Scientists scoff at AP global-warming story
posted at 11:55 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 6 ... 8 Next »
I want him to answer MY questions, in which we know he can’t!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:21 PM
That’s interesting. Indulge me and provide me with one teeny tiny example, please.
On the contrary, I am calm and analytical. I think that’s what angers some people here, in fact. They would prefer that I just jump on board and start yelling about hoaxes an scams and frauds and other such nonsense. They get really mad when you mention basic facts, like the certain reality of anthropogenic CO2 increases. Just pointing that out makes them start yelling about how you want to tax them to pay for this and that, how they are chicken little (oh wait, that was you just now, huh?), and other such fallacies.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM
No you were talking to me when I misremembered the date of the first MSU satellite. I could have sworn they were much more recent than ‘79.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Really? I’m not sure the lineal addition of 1 inch is the same as the vertical rise of 1 inch of a sphere. I could be wrong though.
Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2008 at 6:29 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Simulation, which often lies at the nexus of computer science and other sciences. Not discreet simulation, but real-time… virtual worlds, flight sims, etc.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:30 PM
I am throughly annoyed with your pity party whoa is me the sky is falling and the CO2 is rising, tree humping BS!
You have not answered ANY of my questions Dave… WHY not?
I have asked you about something concerning Glaciers… Yet you haven’t seemed the least little bit interested… why is that? You can’t tell me that you haven’t looked at my LINKS! In which I provided for you viewing “pleasure”.
So WTF do you supposedly do for work Dave? I doubt it is Scientific as your theory and retrospective of all CO3 would mean you would work in Chemistry or Sampling… in which I know you do not since I haven’t seen the beautiful words of one who does uses .. often.
Your crap PDF’s and links to Wikipedia and other lame resources are ignorant and show you do not look into the dynamics or heart of any supposed problem.
You are probably just a desk jocky… nothing more then a pee on in a pee on company, in pee on company.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM
OMFG… a programer in our mists. Whom doesn’t work on anything really scietific, unless you go off the aerodynamics of flight.
WOW Dave… you are so… regular!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Yes, I was, but I was incorrectly associating you with the insistent ignorance of some of the others… and I continued to do so for a few posts before realizing that you actually have a level head and a clue. I apologize.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM
The volume of a sphere is determined by it’s radius. (while the whole earth is not made of water, the equations for figuring out changes in the volume of the ocean eventually boil down to that factor.)
Increasing the radius of the earth (essentially what you are doing by raising the height of the ocean) by one inch results in a pretty trivial (percentage wise) increase in the volume.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM
It is good news that nobody needs to worry or care about trace gasses.
Could your please forward the memo to CFCs and nitrogen oxide, and tell them to stop ruining the ozone layer, causing smog and acid rain, and so on? Don’t they know that trace gasses aren’t harmless??
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:35 PM
It’s difficult, but in sites like this, you are going to be dealing with many people, of all skill levels and all temperments. And as often as not, you will be dealing with them all at the same time.
If you can’t keep track of who is who, it might be better to avoid such sites.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I guess you didn’t get the memo, CFC’s weren’t ruining the ozone layer. In fact there is no evidence that they even have any impact on the ozone layer.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I guess these tools never thought to think of that big old ball of gas in the sky figuring into the equation………….
………….. it’s all propaganda and environmentalism religion any way.
Time to go after the Associated Propaganda (Press)………. let’s put them out of business.
Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Pay attention to MEEEEEEEE
Anyone who sits at a desk is wrong about everything!!
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM
A “programmer”? LOL. Ok.
I consider simulation to be fairly computer-sciency, in general. But I have specifically done work in haptics research, applied perception, and psychology as well. And computer graphics, which is strongly rooted in physics. For example, you can’t develop a bidirectional reflection distribution function for a material or calculate subsurface scattering of light through a material without a solid understanding of the physics of light transport. Nor can you properly tone-map an image with a good understanding of the human visual systems perception of light. Etc…
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM
You can only aspire to such.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:44 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Sorry, you had just jumped in in the middle of an exchange in which one person said “no way could an increase from 0.03% to 0.05% make a meaningful difference” and another said that “forcing was made up”. Between that and 2 years worth of observing that sort of zealous ignorance, I jumped to conclusions about who/what I was talking to.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Thanks Mark.
Still..it may be a small percentage in mathematical terms, when dealing with a fixed quantity..the amount of available land supported ice..what is the volume needed for such rises in sea level. Mathematical percentages don’t really seem to be the point.
Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2008 at 6:45 PM
LMFAO.. whatever Dave!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:46 PM
The empirical data backs him up, folks:
You guys are just angry that you can’t be as calm and analytical as DaveS.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Big difference between chemical reactions involving trace gasses and the heat absorbtion thermodynamics of inert trace gasses, duder.
One drop of boiling water added to a two liter bottle of soda isn’t going to have a significant effect. One drop of a potent poison just might.
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I don’t know… that’s stretching for the likes of Poptech. I can’t imagine anyone like that ever mastering self-righteous smugness.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Ahh, I got what you were going for now. Fully agree.
Sorry, I’ve got my snark running full bore here and sometimes the innocent get caught in the cross fire.
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Now go back and read what I was responding to, and you’ll see what I mean. There are some very uninformed people here. Most of those are responses to the irrational douchebaggery of people in this thread who shouldn’t be discussing these things.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM
You have been missed.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
e-pirate on December 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Heh, that’s the truth.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
DaveS:
Anyone who had science behind them wouldn’t be evasive and calling people idiots.
Third time: please provide scientific findings that all of the CO2 increase of past 150 years have been from mankind.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
So you play World of Warcraft all day??
While your not advising NASA on the current climate crisis I mean.
BigWyo on December 17, 2008 at 6:52 PM
The sad thing is, I’m sure that’s true.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Dave you have called quite a few whom actually work in the scientific field.. idiots. I, TexasJew and Badger40 just to nae a few of them. Interesting how you claim to know anything yet not work in that field.
You claim you are a programmer, or WTF ever it is that you do, yet can’t prove site other then left wing propaganda, unreliable sources or the simple fact prove those calling you out wrong. You can’t prove me wrong on glaciers, or I haven’t seen a post yet to rebuff what I have said.
So who is the idiot?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Some of them even describe themselves as calm and analytical, in spite of copious evidence to the contrary.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Jim, is this material for later?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:00 PM
What is the history of the computer based climate modeling? It seems to me that Global Warming started about the same time computer climate models became mainstream. Prior to that we were using collected data and were pretty much convinced that global cooling was taking place. Are there any in depth studies that have been done without using computer models? How many factors are modeled? Last week I read an article, sorry I do not recall from where, that the wind currents were not part of any of the climate models and when wind was factored in the outcome changed dramatically.
&npsp;
On another note.
Why are we so hell bent on implementing fixes that we will not be around to observe the results of? Why do we think that no new technologies will be invented in the next 100 years? Why do we think we are smarter then the people of the future and know what is best for them? Why do we assume that the people of the future will what us to solve their problems? Why do we assume that our fixes will in fact help and not hinder the people of the future?
&npsp;
It’s my opinion that liberals of today are major control freaks who not only want to control every aspect of everyday life now but also want to believe that they can control it for future generations. Just think where we would be if 60 years ago all types of computers were banned for the good of future generations? One thing for sure is that we would be better off because we wouldn’t know about global warming because there would be no computer based climate models. I blame climate change on my shortsighted ancestors that allowed computers and the internet to be created and flourish. Damn you Al Gore for inventing the Internet and dooming the earth to certain destruction from CO2.
jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
There has already been sufficient documentation posted previously. It should also be noted that this isn’t even something that any reputable people–even prominent skeptics–take issue with.
Note, Treacher, that if Chuck Schick replies with another whiny screed about how I don’t answer his questions and how all of the CO2 increase is natural blah blah blah, THEN I call him an idiot and you can add it to the list. See how that works?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Seems calm and analytical enough.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I don’t recall ever discussing glaciers with you, but are you implying that you think the skyrocketing atmospheric CO2 is from something other than burning fossil fuels, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Selective reading there Dave. What a Concept!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Treacher, out of curiosity…. Which of those posts (@6:48 PM) do you take issue with? When I post a comment, then Poptech or whoever doesn’t read it and responds with a strawman, what do you think is a more calm and proper response than telling him that he needs to learn to read?
@upinak
I don’t recall ever directly addressing TexasJew or Badger40.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Actually, seems like pre-industrial CO2 might not be as low as “they” say it was. Seems the AGW folks may have cherry picked numbers … which would be reflective of the way they’ve handled all data … deceitfully.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:08 PM
What was selective about my reading there, upinak? I responded to the only phrase in the comment that appeared to imply any substantive point.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:09 PM
virtual worlds?
there is not a single one that even approaches reality and I really hope you are not referring to Second Life or the Sims.
flight sims
You are of course referring to FAA approved flight sims which do an adequate job but as a former pilot I can tell you they do not account for every variable and don’t even try to claim any of the PC simulation games accurately model flight.
Granted, etc is a fine simulator and about as accurate as you can get using today’s technologies but last I knew it had nothing to do with climate modeling.
jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Skyrocketing CO2; overwhelming evidence? Missed that one.
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2008 at 7:10 PM
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I don’t think the scientific community is typically “deceitful”, but I think that many of them who are heavily invested in the climate-change aspect of climate science are very susceptible to confirmation bias.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Dave… oh Dave.
You were the one and have been the one who is telling everyone else to “read”. Are you being a hypocrit and not reading ALL the responders whom have commented back to you?
Shame I say… Shame!
You might wanna go back and go read the Blog Threads… and then get back when you have a moment.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Yeah, missing things which were pretty clearly spelled out in preceeding comments is fairly common here. See Treacher’s post at 6:48 for an itemized list of my responses to others who “missed” things.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM
All evidence, and the most reliable indicator of all … common sense … points to nothing more than fraud by the UN IPCC, Gore, Hansen, Mann and the rest of the henchmen spreading false information and doing their best to make people not only stop using the fuel that improves mankind but take billions, maybe trillions from them as well.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Don’t worry about it. I think we all understand where you’re coming from. Even if you don’t.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:15 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Are you talking about the ones who say “Show me evidence”, so I cite something, then they say “no, not that evidence! show me evidence”, then a few minutes later “Dave, show me evidence!”, then again “Where’s that evidence?!?”
Yeah, I ignore those people. In deference to Treacher, I will say only that they are a “waste of time”. They are only interested in goal-post moving, and have no interest in actually reading any scientific literature.
It’s possible that I actually miss something interesting, which is unfortunate, but when people play those 3rd grade games that’s a risk they run.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Perhaps that applies to some, but Hansen, Mann, the IPCC and Gore have been caught red handed trying to skew data.
There’s an obvious agenda here, and it has nothing to do with the environment. If things were really as dire as Gore makes it out to be, I would think the first thing he and the UN called for wouldn’t be a “carbon tax”.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:15 PM
No… just this one time, try to put a little meat on the bone. Which of those things do you think was unwarranted? What would the proper response be to someone who doesn’t even bother to read what you posted, and just starts calling you an “AGW chicken little” or whatever it is?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Dave admit it… you haven’t read everyone’s comments and then wonder why they don’t give two craps about your links. And to be more the arrogant as you are being now, and I being the person pointing out the obvious, You are a waste of Carbon.
Have a nice day… Dave!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Well, they clearly have an agenda. But I think it goes too far to say that Hansen or Mann have been caught “red-handed trying to skew data”. They have been caught adjusting data without announcement and without fully disclosing their methodology. It’s perfectly possible, though, that they do so in good-faith and are just protective of their methodology.
THAT, to me, is the real problem. They should be completely transparent, especially these days with the potential geopolitical ramifications of the data they maintain and the research around it.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:20 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I’ve read everything that responded to me. Is there something in particular you think I haven’t read? I think you’re confusing me with someone else. You seem to think I was discussing glaciers with you, which I wasn’t.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Which one was that, calm or analytical?
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Yes, caught adjusting data to fall in line with AGW. That in itself should set off flashing red sirens. The fact that they’ve been caught and continue to cry wolf does nothing more than paint them as frauds.
If this was a real problem, these people would open the door and invite anyone and everyone in to solve the problem, if possible. Instead, they keep their programming and methodologies secret.
They can’t be transparent … get it?
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:26 PM
When the AGW crowd say that the debate is over and many scientist disagree with AGW, especially after many mistakes were found with statistics and computer models, it makes a personal skeptical of AGW. Then you have gore and carbon credits and it gets worse.
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Noting the trend here.
[begin]
AGW advocate states that the evidence supporting AGW’s position is settled science or irrefutable.
Anti-AGW advocate questions such all encompassing statements and requires minimal scientific method proof.
AGW advocate (slightly agitated at the mere question, provides accepted docs.
Anti-AGW advocate pokes holes in “accepted” data.
AGW advocate (more agitated) bobs and weaves and runs back to original declarative that data is settled science (paraphrased) and begings questioning the intelligence of the anti-AGW posters.
Anti-AGW advocates calmly and collectively reinforce the questions that nail the figurative AGW jello to the wall.
AGW advocate (really agitated now) “squirms like bug”, and escalates from questioning intelligence of his/her opponents to the debate and goes right into insults and issues proclamations that these types (anti-AGWers) should not participate in these discussions attempting to thin the stampeding herd of logical hurdles the AGW advocate has still yet to clear.
[end]
I’ve seen these discussions go from where I left off in my observations all the way down to full on flame war usually initiated by the AGW advocates. Because the actual logic and scientific model evidence damning AGW as a hoax becomes so painfull for the AGW advocate, that the natural fight or flight reflex takes control.
Forgive me for leaving out all the participants in this melee, but Poptech has PWNED DaveS all the way through this pig.
upinak, Treacher and Chuck Schick honorable mentions.
Very robust debate my friends, and bravo Poptech.
44Magnum on December 17, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Al Gore, the reincarnation of Charles Dawson.
MB4 on December 17, 2008 at 7:33 PM
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:26 PM
They were caught adjusting data DOWNWARD (assuming you are talking about the recent embarrassing adjustment) without telling anyone, not “to fall in line with AGW”. Within the last few days, they adjusted ice data downward… it goes both ways. Usually, they justify their changes, at least conceptually, but they don’t always disclose a reproducible methodology for the changes. This is also the case with the routine adjustments made to the raw data… it isn’t a secret, but it is a bit, er, “hazy” how they do it. That, to me, is the big problem. No need to throw around words like “fraud”, “scam”, etc.
(Treacher, if he responds and tells me I am chicken little and I should go vote for Al GOre foir Earth Czar, what, specifically, am I allowed to say? I need guidance here. Which responses to that sort of thing would preclude me from being generally analytical and calm about this topic?)
Yeah, and that’s why people like me are skeptical. That doesn’t mean to stick your fingers in your ears, yell “nyah nyah nyah” at the top of your lungs, and yell that anybody who is a scientist is a fraud… which a lot of people here do.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Lets see. 800 year:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
…and that from a global warming cite.
Googling this is getting annoying. I keep getting sights with slivers of information, followed by a rush to convince the reader that the information doesn’t contradict global warming.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Since it’s increasingly obvious that no one is reading any posts but their own, I thought this bore repeating. Nicely played, MB4!
califcon on December 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
There is a certain amount of that. But, when it comes down to it, there are a number of reasons to doubt the links along the chain that goes from fossil fuel burning to terrible consequences.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Yep, very interesting to hear from the many real scientist-types that posted.
Venusian Visitor on December 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Actually, here is the ACTUAL recap, in which upinak responds to a calm and subjective comment that I made with a strawman, a non-sequitur, and an ad hominem, all in one post. I have no idea where you got the idea that Poptech made a single reasonable “argument”.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Well, more on the latter end. On the fossil fuel burning end, the immediate consequences are inarguable for the most part–it very clearly raises CO2 levels. The farther you get down the cause-effect chain, the more speculative it becomes.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Treacher, do you think upinaks initial response to me (two or three comments up) should go in a list somewhere?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Why do you keep asking me? The only one in control of your temper is you. It’s not my fault that you’re not very good at it.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Agreed.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Feel free. You’re being treated unfairly again, I’d imagine.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:49 PM
No, wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about some of the stuff they used to get the ball rolling … like Hansens plots used by the IPCC and Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick”.
The Hockey Stick was so overly false, and dramatic people who saw it in Gore’s film were quickly deciding whether a bullet was preferable to roasting to death.
There’s other stuff as well but off the top of my head those stuck out … oh, and NASA (Hansen) trying to pin the hottest years right into his GW claims. When called on it NASA had to back off and correct it.
Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit does a good job of keeping the AGW boys straight.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I only ask because your list-making skills a fabulous. :-)
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:50 PM
You posted a blog and called it scientific evidence so I laughed at you. Let’s get beyond it.
Here’s the best part: the blog’s conclusions were that there was more C12 in the atmosphere because fossil fuels were plants, which hold a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere… thus burning fossil fuels releases more C12 and lowering the C13/C12 ratio.
But C12 is 99% of all the carbon on earth compared to about 1% C13. And what else releases far far more C12 than mankind? The ocean when it gets warm as it stores it in plankton and other sea plants.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Starfleet_dude,
Where can we find a good record of human effects on temperature which go back to before the industrial age? Answer: ice cores from places near either the north or south poles. Examine this: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html#SECTION00020000000000000000
If you scroll back to the sections covering the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, as well as the Anthropogenic Era, the various chemical components of this group’s measurements become apparent, as do their findings and the basis for their findings.
This is not computer modelling (which can take as input any variable at any value anyone wants to input so as to prove their point), this is a study using chemical analysis of ice cores covering at least a 110,000 year period.
In a nutshell, some findings are:
If that is to be believed, sulfurous coal burning may be a problem, but nothing else we appear to be doing is. If so, Mr. Biden’s dismissal of “clean coal” is correct, because sulfur’s presence in the atmosphere appears to be related to cooling, not warming.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2008 at 7:52 PM
The only idiot is you Dave, you have still failed to show using only empirical evidence and the scientific method how climate forcing figures are determined.
You have made all sorts of ridiculous statements including…
LMAO!
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Don’t sell yourself short.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 7:53 PM
You’re talking about 2 different things. Regarding Hansen’s data and Mann’s hockey stick, there is no evidence or reason to think that they had any nefarious intentions in producing anything they have produced in the past.
Regarding Gore’s usage of the hockey stick in his movie, that is clearly an attempt to mislead (or profound ignorance) since the hockey stick had been discredited for about 3 years by the time it came out (though controversy was, and is, ongoing).
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 7:54 PM
@DaveS
So, you think all the CO2 increase of the last 150 years is man-made?
Funny, they JUST found out in late 2006 that TREES release methane, much like cow’s butts do, and methane is a natural gas. So, when I think of ALL the reason’s why the planet is warming (or cooling) and all the hysteria about it being man-made, I wonder how you (and “other” scientists) reconcile the fact that you didn’t even KNOW that trees release methane? Seems to me the debate is not only NOT over, but that NONE of you “scientists” even have ALL the facts.
But I’m sure that will not stop you and the GW crowd from trying to take my money to “combat this ‘man-made’ crisis” and not only will I be broke, you will still NOT KNOW EVERYTHING there is to know about this planet.
Sheesh, the only thing harder to combat than the GW crowd is trying to get muslims to tell me what the plan for Islam is when we (humans) can survive off this planet, in outer space, perhaps on other planets.
Califemme on December 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM
No one knows that. No one can prove that. During WWII CO2 was pumped out like there’s no tomorrow and not only did it not rise, temperatures dropped.
CO2 increased in the past without fossil fuels being burned. CO2 decreased in the past. No one knows exactly what’s going on and to throw the world in a panic over conjecture is bad voodoo.
You mentioned different isotopes of carbon. Gotta link? Is this carbon differentiated from wild fire carbon? Volcanic carbon releases?
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Possibly the sulfer via Volcanic eruption. But WTF am I to talk… ask Dave. He knows ALL!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 7:58 PM
What a bunch of bullshit, Graphics designers know jack shit about computer programming, no wonder you are so lost. I have never heard a photoshop user to pretend to more than they are. Please stop with the BS. Now how was your training in computer science and Fortran?
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 7:51 PM
It’s a blog maintained by a group of prominent climate scientists with many links to published literature. If you can’t accept that, there isn’t much basis on which we can discuss this. I don’t do the religious climate thing.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:00 PM
The ASCI is not strong with this one!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Here are few things the models don’t model right:
- Clouds
- Convection
- Cosmic Rays
- Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
- El Nino
- Evaporation
- Macroturbulence
- Mountain Range Circulation
- Multi-Decadal Variability
- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
- Precipitation
- Regional Climate Change
- Seasonal Variability
- Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat
- Stratosphere Climate Change
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
- Tropical Troposphere Temperatures
- Upper Tropospheric Humidity
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:03 PM
But it blames all the C12 on mankind releasing it by burning plants… its doesnt attribute one speck of it to all the oceans releasing it from the plankton due to warmer seas.
Its a laugher.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM
It is a blog hosted by a left wing environmental organization:
RealClimate.org – Hosted by – Environmental Media Services
- Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)
“EMS’s founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore’s Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]
EMS officially served as the “scientific” branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America’s dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]
EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Among these titles were: “Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups”; “President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill”; “Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health”; “Bush Administration Report Card: ‘F’ on Protecting Children”; and “National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush.” EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted “the latest and most credible information” provided by “top scientists, physicians, and other experts.” These “experts” included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
EMS was heavily funded by the Bauman Family Foundation, the Beldon Fund, the Energy Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.”
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Here is the link from earlier to an “alarmist” site, but which is well-documented.
Califemme on December 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Califemme on December 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Nobody said that all CO2 released into the atmosphere was anthropogenic. There is a natural carbon cycle, which involves the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by various mechanisms.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM
LOL, dude, you’re a piece of work. Who said anything about graphic designers?
TREACHER! I NEED GUIDANCE!
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Poptech, do you know the name of the fallacy you just employed?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:10 PM
The Truth
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:12 PM
CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear (Google Video) (42min)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:13 PM
This is like watching a Octagon fight.. and Pop is about to chew off Dave’ head!
I wonder if Pop chews before he spits.. or just spits.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM
[A] No it doesn’t
[B] It specifically mentions oceanic CO2 isotopes.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:12 PM
So, of the numerous sources provided, what specifically are you taking issue with? Let’s hope you know more about reading papers than you do computer science. LOL.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Again: It’s so cute when they think they’re being sarcastic.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM
The fraud that is man-made global warming.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I don’t get this… what’s one thing that guy has said that sounds even remotely intelligent? He just parrots talking points, link-spams, and generally says uninformed things about matters as wide-ranging as narrow disciplines of computer science and climate science.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:19 PM
CBC: Doomsday called off (Google Video) (44min)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I wasn’t being sarcastic. Poptech fashioned a fairly convincing argument about graphic designers, in response to a comment about computer graphics as a CS discipline. I thought you might run that through your little filter and tell me how incredibly bright he is.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Dave you aren’t going to have a job long. Your “skills” sure as hell aren’t in computer science, programming, or digital sequencing.
And since you don’t read what Pop is posting.. as you never read what anyone posts for a link. You is the idiot, unintellegent or just plain “hookey” individual again?
Oh yeah, that is right you. Pop is just proving a point… you are a open mouth breathing, drooling, knuckle dragging mongoloid. Go play on your Sims now.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Meh, get back to me when you care to actually read, understand things, have an informed conversation, etc.
Treacher, you should make a list of those comments by Poptech that you actually, inexplicably, find to be lucid and/or enlightening. I’m curious.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next »