Scientists scoff at AP global-warming story
posted at 11:55 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember that global-warming wet kiss from the AP to climate-change activists and Barack Obama earlier this week? Even scientists who believe in global warming couldn’t quite believe their eyes. They called the report by the Seth Borenstein a “polemic” and wondered when research stopped being a requirement for science reporters (via Q&O):
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.”
He took issue with the AP article’s assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
And that comes from Borenstein’s ally on global warming. O’Brien calls hysteria on sea levels “major scare tactic,” the kind one would expect a science reporter to debunk rather than to perpetuate. He wants public policy on climate change to be informed rather than hysterical. The fact that water is less dense as a solid than as a liquid — which is why ice cubes float in your drink — never seems to occur to the AP’s “science” writer, who probably never heard of the Archimedes Principle before now. The only way melting ice would raise sea levels would be if water was more dense as a solid than a liquid, which if true would mean ice would get submerged below water than float on top of it.
Other scientists blasted the entire basis of Borenstein’s reporting as well as his ignorance of research:
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue. …
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” …
Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story’s approach to the issue.
“There’s very little that’s right about it,” Fox said. “And it’s really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.
Fox understands the problem, but undersells the scale. When the AP produces propaganda rather than reporting, it gets distributed to thousands of publications around the world. Unfortunately, the rebuttals don’t get that kind of distribution, and the lies and propaganda get accepted as truth.
Unfortunately, that’s been the history of the global-warming cult over the last decade. They accept no challenges, demonize those who question their science, scoff at contradictory data (such as the fact that temperatures have stopped rising), and insist on politicizing their science rather than work from facts. The AP has become the cult’s propaganda arm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 Next »
“Forcing” is a made up and worthless computer generated figure. It means whatever the person who created it wants it to be – thus your 25% is an invented figure with no basis in empirical science.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Of course if the CAT scan is showing a tumor when in fact none exist. Then doing brain surgery to remove that non-existent tumor will be very damaging to you, for no gain.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
BTW, weather is simply the dissipation of solar heating. Yes, trapping more heat can create more favorable conditions for maximum hurricanes, but equally-enhanced continental weather systems are also more likely to engage and disrupt hurricanes as they approach the coast. We saw several powerful hurricanes this year quickly reach major status, encounter shear from continental systems, and collapse to Cat 2 or less.
shuzilla on December 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
It’s so cute when they think they’re being sarcastic.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Density of water ice at 0 C: 0.9167 g/mL
Density of water at 0 C: 0.9998 g/mL
Thus at 0 C water-to-ice causes an expansion in volume for a given mass by ~8%. This is why pipes burst in the winter. By the way, water is the only known non-metal to expand when frozen.
For the reverse reaction ice-to-water we have a contraction in volume by the same amount.
Bubba Redneck on December 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Keep in mind that there is something like 20 times the amount of CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere. Fossil fuel burning is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Granted, I have seen some charts that indicate that the increase in CO2 amounts in the atmosphere are coincidental to fossil fuel emissions in the past few decades, but the levels are very likely to be dictated by the oceans. As luck has it, we are due for a CO2 level increase from the medieval warming period.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:13 PM
LMAO! Only using worthless computer models can you make this ridiculous statement. There is no empirical evidence that Man-Made CO2 is causing Global Warming. Please prove me wrong and prove it using the scientific method.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.“ – Nikola Tesla, 1934
What people do not understand is that there is no proof of “Man-Made” Global Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean “climate prediction”. With engineering you can build and test in the real world to confirm the computer model’s accuracy. You can do no such thing with the planet Earth and it’s climate. You cannot build a planet and it’s atmosphere to “test” your computer climate model.
I am a computer analyst and can program a computer model to do whatever I want. If you program a computer model so that X amount of CO2 increase “forces” X amount of temperature increase then it will happen, this does not make this true in the real world.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 5:06 PM
CO2 released due to combustion of fossil fuels has a different isotopic signature than naturally occuring atmospheric CO2. The atmosphere has been moving more toward the isotopic composition of anthropogenic CO2 as levels have risen.
Your lack of knowledge on these things doesn’t give you the right to demand that others do your homework for you. It takes almost no effort to find these things. I personally find the guys over at RealClimate to be insufferable, but they have a pretty clear FAQ with this sort of information in it.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
What’s worse?
Invasive surgery to remove a tumor which isn’t there, or not doing anything to remove a tumor which does exist?
Do you think you proved your point or mine? ;)
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong.
Good article.
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
You’re an idiot. With people like you on my side (”skeptics”) we are screwed.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Unbelieveable you are absolutely ignorant about computer models.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming
Weather vs. Climate
Computer models are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now. Give me a break! Don’t be fooled that the basic principles of how computers work changes whether you are modeling the climate or the weather. Nor is one more accurate than the other long term. Computer code is computer code no matter what name you give it and how a computer works does not change because you change the name you call the code. You cannot simply excuse away missing data, substitute mathematically created observations, parameterize what you are unable to model and then run the model over a longer time and think your results have any remote relation to reality.
The existence of parameterizations (approximated assumptions) means that various calculations are not fully resolved to scale and thus the models are flawed by design, this is basic computer science. You have results based on estimated calculations and thus worthless results. No hand waving can change this. Any computer code that is not 100% perfect will produce meaningless results with scientific and math calculations. That is the fundamentals of how a computer works.
The Myth of Testing
Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. What this means is you are attempting to have your model’s output match the existing historical output that has been recorded. For example matching the global mean temperature curve over 100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly matches the real world. Do not be fooled this logic is irrefutable by anyone who understands computer science and computer modeling.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I’m a computer analyst and mathematical simulations are really hard. Therefore, they are worthless.
By the same token, I am a cook but cannot make Baked Alaska. Therefore, Baked Alaska is disgusting.
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Closer to 5%.
1) The frequencies that CO2 absorb are pretty much the same frequencies that water absorbs.
2) The frequencies that CO2 absorbs at are almost completely saturated already.
Here’s an online chart showing absorbtion bands of various gases vs the spectral output of the sun and earth.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
3) Each doubling of CO2 or any other green house gas) has half the impact that the previous doubling had.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:06 PM
There are so many idiots here today that I can’t keep up with all of you. MSU data dates to 1979. If you don’t even know about the work done by Spencer and Christy — two prominent skeptical scientists — WTF are you doing trying to discuss this subject as a skeptic?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Please using empirical evidence and the scientific method prove that CO2 is 25% of climate forcing. Oh and no worthless computer models please.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Which only shows that the CO2 from fossil fuels has mixed into the atmosphere. Not what the levels would have been had there been no burning of fossil fuels.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Math is easy, understanding the limitations of computer systems is apparently much harder for some people. I have a degree in Computer Science and have been doing this for over 15 years in the real not virtual world.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
I read your source, I still don’;t see what difference it makes – isotopic or otherwise.
CO2 is CO2. Your material doesn’t state isotopic CO2 retains heat any more or less than “normal” CO2 unless I missed it.
Either way, the CO2 man has put in the air has always been here in one form or another – why is it that it’s bad now?
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
A line comes to mind here, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Or, how about this one, “The cure is worse than the disease”?
When mankind starts fooling around with a perfectly working system, our doom is guaranteed. Earth has had higher temps, lower temps, higher water levels, lower water levels, higher CO2 concentrations, lower CO2 concentrations, etc. What is everyone getting so worked up about? You believe in evolution, don’t you? Don’t you believe in a system that has been developing and working for billions of years (assuming you’re not a Creationalist)?
The ramifications of a constant warming trend (yes, I’m allowing for down years when El Nina comes around) will barely register on the global scale.
Note: I’ve read predictions of 6 inches, not 6 feet, by 2100. Perhaps you misread that 6 feet someplace (6′ vs. 6″)?
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 5:23 PM
There is actually a range… that’s why I said “up to 25%”. The statistical floor is just under 10%. I think you just made up 5%, because that is not supported by data.
And there is no way to know, definitively, what a doubling of CO2 does. That’s the whole reason people try to develop computer models. It’s much more complicated than just sticking a number in a formula. There are feedbacks, and there is band saturation, etc., to account for, none of which are thoroughly understood. It doesn’t do anyone any good to have you making unsubstantiable pronouncements like that.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
That wasn’t his point. He was showing that we have isotopic evidence that fossil fuels have been burned.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Considering that the surgery can kill you and will always result in brain damage.
VS. do nothing
If you do nothing and there is no tumor, then you are much better off.
If you do nothing and there is a tumor, the tumor may eventually grow big enough to cause problems or even kill you.
So what are the chances that the tumor will grow enough to cause big enough to cause any problems at all before you die of some other cause.
Finally, We have very good evidence that the CAT scan was designed to find tumors, even where none exist.
So what should we do?
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Look, here is how we solve all our problems:
Nuke Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, and northwest Pakistan.
We remove our Jihad problem and the global cooling from the nuclear winter cancels out the global warming, and sends a very clear message to the Chicoms and the Russians to come to heel….all in under a couple of hours and we go out for an extra long liquid lunch!
Okay, we can take out Chavez too.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY DESPISE GLOBAL WARMING KOOKS; THEY GIVE SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT THOUGHT A BAD NAME!!!!!!!!!!
Bubba Redneck on December 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
There have been automobiles and factories pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for billions of years! There have been people cutting down the rainforests for billions of years!
Who are we to play God and put an end to this delicate balance nature hath created?!
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Mark, normally you’re brilliant, but tell me why you think removing CO2 will cool the planet again?
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I’m not sure what you are implying, here. We know with a LOT OF CERTAINTY exactly how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels. Subtract that amount from what is actually there and what do you know! You have what it would have been without burning fossil fuels… unless you are conceding anthropogenic climate change due to that CO2, then we will have to consider feedbacks.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM
He didn’t.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Again back to worthless computer models and you are calling me an idiot? I work with computer models, I actually understand them better than the joke natural scientists who think they are computer programmers because they can get some Fortran code to compile.
Computer Models are the biggest scam ever.
It is actually not complicated if you understand computer systems, something you apparently have no remote understanding.
Computer Science 101 – if a Computer Model includes merely one approximation for what latter dependent calculations or data are derived from then the output of the model is useless. – Irrefutable Computer Science fact that modelers still don’t get.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
You keep disproving your own argument. The people claiming global warming is going to have us drowning in 2100 are only using data since the late 70s. Why is that? The 1970s were the coldest decade they have data for since the 1940s.
The current models that SAY we should be afraid are cherry picked data. And as that Time Magazine article points out, when the same agenda driven scientists were claiming rising CO2 was taking us into the next Ice Age, they cherry picked the hottest decade they could find, the 1940s. However, if you take ALL the years, it shows the temperature has been on a cycle.
Remember the dustbowl in the 30s? Temperature was headed toward peaking. Was our worldwide CO2 output in the 30s and 40s higher than in the 1970s? Considering that the “developed” world was very small back then, I doubt it. Our temperature compared to the 1940s is the same.
Do global warming people really want to look back in 120 years at a worldwide economic collapse and massive starvation and poverty caused by cap and trade and other radical “solutions” and see the natural 30 year warming/30 year cooling cycles over that time and say “whoops”?
Should we recycle? Absolutely. Should we, as individuals, be taught to be responsible about keeping our cars running well to reduce emissions? Absolutely. Should we continue to work for “cleaner” energy in free-market ways? Absolutely.
Should we impose a tax system (cap and trade) that allows influence peddlers to buy their caps and play with lobbying with the values used? Absolutely NOT.
PastorJon on December 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Well, one might argue that it is potentially “bad” now because the CO2 had previously been naturally sequestered in the ground as carbon (oil, etc), whereas NOW it is in the atmosphere as CO2 due to our burning it.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
You forgot your /sarc tag.
The industrial age certainly put a lot of material into the atmosphere. Did the earth suddenly stop operating while I was out? Send a guy a memo why don’t you?
I have my own theory now, dinosaurs farting led to global warming and they died out…sounds plausible, right?
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Had a rough day? Little trouble with facts? Or maybe just a tad weak on statistics…
right2bright on December 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
/golfclap
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
GIGO: Garbage in = Garbage out
Computers need exact information and the exact procedures to process that information to get accurate answers, without that you get useless results, period. There is no way around this. Computers cannot fill in the blanks for you like nature does when you do an experiment in the real world. With computers everything must be programmed into them from the beginning and everything that is programmed into them must be 100% understood and 100% accurate. Even the most advanced and expensive computer climate models include various approximations known as ‘parameterizations’. These “guesses” include:
- Cloud Cover
- Convection
- Hydrology
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
Computer Science 101 – if a Computer Model includes merely one approximation for what latter dependent calculations or data are derived from then the output of the model is useless.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM
No you don’t. CO2 levels lag temperature by something like 800 years, probably due to ocean temperatures. 800 years ago, the temperature was relatively large. As such, we should expect an increase in CO2 levels now. However, if we are already putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate similar to what the oceans would be, then that extra CO2 stays in the water. Thus, the CO2 in the are is the CO2 from fossil fuels, but doesn’t really tell us what the CO2 levels would be had they not been burned.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM
The heat capacity of CO2 does not change, regardless of the isotopes used for C and O.
When determining concentrations from spectra one needs to make sure that Beer’s Law is followed over the concentration range under investigation for a linear relationship to be had.
At higher concentrations both positive and negative deviations from linearity can occur, depending on the substance, so a plot of Absorbance vs. Concentration is essential to be able to say that doubling the absorbance is the result of a doubling of the concentration.
Bubba Redneck on December 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Bullshit! – Recycling (Google Video) (29min)
Recycling is Garbage (The New York Times)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM
My my Dave, you sure are full of yourself today. Remind me to jump down your throat the next time you post something that is not 100% accurate.
While it is true that nobody knows for certain what the various feedbacks will do to a doubling of CO2, that wasn’t the point you made earlier.
Regardless. In a non-feedback world, doubling CO2 would cause around a 1C increase in temperature. An increase from 280ppm to 370ppm should cause an increase somewhere around 0.6C, about what we had seen prior to the recent cool down.
1) Some portion of that warming was caused by UHI and micro-site contaminations of the sensor network.
2) Some portion of that warming was caused by direct warming of the planet caused by an increase in solar activity. (Prior to the end of solar cycle 23 and the extended minima we are currently experiencing.)
3) Some portion of that warming was caused by the hyper-active sun generating a more powerfull than usual magnetic field which blocked cosmic rays resulting in fewer clouds.
Conclusion:
Since a major portion of the warming that we have seen was due to things other than CO2, the negative feedbacks dominate.
See the Iris Affect by (I believe) Dr. Spencer.
And this is without getting into things like increased ozone which is caused when a more active sun increases it’s output of UV light. The figures that I remember have UV light varying as much as 10% between minima and maxima during the solar cycle.
Ozone is another greenhouse gas and one that had absorbtion bands that are not saturated.
Of course since you are a self declared expert, you already knew these things and I apologize for wasting your precious time. I shall now go and whip myself for my impertenance.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Yes. I’m even more convinced now that you seem to think that I just cited computer models. You should spend more time learning to read, and less time throwing around strawmen, non sequiturs, and the like.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Poptech,
You forgot to mention that even if a value is put in, it is not necessarily true/accurate. Secondly, the greater the number of data points available the more *likely* the result will be accurate. Currently, we can’t gather enough data points nor do we have historic data from enough sources. Lastly, we don’t understand the mechanisms that affect weather.
But, GIGO is close enough.
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Let’s see.
You say up to 25%.
I say
closer to 5%
You say
more like 10% and your an idiot.
Why is my “closer to” evidence that I can’t do this kind of stuff, but your “up to” is evidence that you are just being careful?
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I am more convinced then ever you have no remote understanding of what you are talking about now answer the question:
Please using empirical evidence and the scientific method prove that CO2 is 25% of climate forcing. Oh and no worthless computer models please.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM
As to your “statistical floor” that depends on assumptions regarding concentrations of the other greenhouse gases, atmospheric pressures, etc.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
You are correct, but again, that CO2 was always sequestered was it?
Why is it bad now that it isn’t?
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Mine too, now. Thanks for posting that! AGW is the biggest load of crap ever. It says far more about the ignorance of the populace than anything else.
califcon on December 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Now we’re talking.
If the rest of you would should this kind of can-do attitude, we’d all be on the same page.
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Thanks for the compliment. I wonder how you and DaveS can come to such wildly diverging views of my competence.
Regardless, I should have been more explicit, but I was working under their assumptions, IE, that more CO2 has warmed the planet, therefore if they get their way and we remove that CO2, the planet will cool.
Additionally, since CO2 is a greenhouse, increasing it’s concentration in the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature. The questionis that increas a few hundredths of a degree, or a few tenths.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM
[A.] being the fact I have Stated time and again and have even provided links to Galciers ALL OVER THE WORLD that they are growing. I think YOU need to learn to read! here is something to LOOK into: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
And [B.] is the fact you are ever the complete moron whom ovbiously can’t think of anything to counter what I have said. So, why not take that placid piece of skin between your legs, in which you try and hump trees with, and strangle yourself with it. please!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Where do you get the notion that the balance is at all delicate. Given the huge changes the eco-system has absorbed, the evidence is that the system is very robust.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Hmmm… that’s interesting. I don’t know a lot about the mechanics of CO2 uptake in the oceans. I’ve never heard anyone assert before that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 necessarily prevents desequestration in the oceans due to temperature, though. I guess it’s plausible, but I imagine that released CO2 due to rising temperatures (800 years ago) would easily overwhelm CO2 uptake due to anthropogenic emissions. Do you have any source on that? It’s actually interesting.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM
One might also point out that prior to it’s being sequestered in coal, oil, etc, that carbon was in the air.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:49 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Because yours appears to be made up, and mine is based on empirical data derived from satellite observation of the atmosphere.
Here, I copied a citation from Wikipedia for you.
Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197–208. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)0782.0.CO;2. Retrieved on 1 May 2006.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Those values were determined using MODELS! Are you this stupid?
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM
LMAO! Once more computer scientists realize that the whole scam is based on non-computer scientist’s sloppy ass fortran code we can actually get away from the CO2 destroying the planet hysteria.
The whole AGW scam is based on computer illiterates believing their worthless computer codes.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:55 PM
You alreadyknow the answer. Did you really need to ask the question?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Not handy, no. I don’t think the 800 years thing is to hard to find, but I’m leaving soon and don’t have time to look. Same with the oceanic CO2.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 5:56 PM
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM
It isn’t necessarily bad. Those who are concerned about the possibility that it is bad are prompted by the fact that that CO2 is unnaturally desequestered, upsetting a potentially delicate natural CO2 cycle.
Like I said, I’m not some alarmist, but I’m a pragmatist. We clearly have increased CO2, CO2 clearly is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 can clearly theoretically cause significant warming, which can have various climate feedbacks and other life consequences. I think alarmists are exagerrating the effects and the certainty of it all, but there are people on the other side (and clearly in here) that are just as ridiculous.
Climate is certainly affected by anthropogenic CO2 emission. Pysically, it has to be. There are legitimate questions, though, about which way it is affected, how much, etc,and how much change is due to natural causes. The existence of the latter doesn’t render the former non-existent.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 5:56 PM
THere is an equation that predicts what the concentration of CO2 in water will be given the temperature of the water and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Higher concentrations in the atmosphere, all other things equal, will cause higher concentrations in the water. Higher temperatures in the water, all other things equal, will cause lower concentrations in the water.
However, it’s a misnomer to say that increased CO2 in the air prevents CO2 in the oceans from being emitted. What is happening is that at the air/water interface, CO2 constantly being exchanged between water and air. Whether more molecules are moving from water to air, or from air to water depend on whether the CO2 in water is above or below equilibrium.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming
“…all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialised.“ – James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org
“These codes are what they are – the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to Fortran 95 on massively parallel systems.“ – Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org
“No complex code can ever be proven ‘true’ (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive.“ – Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.or
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM
It would have to be more palatable than your analogies.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM
It’s silly to think the climate of an entire planet is more complex than a computer model.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Just a thought…don’t mean to sidetrack any ongoing points being made, but the sea level rise predictions have always puzzled me, whether 6″ or 6 ‘.
When the level rises one inch, doesn’t that increase the circumference of the earth by one inch necessitating the water needed to increase it the next inch by quite a bit, and the second inch increases the circumference of the earth yet again..and so on? If this is a real dumb observation..sorry, I’ve just never heard it addressed before. Where’s all the land supported ice going to come from?
Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM
So, we’re back–yet again–to you not knowing how to read. The abstract for that paper is only like 10 sentences long.
Here’s the thing… just saying “those number are from models” and refusing to actually even look at it doesn’t make your statement true by some “default” rule, and it doesn’t make you look like you know what you’re talking about. In fact, to anyone who actually clicks through a–heaven forbid–reads the f’ing paper, you will look like a mind-bogglingly ignorant ass.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Dave keeps ignoring me because he cannot answer the question.
Please using empirical evidence and the scientific method prove that CO2 is 25% of climate forcing. Oh and no worthless computer models please.
Better check your worthless Wikipedia sources better next time! LMAO!
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
My sources have different numbers than do your sources. Ergo I don’t know what I’m talking about.
As I said, you sure are full of yourself.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2008 at 5:59 PM
The amount needed for the next inch is greater, but the difference between 3000 miles and 3000 miles and one inch is not significant.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM
It is ok. I gave him and starfleet_wa-cademy both a reliable source of global glacial growing and they both ignore it. Typical tree humpers.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Sure, but my question is are the two close enough in magnitude (delta due to atmospheric CO2 vs delta due to water temps) that it matters?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Oh Ok…
“Using detailed radiation models for the shortwave and longwave spectral regions, we show what role the various absorbers play in determining the radiative balance of the earth’s system and their dependence on the presence or absence of clouds.”
“We must rely on model calculations to determine the surface radiative fluxes”
“We employ a narrowband Malkmus model (see Kiehl and Ramanathan 1983; Kiehl 1983) to represent the above physical properties of longwave radiative transfer. This model calculates atmospheric absorption for a prescribed spectral interval.”
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
You never cited anything. The only thing you posted that I saw was a link illustrating absorption bands of various gases.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Kyoto is more like proscribing a ten trillion dollar nosejob as the cure to a man whose been incorrectly diagnosed with lung cancer.
And you would be the person screaming “BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING” in the waiting room.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I think you are confusing the idea of a “model”, generally, with a ridiculously complex model of a ridiculously complex climate, specifically.
A “model” can be something as simple as the Newtonian gravitation model, which works quite well and is imple, or something as complex and untrustworthy as one of the GCMs that you are apparently thinking of.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:09 PM
I’m not sure what I was meaning to type when I said that the Newtonian gravitation model is “imple”.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Oh, “simple”.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Uh, since people like you are demanding people like me to pay for failed solutions to problems people like you can’t prove actually exist, I reserve that right.
Love this “proof” from your link:
It’s so provable, why even prove it!
Now show me some actual numbers of human generated CO2 vs CO2 released by the warming oceans due to the NATURAL PRE-INDUSTRIAL trends of past few 100 years.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Well we can’t all just resort to smug self-righteousness. Variety is the spice of life.
“Wikipedia is biased,” claims impartial blog.
Well, color me convinced.
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Until the third post in that sequence, neither did you.
Now your next response will be to ask me to cite the source for my number, unless you are still convinced that there can be no source that doesn’t agree with your prefered source.
My response is, had you behaved yourself from the beginning, and inquired as to why my numbers didn’t match yours, I would have gladly gone through my files to find the source of those numbers.
However, since you decided that you would rather act like a pompous prick, I will respond in kind. Screw you, look it up for yourself.
BTW, I would probably have been willing to help you in your arguments in other areas today, but since your attitude shows that you believe you already know it all, I saw no need to, and as you stated previously, you don’t need allies like me.
I hope you like being a lone ranger, because your attitude and behaviour are going to end up driving off people who might otherwise have assisted you.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Dave… what are the CO2 factors in Oil and Gas Wells? Do you know? Do you care? Do you understand what I am asking?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM
I’m not going to give up arguing my case until one of you present me with a mountain of evidence which I can then deny.
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I can just imagine what your reaction would have been to someone else making a spelling error.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM
You should pull your fingers out of your ears and stop screaming long enough to read, once in a while.
Are you one of the recent registrants here at Hotair? The quality of commenters plummets every time they do that.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM
You know why you can’t imagine it?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM
hey asshole… aren’t you one of the Recent Arrivals yourself?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Or, rather, why you have to imagine it?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Nope, I’ve been very active since the beginning. With each registration, it turns more and more into a right-wing version of DU or Kos.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Not screaming at all. You said only an idiot doesn’t know that all the CO2 increase has been from man.
Im just waiting for something that passes as scientific proof. Did you have it?
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM
You imply that there exists a mountain of evidence that we are denying.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Actually, I quite clearly said that I can imagine it.
Can I start making snide comments about your reading skills now?
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Really… the only one whom I see freaking out and screaming chicken little antics… is you!
Who is bringing down the Blog? Sorry, but you have proven that You are the weakest link. To bad there is nothing to get rid of your sorry self.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:21 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Apparently Dave is upset that are opinion of him, is not as high as his opinion of himself.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Your “25% of atmospheric forcing” is a BS figure and BS term.
It’s a trace gas. No gas is going to have major thermodynamic impact at such low concentration. Compared to far more prevalent atmospheric components- particularly water vapor- CO2 is wholly insignificant.
Doubling or quadrupling the concentration of a trace gas still leaves it as a trace gas. The very idea that the impact of a 200ppm change in concentration of CO2 is going to doom us all is laughable on it’s face.
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Carbon must be removed from the Earth, now!
Beginning with AP reporters.
profitsbeard on December 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM
(Not talking about you here, btw) When I am dealing with people who are as cartoonishly scientifically-illiterate as a lot of the people on this thread, who don’t even understand the certainty of the origins of CO2 increases, who recite “skeptic” talking-points while clearly having no understanding of what they are parroting, etc., yeah, I become properly dismissive.
I think I was talking about Poptech when I mentioned “allies like you” or whatever. And I stand by that. Poptech is an idiot, and I don’t think many people would care to argue contrarily on that point.
If you have any research you’d like to link to I’d be happy to look at it (re the 5% bit). I’ve never seen it, though. I’m sorry if I initially lumped you in the with others.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Dave… what exactly is it that you do for work?
Scientific area at all?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Add to this the fact that the absorbtion bands for CO2 pretty much overlap with the absorbtion bands for H2O.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 Next »