Here's the bullet on what was achieved here in Copenhagen at the international climate change talks that concluded on Saturday. The "Copenhagen Accord," as the agreement reached is now called, is a vital step forward in the 21st Century's greatest challenge
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), check this out.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/1...
So we have the more-than-a-little-interesting information presented in the above URL; and then, on top of that, we had those unsettling emails. So, somehow, people are supposed to believe that what we have is "settled science?" Someone once said that if a lie is told long enough and loud enough, people will believe it. AGW is being used as a tool to facilitate an eventual one-world economic, political, government system -- funny that scripture describes such a development. I see Psalm 2 unfolding before my eyes. I applaud all of the efforts of those of you on this blog to help the poor and unfortunate, but the reality is that things will only get worse and worse until Christ returns. As it says, "in the last days perilous times will come..." We can do what we can, but "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And lying (read AGW) is part of the modus operandi of spiritual wickedness in high places. After all, as Jesus said, Satan is a liar and the father of lies. We need to wake up.
I don't think you ever responded to my query the last time you posted a link to the transsylvaniaphoenix site. Why would anybody who considers him or herself a liberal bother to read anything posted on this site after seeing the unbelievably offensive quotation with which it is headed?
The quotation with which the site is headed simply gives the bottom
line up front. I don't have to look too far or dig too deeply into
something like AGW, to see that it is agenda-driven. Regardless of
any counterpoints made, those who buy into AGW will not be convinced
otherwise regardless of evidence, or of any amount of arguing. There
is a lot of "opposition of science falsely so called," in the world
today; and coupled with "willful ignorance" there is no meaningful
debate to be had. One side wins and the other side loses, and that is
that. It seems to me nowadays that the dark side is winning a lot of
these things.
And you can say that after referring people to a site like transylvaniaphoenix? Hammerud, when I read that quote, it tells me that the people who run the site are either insane or in the grips of such a powerfully distorted version of reality that there would be no point discussing anything with them, or even reading what they have to say. If you really think it states the "bottom line," then you and I don't inhabit the same universe.
John, it was the Nazis who made statements like the Derbyshire quote. Just substitute "Jew" for "well-heeled Western liberal" and it could be the work of Joseph Goebbels.
As someone who is both liberal and half Jewish, I see either version as equally offensive. Civilized political discourse doesn't use such quotes, and to add insult to injury by suggesting that the *victims* of such rhetoric are like the Nazis is morally equivalent to billing Jewish shopkeepers for the damage done on Kristallnacht.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"For those who wanted more of whatever it is, I say let's move on so we can move forward and eventually achieve what is needed.
And we need to move forward because the race isn't over. Indeed, frankly, the race hasn't even begun. Now, however, we're at the starting line. The race for us will start when we pass comprehensive climate change legislation. That will be the crack of the gun to start the race."
Do you really want that race to start? Do you see what is coming if global income redistribution comes to pass because of supposed AGW?
Do you really think man can control the climate?
"Do you really think man can control the climate?"
This is the wrong question. It's not about humans' controlling the climate; it's about our influencing it. And the answer to "Do you really think man can influence the climate? is definitely yes.
I posted this a few threads back. It's worth a repeat (edited for this time around):
We humans, with our feet planted on the ground, think the atmosphere is pretty thick, don't we? After all, commercial jets are flying about six miles above the surface. A general guide to the limits of the atmosphere tells us that it's about 400,000 feet thick, or 76 miles, although anyone flying over 50 miles up is considered to be an astronaut.
Seventy-six miles--that's pretty thick, isn't it? Yet a scale model of the earth that's the size of a basketball would have an "atmosphere" that's only 0.09 inches thick. Less than 1/10 of an inch. That would be the representation of that 400K-foot or 76-mile limit. And the height where the jets fly would only be about 1/100 of an inch. (And you know if you've ever flown that the air is pretty thin at that altitude. That's why the drop-down masks in case of decompression, right?) So this envelope of mixed gases that we call the atmosphere isn't really very thick at all when we put it into a global perspective, is it?
It can be easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs heat and inhibits its escape. Through our burning of fossil fuels, we humans release something like 27 billion tons of CO2 into that thin layer of air every year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's estimated that we've released 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide. You and I can't even begin to fathom how much half a trillion tons represents.
Moreover, this half a trillion tons comes from carbon that's been sequestered and has been out of circulation for a very long time (after all, that's why we call them fossil fuels). The burning of these carbon-rich fuels made from massive amounts of once-living material has overwhelmed the earth's capacity to absorb. That's why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been climbing.
Can we seriously believe that releasing such a huge amount of carbon dioxide into this very thin atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect on temperatures on the earth's surface? Isn't it asking a bit much to tell us we can't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate when we're talking about these amounts?
Just read an article pointing out that although the Copenhagen Accord produced pledges by rich nations to give billions to help developing countries, no one offered firm details on where the money will actually come from given the global recession.
Moreover, the final statement produced in bargaining led by Obama and the Chinese premier is non-binding and therefore does not have to form the basis for any future negotiations. In short, the final statement is not equivalent to a treaty.
Declaring a "victory" in Copenhagen is political gamesmanship.
Cap and Trade IS corporate greed in sheep's clothing. Taxing carbon dioxide should be obvious enough to anyone who understands even the most elementary biology principles: CO2 is the stuff of life that plants need to undergo the photosynthetic process that produces both the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat. Pumped into greenhouses plants produce abundantly. In the fields and orchards and vinyards, CO2 works the same in the plants. Then why is this maniacal harangue against photosynthesis harnessed by Al Gore to his Convenient, Self-serving Lies? Cap and trade is the NEW means to the old ends of serving Mammon.
CO2 is a biological necessity that the Global Religion has unscientifically turned into a villain. Then because YOU and I breathe out this "evil" concoction, we must eventually be taxed for "polluting the planet". And eventually the Club of Rome's dictum that there are too many "useless eaters" grazing on this planet, there must be a "culling of the herd."
The Global Warming Hoax is not the starting point in the development of the satanic dystopia. It is just another landmark along the way. The pigs of Animal Farm have gotten the sheep bleating the epithets of AGW alarmists. If you haven't noticed the signposts along the way, you won't recognize where this is headed and where it is intended to end. The mysterious stones erected in Georgia make it quite clear: a reduction in human population to no more than 500,000,000. It's not likely to be a democratic process.
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), check this out.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/1...
So we have the more-than-a-little-interesting information presented in the above URL; and then, on top of that, we had those unsettling emails. So, somehow, people are supposed to believe that what we have is "settled science?" Someone once said that if a lie is told long enough and loud enough, people will believe it. AGW is being used as a tool to facilitate an eventual one-world economic, political, government system -- funny that scripture describes such a development. I see Psalm 2 unfolding before my eyes. I applaud all of the efforts of those of you on this blog to help the poor and unfortunate, but the reality is that things will only get worse and worse until Christ returns. As it says, "in the last days perilous times will come..." We can do what we can, but "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And lying (read AGW) is part of the modus operandi of spiritual wickedness in high places. After all, as Jesus said, Satan is a liar and the father of lies. We need to wake up.
I don't think you ever responded to my query the last time you posted a link to the transsylvaniaphoenix site. Why would anybody who considers him or herself a liberal bother to read anything posted on this site after seeing the unbelievably offensive quotation with which it is headed?
The quotation with which the site is headed simply gives the bottom
line up front. I don't have to look too far or dig too deeply into
something like AGW, to see that it is agenda-driven. Regardless of
any counterpoints made, those who buy into AGW will not be convinced
otherwise regardless of evidence, or of any amount of arguing. There
is a lot of "opposition of science falsely so called," in the world
today; and coupled with "willful ignorance" there is no meaningful
debate to be had. One side wins and the other side loses, and that is
that. It seems to me nowadays that the dark side is winning a lot of
these things.
And you can say that after referring people to a site like transylvaniaphoenix? Hammerud, when I read that quote, it tells me that the people who run the site are either insane or in the grips of such a powerfully distorted version of reality that there would be no point discussing anything with them, or even reading what they have to say. If you really think it states the "bottom line," then you and I don't inhabit the same universe.
John, it was the Nazis who made statements like the Derbyshire quote. Just substitute "Jew" for "well-heeled Western liberal" and it could be the work of Joseph Goebbels.
As someone who is both liberal and half Jewish, I see either version as equally offensive. Civilized political discourse doesn't use such quotes, and to add insult to injury by suggesting that the *victims* of such rhetoric are like the Nazis is morally equivalent to billing Jewish shopkeepers for the damage done on Kristallnacht.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Check global warming on the internet? Hmmmm.
How about the increase in ice in the Antarctic?
I believe there has been a cooling trend the last decade, but I guess it all depends on whose numbers one is using and what results one wants to put forward to the public.
Did you hear that next year will be the hottest year in the history of earth? The environmentalist predicting record temperatures also left an explanation of why it is possible it might not be true. Not much confidence in the science I guess.
"For those who wanted more of whatever it is, I say let's move on so we can move forward and eventually achieve what is needed.
And we need to move forward because the race isn't over. Indeed, frankly, the race hasn't even begun. Now, however, we're at the starting line. The race for us will start when we pass comprehensive climate change legislation. That will be the crack of the gun to start the race."
Do you really want that race to start? Do you see what is coming if global income redistribution comes to pass because of supposed AGW?
Do you really think man can control the climate?
No, the Brits have been turning more and more skeptical for several years now. Probably for the simple reason that the predictions aren't coming true.
You are right.
I don't think the science has ever been looked at in honest open debate. That is why we have the current state of discussion breaks down to.. yes it is, no it isnt', yes it is, not it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't... and on and on.
If the science is conclusive, then let the public see it and let's have an open debate with the thousands of scientists who disagree. If one claims it is settled, then let's see what that person considers settled.
This article gives another perspective. Culturally, the rest of the world is more accustomed to just doing what it is told to do, like lemmings and sheep. The U.S. is a completely different creature.
"Do you really think man can control the climate?"
This is the wrong question. It's not about humans' controlling the climate; it's about our influencing it. And the answer to "Do you really think man can influence the climate? is definitely yes.
I posted this a few threads back. It's worth a repeat (edited for this time around):
We humans, with our feet planted on the ground, think the atmosphere is pretty thick, don't we? After all, commercial jets are flying about six miles above the surface. A general guide to the limits of the atmosphere tells us that it's about 400,000 feet thick, or 76 miles, although anyone flying over 50 miles up is considered to be an astronaut.
Seventy-six miles--that's pretty thick, isn't it? Yet a scale model of the earth that's the size of a basketball would have an "atmosphere" that's only 0.09 inches thick. Less than 1/10 of an inch. That would be the representation of that 400K-foot or 76-mile limit. And the height where the jets fly would only be about 1/100 of an inch. (And you know if you've ever flown that the air is pretty thin at that altitude. That's why the drop-down masks in case of decompression, right?) So this envelope of mixed gases that we call the atmosphere isn't really very thick at all when we put it into a global perspective, is it?
It can be easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs heat and inhibits its escape. Through our burning of fossil fuels, we humans release something like 27 billion tons of CO2 into that thin layer of air every year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's estimated that we've released 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide. You and I can't even begin to fathom how much half a trillion tons represents.
Moreover, this half a trillion tons comes from carbon that's been sequestered and has been out of circulation for a very long time (after all, that's why we call them fossil fuels). The burning of these carbon-rich fuels made from massive amounts of once-living material has overwhelmed the earth's capacity to absorb. That's why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been climbing.
Can we seriously believe that releasing such a huge amount of carbon dioxide into this very thin atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect on temperatures on the earth's surface? Isn't it asking a bit much to tell us we can't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate when we're talking about these amounts?
Just read an article pointing out that although the Copenhagen Accord produced pledges by rich nations to give billions to help developing countries, no one offered firm details on where the money will actually come from given the global recession.
Moreover, the final statement produced in bargaining led by Obama and the Chinese premier is non-binding and therefore does not have to form the basis for any future negotiations. In short, the final statement is not equivalent to a treaty.
Declaring a "victory" in Copenhagen is political gamesmanship.
Check global warming on the internet? Hmmmm.
How about the increase in ice in the Antarctic?
I believe there has been a cooling trend the last decade, but I guess it all depends on whose numbers one is using and what results one wants to put forward to the public.
Did you hear that next year will be the hottest year in the history of earth? The environmentalist predicting record temperatures also left an explanation of why it is possible it might not be true. Not much confidence in the science I guess.
No, the Brits have been turning more and more skeptical for several years now. Probably for the simple reason that the predictions aren't coming true.
You are right.
I don't think the science has ever been looked at in honest open debate. That is why we have the current state of discussion breaks down to.. yes it is, no it isnt', yes it is, not it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't... and on and on.
If the science is conclusive, then let the public see it and let's have an open debate with the thousands of scientists who disagree. If one claims it is settled, then let's see what that person considers settled.
This article gives another perspective. Culturally, the rest of the world is more accustomed to just doing what it is told to do, like lemmings and sheep. The U.S. is a completely different creature.
Only the most extreme distortion of history could lead to this ludicrous idea. Fascism is just one in a long series of imperialist, militarist systems. Every evil they engaged in has precedent in other empires( including the US, and Catholic and Protestant European nations) and that includes ethnic cleansing , military invasion, slave labor, scape-goating and more recently corporate -state fusion( corporatism is just the economic version of a ruling class with enormous inherited wealth).
Such empires are easily subverted by individual strong men.
Those who have traditionally identified themselves as progressives are pro democracy, anti war, socialistic, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, pro freedom of thought, pro freedom of political belief , pro freedom of religion, pro freedom of artistic expression, pro sexual freedom, for equality of rights. These are not the identifying qualities of fascism. You appear to be parroting the junk coming from Glenn Beck. Not exactly a reference for reality.
Not that this (or anything that you have claimed) is at all relevant to the scientific question of CO2 sensitivity, but you must also realize that CO2 represents just 0.038% of the atmosphere, which is up a staggering 0.01% from pre-industrial times.
The critical issue is regarding the sensitivity of climate to additional CO2. As I have shown elsewhere, the scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating that sensitivity is much lower than generally claimed by AGW proponents, and that potential increases in global temperature due to CO2 enrichment are likely to be substantially lower than what is predicted by the GCMs. (cf. Lindzen & Choi, 2009)
All the reports I've heard indicate that the climate has demonstrated more sensitivity to atmospheric levels of CO2, not less. The events the models had predicted back in 2000--like the melting of Arctic sea ice--have occurred at a much more rapid rate than expected by the mode.
Is there a Web link to the article you cited?
Cap and Trade IS corporate greed in sheep's clothing. Taxing carbon dioxide should be obvious enough to anyone who understands even the most elementary biology principles: CO2 is the stuff of life that plants need to undergo the photosynthetic process that produces both the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat. Pumped into greenhouses plants produce abundantly. In the fields and orchards and vinyards, CO2 works the same in the plants. Then why is this maniacal harangue against photosynthesis harnessed by Al Gore to his Convenient, Self-serving Lies? Cap and trade is the NEW means to the old ends of serving Mammon.
CO2 is a biological necessity that the Global Religion has unscientifically turned into a villain. Then because YOU and I breathe out this "evil" concoction, we must eventually be taxed for "polluting the planet". And eventually the Club of Rome's dictum that there are too many "useless eaters" grazing on this planet, there must be a "culling of the herd."
The Global Warming Hoax is not the starting point in the development of the satanic dystopia. It is just another landmark along the way. The pigs of Animal Farm have gotten the sheep bleating the epithets of AGW alarmists. If you haven't noticed the signposts along the way, you won't recognize where this is headed and where it is intended to end. The mysterious stones erected in Georgia make it quite clear: a reduction in human population to no more than 500,000,000. It's not likely to be a democratic process.
Only the most extreme distortion of history could lead to this ludicrous idea. Fascism is just one in a long series of imperialist, militarist systems. Every evil they engaged in has precedent in other empires( including the US, and Catholic and Protestant European nations) and that includes ethnic cleansing , military invasion, slave labor, scape-goating and more recently corporate -state fusion( corporatism is just the economic version of a ruling class with enormous inherited wealth).
Such empires are easily subverted by individual strong men.
Those who have traditionally identified themselves as progressives are pro democracy, anti war, socialistic, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, pro freedom of thought, pro freedom of political belief , pro freedom of religion, pro freedom of artistic expression, pro sexual freedom, for equality of rights. These are not the identifying qualities of fascism. You appear to be parroting the junk coming from Glenn Beck. Not exactly a reference for reality.
Not that this (or anything that you have claimed) is at all relevant to the scientific question of CO2 sensitivity, but you must also realize that CO2 represents just 0.038% of the atmosphere, which is up a staggering 0.01% from pre-industrial times.
The critical issue is regarding the sensitivity of climate to additional CO2. As I have shown elsewhere, the scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating that sensitivity is much lower than generally claimed by AGW proponents, and that potential increases in global temperature due to CO2 enrichment are likely to be substantially lower than what is predicted by the GCMs. (cf. Lindzen & Choi, 2009)
This is not what I mean by climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity has to do with the change in temperature brought about by a given change in CO2 concentration, usually expressed as doubling of pre-industrial concentrations. The example of the Arctic ice melting is not related to this factor at all.
Climate sensitivity is primarily an expression of the magnitude and direction of feedback mechanisms. And it is these that are very poorly understood. In particular, negative feedbacks are clouded in uncertainty (pun intended, because the impact of clouds are one of those negative feedbacks), but since they are poorly understood, they are merely parameterized within the GCMs or ignored altogether. That means that they are basically assigned adjustment factors (aka fudge factors) to try to calibrate the models to observed temperature patterns. There is really no physical component to their treatment in the models. And as a result, the models seem to invariably trend toward higher positive feedbacks, and have thus tracked actual global temperatures over the past decade very poorly.
As for your example of the melting of the Artic ice, you must be aware that the record low ice coverage in 2007 was only the lowest since satellite coverage began, which is only 30 years. There is very compelling anecdotal evidence that the ice coverage in the 1930's was lower than 2007. Also, you must realize that the cause of the extensive ice loss in 2007 was not attributed to warming, but rather, according to NASA, it was a result of anomalous wind patterns that pushed much of the ice out of the Arctic into the North Atlantic, where it melted. And surely you are aware that since 2007 we have observed a dramatic increase in summer low ice extent, by about 30% over 2007. Finally, you have to have known about the Wegener Polar and Marine Research Institute conducted an aerial airborne sounder survey in the spring of 2009 that covered much of the Arctic ice sheet, showing second year ice thicknesses up to 4 m, when they expected less than 2m.
The polar ice cap is actually a very good example of why we need to exercise a great deal of caution about the results of the model simulations. The reason that the models did not predict the significant loss of ice in 2007 is because they do not properly understand the ice formation and melting processes. The models could not anticipate the anomalous wind patterns in 2007. And they have not anticipated the rapid recovery of the Arctic ice sheet. I would surmise that polar ice behavior is one of the simpler physical processes to be modeled, but the models have completely missed the boat on that one. How reliable are the remainder of the model processes upon which the entirety of the global warming alarmism rests?
I sense a fallacy in your comments here. The fallacy is that climate change is linear and gradual. That is, to go back to the Arctic ice situation, the notion that 2008 and 2009 didn't bring a larger degree of melting to the Arctic suggests that there is something wrong with the climate modeling is simply not a valid conclusion. Other factors are constantly at work on the climate--the sunspot cycle, the Milankovich cycles, El Niño events, etc. When these other factors are factored in, the melting of Arctic ice is still advancing faster than expected.
This is one reason why climate change is a preferred term--it's more accurate. Earth's climate is changing due to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The changes are not going to be regular or consistent in all areas of the earth. We'll see more drought in some places, more rain in others. Average temperatures rise more in some areas than others. And in all areas, we'll have years or seasons where weather patterns differ from the greater patterns of change.
And the anecdotal evidence that the extent of Arctic ice melting in the 1930s was greater than now is just that--anecdotal. Even if it's true, it still doesn't disprove that the current situation is a result of anthropomorphic inputs.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), check this out.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/1...
So we have the more-than-a-little-interesting information presented in the above URL; and then, on top of that, we had those unsettling emails. So, somehow, people are supposed to believe that what we have is "settled science?" Someone once said that if a lie is told long enough and loud enough, people will believe it. AGW is being used as a tool to facilitate an eventual one-world economic, political, government system -- funny that scripture describes such a development. I see Psalm 2 unfolding before my eyes. I applaud all of the efforts of those of you on this blog to help the poor and unfortunate, but the reality is that things will only get worse and worse until Christ returns. As it says, "in the last days perilous times will come..." We can do what we can, but "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And lying (read AGW) is part of the modus operandi of spiritual wickedness in high places. After all, as Jesus said, Satan is a liar and the father of lies. We need to wake up.
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), check this out.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/1...
So we have the more-than-a-little-interesting information presented in the above URL; and then, on top of that, we had those unsettling emails. So, somehow, people are supposed to believe that what we have is "settled science?" Someone once said that if a lie is told long enough and loud enough, people will believe it. AGW is being used as a tool to facilitate an eventual one-world economic, political, government system -- funny that scripture describes such a development. I see Psalm 2 unfolding before my eyes. I applaud all of the efforts of those of you on this blog to help the poor and unfortunate, but the reality is that things will only get worse and worse until Christ returns. As it says, "in the last days perilous times will come..." We can do what we can, but "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And lying (read AGW) is part of the modus operandi of spiritual wickedness in high places. After all, as Jesus said, Satan is a liar and the father of lies. We need to wake up.
I don't think you ever responded to my query the last time you posted a link to the transsylvaniaphoenix site. Why would anybody who considers him or herself a liberal bother to read anything posted on this site after seeing the unbelievably offensive quotation with which it is headed?
I don't think you ever responded to my query the last time you posted a link to the transsylvaniaphoenix site. Why would anybody who considers him or herself a liberal bother to read anything posted on this site after seeing the unbelievably offensive quotation with which it is headed?
The quotation with which the site is headed simply gives the bottom
line up front. I don't have to look too far or dig too deeply into
something like AGW, to see that it is agenda-driven. Regardless of
any counterpoints made, those who buy into AGW will not be convinced
otherwise regardless of evidence, or of any amount of arguing. There
is a lot of "opposition of science falsely so called," in the world
today; and coupled with "willful ignorance" there is no meaningful
debate to be had. One side wins and the other side loses, and that is
that. It seems to me nowadays that the dark side is winning a lot of
these things.
The quotation with which the site is headed simply gives the bottom
line up front. I don't have to look too far or dig too deeply into
something like AGW, to see that it is agenda-driven. Regardless of
any counterpoints made, those who buy into AGW will not be convinced
otherwise regardless of evidence, or of any amount of arguing. There
is a lot of "opposition of science falsely so called," in the world
today; and coupled with "willful ignorance" there is no meaningful
debate to be had. One side wins and the other side loses, and that is
that. It seems to me nowadays that the dark side is winning a lot of
these things.
And you can say that after referring people to a site like transylvaniaphoenix? Hammerud, when I read that quote, it tells me that the people who run the site are either insane or in the grips of such a powerfully distorted version of reality that there would be no point discussing anything with them, or even reading what they have to say. If you really think it states the "bottom line," then you and I don't inhabit the same universe.
And you can say that after referring people to a site like transylvaniaphoenix? Hammerud, when I read that quote, it tells me that the people who run the site are either insane or in the grips of such a powerfully distorted version of reality that there would be no point discussing anything with them, or even reading what they have to say. If you really think it states the "bottom line," then you and I don't inhabit the same universe.
John, it was the Nazis who made statements like the Derbyshire quote. Just substitute "Jew" for "well-heeled Western liberal" and it could be the work of Joseph Goebbels.
As someone who is both liberal and half Jewish, I see either version as equally offensive. Civilized political discourse doesn't use such quotes, and to add insult to injury by suggesting that the *victims* of such rhetoric are like the Nazis is morally equivalent to billing Jewish shopkeepers for the damage done on Kristallnacht.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
John, it was the Nazis who made statements like the Derbyshire quote. Just substitute "Jew" for "well-heeled Western liberal" and it could be the work of Joseph Goebbels.
As someone who is both liberal and half Jewish, I see either version as equally offensive. Civilized political discourse doesn't use such quotes, and to add insult to injury by suggesting that the *victims* of such rhetoric are like the Nazis is morally equivalent to billing Jewish shopkeepers for the damage done on Kristallnacht.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"For those who wanted more of whatever it is, I say let's move on so we can move forward and eventually achieve what is needed.
And we need to move forward because the race isn't over. Indeed, frankly, the race hasn't even begun. Now, however, we're at the starting line. The race for us will start when we pass comprehensive climate change legislation. That will be the crack of the gun to start the race."
Do you really want that race to start? Do you see what is coming if global income redistribution comes to pass because of supposed AGW?
Do you really think man can control the climate?
"For those who wanted more of whatever it is, I say let's move on so we can move forward and eventually achieve what is needed.
And we need to move forward because the race isn't over. Indeed, frankly, the race hasn't even begun. Now, however, we're at the starting line. The race for us will start when we pass comprehensive climate change legislation. That will be the crack of the gun to start the race."
Do you really want that race to start? Do you see what is coming if global income redistribution comes to pass because of supposed AGW?
Do you really think man can control the climate?
"Do you really think man can control the climate?"
This is the wrong question. It's not about humans' controlling the climate; it's about our influencing it. And the answer to "Do you really think man can influence the climate? is definitely yes.
I posted this a few threads back. It's worth a repeat (edited for this time around):
We humans, with our feet planted on the ground, think the atmosphere is pretty thick, don't we? After all, commercial jets are flying about six miles above the surface. A general guide to the limits of the atmosphere tells us that it's about 400,000 feet thick, or 76 miles, although anyone flying over 50 miles up is considered to be an astronaut.
Seventy-six miles--that's pretty thick, isn't it? Yet a scale model of the earth that's the size of a basketball would have an "atmosphere" that's only 0.09 inches thick. Less than 1/10 of an inch. That would be the representation of that 400K-foot or 76-mile limit. And the height where the jets fly would only be about 1/100 of an inch. (And you know if you've ever flown that the air is pretty thin at that altitude. That's why the drop-down masks in case of decompression, right?) So this envelope of mixed gases that we call the atmosphere isn't really very thick at all when we put it into a global perspective, is it?
It can be easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs heat and inhibits its escape. Through our burning of fossil fuels, we humans release something like 27 billion tons of CO2 into that thin layer of air every year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's estimated that we've released 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide. You and I can't even begin to fathom how much half a trillion tons represents.
Moreover, this half a trillion tons comes from carbon that's been sequestered and has been out of circulation for a very long time (after all, that's why we call them fossil fuels). The burning of these carbon-rich fuels made from massive amounts of once-living material has overwhelmed the earth's capacity to absorb. That's why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been climbing.
Can we seriously believe that releasing such a huge amount of carbon dioxide into this very thin atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect on temperatures on the earth's surface? Isn't it asking a bit much to tell us we can't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate when we're talking about these amounts?
"Do you really think man can control the climate?"
This is the wrong question. It's not about humans' controlling the climate; it's about our influencing it. And the answer to "Do you really think man can influence the climate? is definitely yes.
I posted this a few threads back. It's worth a repeat (edited for this time around):
We humans, with our feet planted on the ground, think the atmosphere is pretty thick, don't we? After all, commercial jets are flying about six miles above the surface. A general guide to the limits of the atmosphere tells us that it's about 400,000 feet thick, or 76 miles, although anyone flying over 50 miles up is considered to be an astronaut.
Seventy-six miles--that's pretty thick, isn't it? Yet a scale model of the earth that's the size of a basketball would have an "atmosphere" that's only 0.09 inches thick. Less than 1/10 of an inch. That would be the representation of that 400K-foot or 76-mile limit. And the height where the jets fly would only be about 1/100 of an inch. (And you know if you've ever flown that the air is pretty thin at that altitude. That's why the drop-down masks in case of decompression, right?) So this envelope of mixed gases that we call the atmosphere isn't really very thick at all when we put it into a global perspective, is it?
It can be easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs heat and inhibits its escape. Through our burning of fossil fuels, we humans release something like 27 billion tons of CO2 into that thin layer of air every year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's estimated that we've released 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide. You and I can't even begin to fathom how much half a trillion tons represents.
Moreover, this half a trillion tons comes from carbon that's been sequestered and has been out of circulation for a very long time (after all, that's why we call them fossil fuels). The burning of these carbon-rich fuels made from massive amounts of once-living material has overwhelmed the earth's capacity to absorb. That's why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been climbing.
Can we seriously believe that releasing such a huge amount of carbon dioxide into this very thin atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect on temperatures on the earth's surface? Isn't it asking a bit much to tell us we can't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate when we're talking about these amounts?
Just read an article pointing out that although the Copenhagen Accord produced pledges by rich nations to give billions to help developing countries, no one offered firm details on where the money will actually come from given the global recession.
Moreover, the final statement produced in bargaining led by Obama and the Chinese premier is non-binding and therefore does not have to form the basis for any future negotiations. In short, the final statement is not equivalent to a treaty.
Declaring a "victory" in Copenhagen is political gamesmanship.
Just read an article pointing out that although the Copenhagen Accord produced pledges by rich nations to give billions to help developing countries, no one offered firm details on where the money will actually come from given the global recession.
Moreover, the final statement produced in bargaining led by Obama and the Chinese premier is non-binding and therefore does not have to form the basis for any future negotiations. In short, the final statement is not equivalent to a treaty.
Declaring a "victory" in Copenhagen is political gamesmanship.
Check global warming on the internet? Hmmmm.
How about the increase in ice in the Antarctic?
I believe there has been a cooling trend the last decade, but I guess it all depends on whose numbers one is using and what results one wants to put forward to the public.
Did you hear that next year will be the hottest year in the history of earth? The environmentalist predicting record temperatures also left an explanation of why it is possible it might not be true. Not much confidence in the science I guess.
Check global warming on the internet? Hmmmm.
How about the increase in ice in the Antarctic?
I believe there has been a cooling trend the last decade, but I guess it all depends on whose numbers one is using and what results one wants to put forward to the public.
Did you hear that next year will be the hottest year in the history of earth? The environmentalist predicting record temperatures also left an explanation of why it is possible it might not be true. Not much confidence in the science I guess.
No, the Brits have been turning more and more skeptical for several years now. Probably for the simple reason that the predictions aren't coming true.
No, the Brits have been turning more and more skeptical for several years now. Probably for the simple reason that the predictions aren't coming true.
You are right.
I don't think the science has ever been looked at in honest open debate. That is why we have the current state of discussion breaks down to.. yes it is, no it isnt', yes it is, not it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't... and on and on.
If the science is conclusive, then let the public see it and let's have an open debate with the thousands of scientists who disagree. If one claims it is settled, then let's see what that person considers settled.
This article gives another perspective. Culturally, the rest of the world is more accustomed to just doing what it is told to do, like lemmings and sheep. The U.S. is a completely different creature.
You are right.
I don't think the science has ever been looked at in honest open debate. That is why we have the current state of discussion breaks down to.. yes it is, no it isnt', yes it is, not it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't... and on and on.
If the science is conclusive, then let the public see it and let's have an open debate with the thousands of scientists who disagree. If one claims it is settled, then let's see what that person considers settled.
This article gives another perspective. Culturally, the rest of the world is more accustomed to just doing what it is told to do, like lemmings and sheep. The U.S. is a completely different creature.
Only the most extreme distortion of history could lead to this ludicrous idea. Fascism is just one in a long series of imperialist, militarist systems. Every evil they engaged in has precedent in other empires( including the US, and Catholic and Protestant European nations) and that includes ethnic cleansing , military invasion, slave labor, scape-goating and more recently corporate -state fusion( corporatism is just the economic version of a ruling class with enormous inherited wealth).
Such empires are easily subverted by individual strong men.
Those who have traditionally identified themselves as progressives are pro democracy, anti war, socialistic, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, pro freedom of thought, pro freedom of political belief , pro freedom of religion, pro freedom of artistic expression, pro sexual freedom, for equality of rights. These are not the identifying qualities of fascism. You appear to be parroting the junk coming from Glenn Beck. Not exactly a reference for reality.
Only the most extreme distortion of history could lead to this ludicrous idea. Fascism is just one in a long series of imperialist, militarist systems. Every evil they engaged in has precedent in other empires( including the US, and Catholic and Protestant European nations) and that includes ethnic cleansing , military invasion, slave labor, scape-goating and more recently corporate -state fusion( corporatism is just the economic version of a ruling class with enormous inherited wealth).
Such empires are easily subverted by individual strong men.
Those who have traditionally identified themselves as progressives are pro democracy, anti war, socialistic, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, pro freedom of thought, pro freedom of political belief , pro freedom of religion, pro freedom of artistic expression, pro sexual freedom, for equality of rights. These are not the identifying qualities of fascism. You appear to be parroting the junk coming from Glenn Beck. Not exactly a reference for reality.
Not that this (or anything that you have claimed) is at all relevant to the scientific question of CO2 sensitivity, but you must also realize that CO2 represents just 0.038% of the atmosphere, which is up a staggering 0.01% from pre-industrial times.
The critical issue is regarding the sensitivity of climate to additional CO2. As I have shown elsewhere, the scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating that sensitivity is much lower than generally claimed by AGW proponents, and that potential increases in global temperature due to CO2 enrichment are likely to be substantially lower than what is predicted by the GCMs. (cf. Lindzen & Choi, 2009)
Not that this (or anything that you have claimed) is at all relevant to the scientific question of CO2 sensitivity, but you must also realize that CO2 represents just 0.038% of the atmosphere, which is up a staggering 0.01% from pre-industrial times.
The critical issue is regarding the sensitivity of climate to additional CO2. As I have shown elsewhere, the scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating that sensitivity is much lower than generally claimed by AGW proponents, and that potential increases in global temperature due to CO2 enrichment are likely to be substantially lower than what is predicted by the GCMs. (cf. Lindzen & Choi, 2009)
All the reports I've heard indicate that the climate has demonstrated more sensitivity to atmospheric levels of CO2, not less. The events the models had predicted back in 2000--like the melting of Arctic sea ice--have occurred at a much more rapid rate than expected by the mode.
Is there a Web link to the article you cited?
This is not what I mean by climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity has to do with the change in temperature brought about by a given change in CO2 concentration, usually expressed as doubling of pre-industrial concentrations. The example of the Arctic ice melting is not related to this factor at all.
Climate sensitivity is primarily an expression of the magnitude and direction of feedback mechanisms. And it is these that are very poorly understood. In particular, negative feedbacks are clouded in uncertainty (pun intended, because the impact of clouds are one of those negative feedbacks), but since they are poorly understood, they are merely parameterized within the GCMs or ignored altogether. That means that they are basically assigned adjustment factors (aka fudge factors) to try to calibrate the models to observed temperature patterns. There is really no physical component to their treatment in the models. And as a result, the models seem to invariably trend toward higher positive feedbacks, and have thus tracked actual global temperatures over the past decade very poorly.
As for your example of the melting of the Artic ice, you must be aware that the record low ice coverage in 2007 was only the lowest since satellite coverage began, which is only 30 years. There is very compelling anecdotal evidence that the ice coverage in the 1930's was lower than 2007. Also, you must realize that the cause of the extensive ice loss in 2007 was not attributed to warming, but rather, according to NASA, it was a result of anomalous wind patterns that pushed much of the ice out of the Arctic into the North Atlantic, where it melted. And surely you are aware that since 2007 we have observed a dramatic increase in summer low ice extent, by about 30% over 2007. Finally, you have to have known about the Wegener Polar and Marine Research Institute conducted an aerial airborne sounder survey in the spring of 2009 that covered much of the Arctic ice sheet, showing second year ice thicknesses up to 4 m, when they expected less than 2m.
The polar ice cap is actually a very good example of why we need to exercise a great deal of caution about the results of the model simulations. The reason that the models did not predict the significant loss of ice in 2007 is because they do not properly understand the ice formation and melting processes. The models could not anticipate the anomalous wind patterns in 2007. And they have not anticipated the rapid recovery of the Arctic ice sheet. I would surmise that polar ice behavior is one of the simpler physical processes to be modeled, but the models have completely missed the boat on that one. How reliable are the remainder of the model processes upon which the entirety of the global warming alarmism rests?
I sense a fallacy in your comments here. The fallacy is that climate change is linear and gradual. That is, to go back to the Arctic ice situation, the notion that 2008 and 2009 didn't bring a larger degree of melting to the Arctic suggests that there is something wrong with the climate modeling is simply not a valid conclusion. Other factors are constantly at work on the climate--the sunspot cycle, the Milankovich cycles, El Niño events, etc. When these other factors are factored in, the melting of Arctic ice is still advancing faster than expected.
This is one reason why climate change is a preferred term--it's more accurate. Earth's climate is changing due to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The changes are not going to be regular or consistent in all areas of the earth. We'll see more drought in some places, more rain in others. Average temperatures rise more in some areas than others. And in all areas, we'll have years or seasons where weather patterns differ from the greater patterns of change.
And the anecdotal evidence that the extent of Arctic ice melting in the 1930s was greater than now is just that--anecdotal. Even if it's true, it still doesn't disprove that the current situation is a result of anthropomorphic inputs.
The fact of the matter is that current climatic conditions are in no way variant from climatic conditions in the recent geological past. It has been this warm, it has been warmer, in both the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum. Scientists currently do not understand why these periods were as warm as they were. The AGW cabal had to eliminate the MWP in order to justify their model runs with high CO2 sensitivity, because CO2 obviously could not have been the cause (I refer you back to our discussion on Day 6).
Having thus ignored the natural causes that may have induced those past events, their computers were thus programmed to attribute 20th C warming to CO2 (e.g. high CO2 sensitivity). And then they triumphantly declare that they are 90% confident that most of the warming of the 20th C was caused by humans! Do you see the fallacy here?
So how can you (or anyone else) have any confidence in the projections of computer models when they are obviously missing out on some of the most fundamental natural causes at work in our climate system. The fact of the matter is that the computer models have simply got it wrong and are unreliable predictors of future climatic behavior.
I agree that "climate change" is a better term. Climate changes. It has always changed. It will continue to change in the future. The real climate change deniers are the ones who tried vigorously to eliminate the MWP, because a naturally changing climate does not fit their program. Their manipulations have now been exposed.
Cap and Trade IS corporate greed in sheep's clothing. Taxing carbon dioxide should be obvious enough to anyone who understands even the most elementary biology principles: CO2 is the stuff of life that plants need to undergo the photosynthetic process that produces both the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat. Pumped into greenhouses plants produce abundantly. In the fields and orchards and vinyards, CO2 works the same in the plants. Then why is this maniacal harangue against photosynthesis harnessed by Al Gore to his Convenient, Self-serving Lies? Cap and trade is the NEW means to the old ends of serving Mammon.
CO2 is a biological necessity that the Global Religion has unscientifically turned into a villain. Then because YOU and I breathe out this "evil" concoction, we must eventually be taxed for "polluting the planet". And eventually the Club of Rome's dictum that there are too many "useless eaters" grazing on this planet, there must be a "culling of the herd."
The Global Warming Hoax is not the starting point in the development of the satanic dystopia. It is just another landmark along the way. The pigs of Animal Farm have gotten the sheep bleating the epithets of AGW alarmists. If you haven't noticed the signposts along the way, you won't recognize where this is headed and where it is intended to end. The mysterious stones erected in Georgia make it quite clear: a reduction in human population to no more than 500,000,000. It's not likely to be a democratic process.
