Climate science has many lines of evidence pointing towards existence of this phenomenon from satellite data to ground and ocean based temperature readings to historical data to coral reef sampling to ice sampling…

And every one of these alleged lines of evidence has been thoroughly discredited.

These silly meteorologist PhDs – they need to have a sit down with noted CNN climate expert Miles O’Brien, who happily ridicules any dissent from Gorebal Warming Hysteria Dictat.

After all, Miles is a … er … nitwit news reader, and he has a sound education in the fundamentals of … er … how to tie his tie and keep his suit jacket straight on camera … and … uh … public speaking or something.

I notice Ed and the other global warming deniers here seem to think that scientific disciplines are akin to Jenga.

You disqualify your statements by starting off like this.

Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation (The Heartland Institute)

Climate science has many lines of evidence pointing towards existence of this phenomenon from satellite data to ground and ocean based temperature readings to historical data to coral reef sampling to ice sampling…

starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Really? Satellite, ground and ocean based temperature measurements proves man-made CO2 is the cause? Yet the only “evidence” they have for man-made CO2 is worthless climate models.

Ocean and Land based temperatures show something else.

The disagreements in the field have been resolved over the last fifty years.

starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM

That’s interesting because Trenberth recently said the science is still in its infancy and there is still a lot that needs to be figured out. Do you disagree with Trenberth?

Trenberth can’t find the missing heat that is supposed to be present according to their models and all of Hansen’s lunatic theories that you gorebots have been relying on. Trenberth even suggested that the missing joules may have leaked into outer space, but if that’s the case, the greenhouse theory is garbage or it at least introduces a new factor that isn’t present in the models.

Reporters tend towards sensationalism and somehow that invalidates global warming.

starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM

No, its not “reporters” that invalidates global warming, its that the globe is not warming, that invalidates global warming.

Climate science has many lines of evidence pointing towards existence of this phenomenon from satellite data to ground and ocean based temperature readings to historical data to coral reef sampling to ice sampling…you may begin to understand why your throw rocks at the windows of science approach does little to sway those who have any understanding how science works.

starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Wow, it sounds like they got everything they need then to prove global warming…. except for the global warming.

Denialism and a priori skepticism is not the answer.

starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Nor is spending billions of hard earned tax dollars for an non-existent problem the answer. In fact, I’m convinced if we were to simply cut all the funding for “global warming research” we would stop all the alarmism about global warming and the planet would be just fine.

The disagreements in the field have been resolved over the last fifty years. We conservatives and libertarians need to oppose regulation with good, principled arguments about how it will harm the economy and personal freedom and have countless other unintended consequences. Denialism and a priori skepticism is not the answer.

So as I said, we can’t be sure that climatologist’s models aren’t underestimating the rate of warming.

starfleet_dude on December 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Total propaganda, the models continue to be wrong and have proven to OVER-estimate the rate of warming:

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Science Daily)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (Science Daily)

I’m not a climatologist myself, but the models they use are now are based on a good enough understanding of the factors that drive the Earth’s climate to be useful in making decision about what we can do about the changes we’re seeing.

starfleet_dude on December 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM

No they are not. There is no such thing as good enough with computer systems, there is only right and wrong and the models are wrong. Is 1+1=1.5 good enough or wrong? It is that simple.

FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming

This is what the global warming sham is all about… getting people to go along. They use bribery, deception and when need be, thuggery. The so called “science” of man-made global warming is laughable at best, but the above is why more knowledgeable people don’t speak out. Al Gore and those paying him should be arrested for this gargantuan fraud and for propagandizing our children and making them political pawns in their game of greed.

Well put maxx and thank you. Bennett Mayberry was Chief of Environmental Engineering for NORAD for several years and a close friend.

Debunking the Goracle is blasphemous at best, and treason at worst. You’d best learn to go along, to get along.

Mother Earth is watching…

Note how poorly CO2 and temperature track each other.

Note especially the drop in temperature that occurred around 440MYA, even though CO2 was more than 10 times current levels.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/4353/4/CG2005_M02_Abstract02.pdf

I find it amazing that when Climatologists like Reid Bryson or Environmental Engineers like Bennett Mayberry, called global warming a hoax, both received thousands of death threats, had bombs placed under their vehicles, etc. Both men are dead now, so you leftist lunatics that spew your global warming fraud can stop trying to kill them and crawl back into the little holes you came from.

nelsonknows on December 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM

This is what the global warming sham is all about… getting people to go along. They use bribery, deception and when need be, thuggery. The so called “science” of man-made global warming is laughable at best, but the above is why more knowledgeable people don’t speak out. Al Gore and those paying him should be arrested for this gargantuan fraud and for propagandizing our children and making them political pawns in their game of greed.

Example: 400e3 m^3 of ice melting into sea water will displace as if 10e3 m^3 of sea water were added. However, spread over the entire volume of the ocean (1.32e18 m^3) is too small to notice (1/132 trillionths).

Note: If we state that the artic and glacial ice make up about 30e15 m^3, and it all melted, spreading it out over about 400e12 m^2, that would have an effect of raising the sea level 75m, but that would be assuming ALL of the ice was on land above sea level, which we know isn’t true. Anyone ever see Kevin Costner’s horrible Waterworld? Yeah, well that couldn’t happen. The mean elevation of the land currently above sea level is about 850m, meaning that the majority of current land would still be above the sea level if all of the ice in the world melted….

Well, being models and all, they are based on real physics.

DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Dave,

If you believe that GCM’s are based on first principles, then you haven’t been keeping up with GCM’s.

It might be possible to write a GCM that is based on first principles, but such a model would take several thousand years to make it’s first forecast.

What they do instead is divide the atmosphere (only the newest models also try to tackle the oceans) into blocks. They then make assumptions about the physical processes going on inside those blocks. I remember one experiment where the only thing changed between runs was the size of the blocks. The results were radically different.

MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

And on top of all of that, the current (last 1/4 century or so of temperature data collection has been getting more and more inaccurate due to UHI effect, construction, poorly placed intrumentation, disparate instrumentation type, etc…Most of these realities skew the readings toward the hotter. So the data from the same station is non-comparable to data from 10,25,50 years ago. If you need evidence visit surfacestations.org

And MarkTG is doing a fine job of rebuffing the AGW clerics. From one engineer to another, I tip my hat sir.

Salt water ice?

BobMbx on December 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Yes, although that is perhaps too literal. When sea/ocean water freezes, the H20 molecules do not completely separate from the sodium chloride, so that if you remelted the ice soon afterward, it would still be “salty”. After a great deal of time (depending on the mass), the sodium chloride is “pushed away” (I don’t have a better term off the top of my head) by the molecule formation and attachment to nearby water molecules.

Really, all that matters from the post is that ice that melts into salt water will affect the water level more than ice melted in fresh water because the ice displaces less of the salt water, but the melted form (liquid) effects the volume equally…does that make sense?

Again, do the experiment I mentioned above and it should become apparent.

Not to beat this to death, but if you have ever taken a hot shower in a cold bathroom you will note that the bathroom gets warmer after you let the warm water sprinkle into the air for awhile. Trust me my friend, water can and does heat air.

That’s correct. Something is “cold” when it has less thermal energy than it’s surrounding environment. Also, thermal energy travels from “hot” to “cold”, not “cold” to “hot”.

BTW, I believe that fresh water ice floating in salt water does not displace as much as an equal volume of salt water ice

Salt water ice?

You have a nice day too… and Merry Christmas !!

Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Maxx.. you can think what you like. But ever been near a Volcano when it is erupting?

Steam is a great conductor of heat.. but Sulfuric Acid is not. So when you have a Steamer (as Volcanologists call them) it can effect the tempurature, depending on how high the plume goes as well as what time frame it happens (i.e. seasons). If it has enough Sulfuric acid in that cloud, it will stay warm close to the mouth of the eruption, but as soon as it moves out.. it makes everything around become 10 to 20 degrees colder then the surrounding areas.

Interesting huh. Yeah.. I have had over 6 Volcanic Eruptions around my area… just something to ponder. Also, do not forget the ash in the air that makes it coulder as well.

Have a nice day!

Umm false. It steams but doesn’t make the air warmer depending on the areas of the Volcanic rise. Underwater (oceans) is does not boil the water.. and rarely do you ever see much vapor if at all on the surface of the water.

Please link these facts you are speaking of.

upinak on December 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Not to beat this to death, but if you have ever taken a hot shower in a cold bathroom you will note that the bathroom gets warmer after you let the warm water sprinkle into the air for awhile. Trust me my friend, water can and does heat air.