do not play a role in making our environment habital?

And there is good reason to believe the temperature of the sun and the earths orbit around it play a dominant role.

Sure, that makes sense. There are many players in our atmospheric environment and I don't think anybody believes it just one component over another.

Like with the ice core charts, the warm periods correspond with the earth being closer to the sun because of the inherent wobble of the earths orbit.

Ok, I'm sure they do. That does not discount the role of increased greenhouse gases. Of course if you don't think greenhouse gases play a role in our atmosphere than you won't buy into that but I'm assuming you would have to. That still leaves the concern over substantial increases on the table.

Yes, which is why I believe we should stop cutting down all the forests. Not because of the temperature though, but because of the unforeseen things we haven't even conceived of yet.

Agreed. IIRC deforestation contributes to disruption of carbon stores.

It does when the realization that politics and what goes on the media are being controlled by the same few.

Granted, I'm sure politics has its hands in most things but that doesn't mean we don't have problems to contend with.

From where I sit, most things that could possibly contribute to greenhouse gas increases are pollutants that have consequences outside climate change. For example, methane is a concern and its no secret that manure lagoons created via factory farming pollutes waterways in local communities that reside near factory farms. It's in our best interest to contend with this type of pollution, whether it's for local popullation health or based on climate change. I also recall a stat IRT to lung cancer for non-smokers. Runners that dwell in cities are at greatest risk because of pollution.

 

[chaim]

You mean the petition signed by "Dr" Gerri Halwell (aka "Dr" Ginger Spice), "Dr" Michael J Fox etc?

Who discredited the claim that:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html


And how was this discredited? It is just showing there is no scientific consensus on the issue.

 

[chaim]

You didn't answer the question Joe, why is the Earth 20 degrees warmer than it should be based on the radiative balance? (Radiative balance = incoming sunlight - outgoing IR). I would love to see you explain this without invoking the greenhouse effect.

It has been a bit warmer (millions of years ago) and a lot colder than it is now, but how does this in anyway discredit the fact that CO2 traps IR radiation, thus increasing CO2 will trap more IR and warm the planet?

It has been much warmer and much colder according to the ice core charts. What we are seeing now with current trends corresponds with the much bigger trends we see within the ice cores. There is zero reason to think otherwise.

 

[Braunwyn]

Who discredited the claim that:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html

And how was this discredited? It is just showing there is no scientific consensus on the issue.

The petition was linked. I discussed why the petition lacked merit due to the fact that's it's fraudulent. The opinions of scientists like me, and the opinions of non-scientists (psychologists, MD's, etc) really shouldn't be used as a point of agrument for or against climate change. It's dishonest. The petition is a roach (see one and we know there are a thousand in the walls) and this discredits the author as well.

 

[Braunwyn]

You didn't answer the question Joe, why is the Earth 20 degrees warmer than it should be based on the radiative balance? (Radiative balance = incoming sunlight - outgoing IR). I would love to see you explain this without invoking the greenhouse effect.

It has been a bit warmer (millions of years ago) and a lot colder than it is now, but how does this in anyway discredit the fact that CO2 traps IR radiation, thus increasing CO2 will trap more IR and warm the planet?

It looks simple enough. This is why I don't understand why some folk are surprised over the concern brought forth.

 

[joebudda]

You didn't answer the question Joe, why is the Earth 20 degrees warmer than it should be based on the radiative balance? (Radiative balance = incoming sunlight - outgoing IR).

It has been much warmer and much colder according to the ice core charts. What we are seeing now with current trends corresponds with the much bigger trends we see within the ice cores. There is zero reason to think otherwise.

I would love to see you explain this without invoking the greenhouse effect.

It has been a bit warmer (millions of years ago) and a lot colder than it is now, but how does this in anyway discredit the fact that CO2 traps IR radiation, thus increasing CO2 will trap more IR and warm the planet?

There is no reason to assume the "greenhouse effect" plays any significant role. And even less for Co2 contributing much if any at all.

 

[chaim]

Again, you didn't answer the question. Why is the earth warmer than it should be based on the balance on incoming and outgoing radiation?

I will give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

It has been much warmer and much colder according to the ice core charts. What we are seeing now with current trends corresponds with the much bigger trends we see within the ice cores. There is zero reason to think otherwise.


There is no reason to assume the "greenhouse effect" plays any significant role at all. And even less for Co2 contributing much if any at all.

 

[Braunwyn]

There is no reason to assume the "greenhouse effect" plays any significant role. And even less for Co2 contributing much if any at all.

"Greenhouse gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these gases in the atmosphere"
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

I know you know this ^^^. So, what do you mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't play a significant role?

 

[joebudda]

Again, you didn't answer the question. Why is the earth warmer than it should be based on the balance on incoming and outgoing radiation?

I will give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Now where is the connection that shows that the greenhouse effect is responsible or plays any significant role in the trends we see in the evidence?

How is this "greenhouse effect" being measured that allows the connection to what we are seeing with the evidence? This is the key here. This is the pillar it all rests upon.