3 ms·

> That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there. Just dropped in. It's a pretty uncontroversial statement to me. In fact half of it

by enko 14y ago

> That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there. Just dropped in. It's a pretty uncontroversial statement to me. In fact half of it seems self-evident, the other merely the overwhelming consensus. And so maybe that's why it was dropped in. Just dropped in. Just dropped in, like a drop-bear dropping into a salt-sprinkling-party. Just dropped in!

ten_fingers 14y ago
Part I Okay, I'll bite. I'll type quickly, so there will be some rough edges. But the basics are really simple and will be clear enough. Here I bring good news: Warm up the barbie, feel no guilt, and enjoy the picnic. I can bite because there is, within what can be said with any seriousness, a very easy and, for what can be said, relatively good answer. No, the answer is as science really bad, but so far likely and apparently there's nothing better. So, it's what we are stuck with. Sorry 'bout that. First off, the NASA site is total, cooked-up, Saint Laureate Al Guru, please send more money, the sky is falling, crack-pot, rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, dirty politics BS, and I will so explain. But first the simple answer. There are just two parts. The first part is from the PDF Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years', ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, long and still available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html There we go to the graph on page 2. It's a crude graph, but it's likely and apparently about the best data available. So, here's what we see: As of year 2006, the date of the study, as far as we can tell, the temperature of the Earth in year 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000, and the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is exactly the same as the increase from year 900 to year 1000. As far as we can tell. The list of authors includes some of the most respected scientists on the planet, e.g., in time series, Brillinger at Berkeley. And we don't believe that CO2 from humans or anything else was responsible for the temperature from year 900 to year 1000. And, since year 1000, we fell into The Little Ice Age, for whatever reasons, solar activity, the orbit of the earth, volcanoes, whatever, and since then have been pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we have pulled out of The Little Ice Age, the planet has warmed. Semi-, pseudo-, quasi-amazing. We don't want to go back to The Little Ice Age. So, as far as we can tell, the increase in CO2 from the industrial revolution has had exactly zip, zilch, zero effect on the temperature of the earth. Here's a short Q&A: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure, that's Physics 101. But CO2 is not a very effective greenhouse gas since it absorbs only in three quite narrow frequency bands in the infrared, one band for each of bending, twisting, and stretching of the molecule. Then the 'greenhouse' effect is sunlight hitting the surface, warming the surface, the surface radiating in the infrared as a Planck black (or 'gray') body, CO2 absorbing the radiation and warming. But the amount of such radiation is limited by what comes from the sun and in the context essentially fixed so that once absorb that amount, more CO2 won't absorb more. Moreover, even if CO2 doesn't absorb some of that radiation now, water vapor, methane, etc. may. So, the warming effect of more CO2 is not so clear. Has the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased due to human activity? Sure. Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? Likely not. No doubt the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, but due to clouds, atmospheric circulations, thunderstorms, little things like the oceans, etc., the effect of water vapor is complicated beyond belief. Methane may also compete. But that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is crucial? Not necessarily. A simple diffusion model can as good science show a significant warming effect from CO2, but that model is laughably simple compared with the real planet. Does CO2 warm the planet? Likely yes, and so does lighting a match. The issue is, is the warming significant? So far the answer is, in the present context, not on Venus, apparently not. But climate science has shown ...? For CO2 from humans causing significant warming of the planet, there's no 'science' in 'climate science'. In particular, the 'radiative forcing' of the IPCC and Ramaswamy is just catchy terminology for some simplistic model building and essentially just nonsense for serious science for the main issue of CO2 from humans causing significant warming. Maybe there would, could, and should be a real climate science able to address this issue of 'warming', but for now the issue is far too difficult for solid science. Sorry 'bout that. But just because the real issue is too difficult for solid science does not mean that we should shoot ourselves in the gut from crack pot 'science'. The second part is from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020364600457721... In simple terms, the recent predictions of warming just didn't happen, didn't come even close to happening, were way, way off, were a really bad joke. Lesson: We can't take the predictions from the 'climate science' community of significant and harmful global warming seriously. Where does that leave us? The planet is doing fine, and there's no good reason to worry for now. As I said, warm up the barbie.
- ten_fingers 14y ago
  Part II Then there's the NASA Web site http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Good. Since this is their "evidence", we can f'get about solid evidence of CO2 from humans causing significant global warming. Warm up the barbie! Let's start with their points: (1) IPCC. They quote the IPCC. Tilt. They just blew their credibility, showed that they are just pushing rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, political nonsense, and went to the back of the class with the D- students. (2) The graph. They show a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere over several hundred thousand years. Likely that data was from the ice core samples from the Russian Vostok site in Antarctica, although since then there is another sample from a US site that drilled deeper and went back further in time. So, yes, over hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have fluctuated, both up and down. We should have expected something else? And just now CO2 levels are relatively high. But we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C, or K, and not CO2 levels. And when we measure temperature, just temperature, did I mention, temperature, we're okay. Dragging CO2 levels into this discussion without a solid connection with a significant increase in temperature blows their credibility. (3) CO2 They wrote: > The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. True but trivial and says no more than if light a match then warm the planet. Again, they blow their credibility. (4) Ice Core Data. They write: > Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3 This is basically a lie, a deliberate, contemptible lie. Their lie is their statement that the ice core data shows that "climate responds to ... greenhouse gas levels". The ice core data shows that CO2 levels increased about 800 years AFTER the increases in temperature. So, the guess is that (A) from some cause there was an increase in temperature, (B) the higher temperature resulted in more biological activity, and (C) by 800 years later the increased biological activity resulted in higher CO2 levels. With this lie, we should quit reading, but I will go on. (5) Sea Levels They write: > Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4 Again, we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C or K. Did I mention we were talking about temperature? And in particular we were talking about significantly higher temperatures from higher CO2 concentrations from human activity -- for which we have zilch for good science. So now they are talking about sea levels. Where'd they get the importance of sea levels? Maybe they want to use sea levels as a thermometer. BS. We have excellent thermometers and have had for well over 100 years. For measuring temperature over the past 2000 years, we have the results of a serious effort that I referenced above. For recent temperature, with high irony, from NASA we have satellites with just excellent measurements of global temperature. So, stuff it with the sea levels. Of course, with the sea levels they are really trying to build a rolling snowball of emotional reaction from anecdotal evidence. That's contemptible. Just what is it about temperature that NASA has so much trouble understanding? That's enough. NASA just wet it's pants and showed that it's a tool of some dirty politics. The whole thing is not about science, CO2, global warming, or the planet. Instead mostly the subject is about a rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam that will let some people rip off some of what they want from some other people. No sale: Not going to shut down our use of coal and pump more payoff, kickback, political machine money into more Solyndras and do more damage to our economy than was ever done by Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin combined. No thanks. I'm torqued because I see an effort to sabotage the US. My original question was, why is the media, e.g., the BBC, so eager to go along with this highly destructive scam? My best explanation: The old KGB.

by enko 14y ago

ten_fingers 14y ago

Part I Okay, I'll bite. I'll type quickly, so there will be some rough edges. But the basics are really simple and will be clear enough. Here I bring good news: Warm up the barbie, feel no guilt, and enjoy the picnic. I can bite because there is, within what can be said with any seriousness, a very easy and, for what can be said, relatively good answer. No, the answer is as science really bad, but so far likely and apparently there's nothing better. So, it's what we are stuck with. Sorry 'bout that. First off, the NASA site is total, cooked-up, Saint Laureate Al Guru, please send more money, the sky is falling, crack-pot, rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, dirty politics BS, and I will so explain. But first the simple answer. There are just two parts. The first part is from the PDF Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years', ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, long and still available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html There we go to the graph on page 2. It's a crude graph, but it's likely and apparently about the best data available. So, here's what we see: As of year 2006, the date of the study, as far as we can tell, the temperature of the Earth in year 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000, and the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is exactly the same as the increase from year 900 to year 1000. As far as we can tell. The list of authors includes some of the most respected scientists on the planet, e.g., in time series, Brillinger at Berkeley. And we don't believe that CO2 from humans or anything else was responsible for the temperature from year 900 to year 1000. And, since year 1000, we fell into The Little Ice Age, for whatever reasons, solar activity, the orbit of the earth, volcanoes, whatever, and since then have been pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we have pulled out of The Little Ice Age, the planet has warmed. Semi-, pseudo-, quasi-amazing. We don't want to go back to The Little Ice Age. So, as far as we can tell, the increase in CO2 from the industrial revolution has had exactly zip, zilch, zero effect on the temperature of the earth. Here's a short Q&A: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure, that's Physics 101. But CO2 is not a very effective greenhouse gas since it absorbs only in three quite narrow frequency bands in the infrared, one band for each of bending, twisting, and stretching of the molecule. Then the 'greenhouse' effect is sunlight hitting the surface, warming the surface, the surface radiating in the infrared as a Planck black (or 'gray') body, CO2 absorbing the radiation and warming. But the amount of such radiation is limited by what comes from the sun and in the context essentially fixed so that once absorb that amount, more CO2 won't absorb more. Moreover, even if CO2 doesn't absorb some of that radiation now, water vapor, methane, etc. may. So, the warming effect of more CO2 is not so clear. Has the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased due to human activity? Sure. Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? Likely not. No doubt the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, but due to clouds, atmospheric circulations, thunderstorms, little things like the oceans, etc., the effect of water vapor is complicated beyond belief. Methane may also compete. But that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is crucial? Not necessarily. A simple diffusion model can as good science show a significant warming effect from CO2, but that model is laughably simple compared with the real planet. Does CO2 warm the planet? Likely yes, and so does lighting a match. The issue is, is the warming significant? So far the answer is, in the present context, not on Venus, apparently not. But climate science has shown ...? For CO2 from humans causing significant warming of the planet, there's no 'science' in 'climate science'. In particular, the 'radiative forcing' of the IPCC and Ramaswamy is just catchy terminology for some simplistic model building and essentially just nonsense for serious science for the main issue of CO2 from humans causing significant warming. Maybe there would, could, and should be a real climate science able to address this issue of 'warming', but for now the issue is far too difficult for solid science. Sorry 'bout that. But just because the real issue is too difficult for solid science does not mean that we should shoot ourselves in the gut from crack pot 'science'. The second part is from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020364600457721... In simple terms, the recent predictions of warming just didn't happen, didn't come even close to happening, were way, way off, were a really bad joke. Lesson: We can't take the predictions from the 'climate science' community of significant and harmful global warming seriously. Where does that leave us? The planet is doing fine, and there's no good reason to worry for now. As I said, warm up the barbie.

ten_fingers 14y ago
Part II Then there's the NASA Web site http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Good. Since this is their "evidence", we can f'get about solid evidence of CO2 from humans causing significant global warming. Warm up the barbie! Let's start with their points: (1) IPCC. They quote the IPCC. Tilt. They just blew their credibility, showed that they are just pushing rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, political nonsense, and went to the back of the class with the D- students. (2) The graph. They show a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere over several hundred thousand years. Likely that data was from the ice core samples from the Russian Vostok site in Antarctica, although since then there is another sample from a US site that drilled deeper and went back further in time. So, yes, over hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have fluctuated, both up and down. We should have expected something else? And just now CO2 levels are relatively high. But we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C, or K, and not CO2 levels. And when we measure temperature, just temperature, did I mention, temperature, we're okay. Dragging CO2 levels into this discussion without a solid connection with a significant increase in temperature blows their credibility. (3) CO2 They wrote: > The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. True but trivial and says no more than if light a match then warm the planet. Again, they blow their credibility. (4) Ice Core Data. They write: > Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3 This is basically a lie, a deliberate, contemptible lie. Their lie is their statement that the ice core data shows that "climate responds to ... greenhouse gas levels". The ice core data shows that CO2 levels increased about 800 years AFTER the increases in temperature. So, the guess is that (A) from some cause there was an increase in temperature, (B) the higher temperature resulted in more biological activity, and (C) by 800 years later the increased biological activity resulted in higher CO2 levels. With this lie, we should quit reading, but I will go on. (5) Sea Levels They write: > Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4 Again, we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C or K. Did I mention we were talking about temperature? And in particular we were talking about significantly higher temperatures from higher CO2 concentrations from human activity -- for which we have zilch for good science. So now they are talking about sea levels. Where'd they get the importance of sea levels? Maybe they want to use sea levels as a thermometer. BS. We have excellent thermometers and have had for well over 100 years. For measuring temperature over the past 2000 years, we have the results of a serious effort that I referenced above. For recent temperature, with high irony, from NASA we have satellites with just excellent measurements of global temperature. So, stuff it with the sea levels. Of course, with the sea levels they are really trying to build a rolling snowball of emotional reaction from anecdotal evidence. That's contemptible. Just what is it about temperature that NASA has so much trouble understanding? That's enough. NASA just wet it's pants and showed that it's a tool of some dirty politics. The whole thing is not about science, CO2, global warming, or the planet. Instead mostly the subject is about a rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam that will let some people rip off some of what they want from some other people. No sale: Not going to shut down our use of coal and pump more payoff, kickback, political machine money into more Solyndras and do more damage to our economy than was ever done by Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin combined. No thanks. I'm torqued because I see an effort to sabotage the US. My original question was, why is the media, e.g., the BBC, so eager to go along with this highly destructive scam? My best explanation: The old KGB.