Distrust of climate science due to lack of media literacy: researcher

Mar 22, 2011 By Krishna Ramanujan

(PhysOrg.com) -- Though most climate science studies show evidence that climate change is real, the public persists in distrusting the science.

That's because of the doubt planted by climate change skeptics in the media and a lack of "media literacy education," asserts Caren Cooper, a research associate who works on citizen science projects at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in a Forum article in the March issue of BioScience magazine.

Evidence shows that media literacy education would help the public critique and better assess the truth behind them, Cooper says.

"To be climate change literate, the public must first be media literate," since print, TV and radio reports and opinion pieces are the main ways that the public gets its information about climate change science, Cooper says.

Previous research demonstrates that informal science education in the United States has not emphasized critical thinking, she said. It mostly offers one-way communication from researchers or educators to the public and assumes that the public operates from a deficit of information that needs to be filled, Cooper says, citing studies in the field of communication theory.

Furthermore, a small number of climate change deniers (who are often linked to corporations and the fossil fuel industry, she says) have exploited this model by encouraging partisanship; framing climate change as an insignificant problem; and disseminating scientifically inaccurate "educational" messages, according to the paper.

Research shows that laypeople and the media tend to view all scientific viewpoints as equally valid and, therefore, give too much credence to the minority viewpoint of skeptical scientists. As a result, they may frame global warming as scientifically controversial, when it is only politically controversial, she said. The number of scientists who support action to address climate change far outweigh researchers who oppose such action, Cooper says.

Climate skeptics have also effectively used multiple media formats, including the print press, television punditry, talk radio, magazines, journals, blogs and columns, to create doubt and a disparity between mainstream science and public policy, Cooper writes, citing previous research.

The solution? Cooper draws on a new approach emerging in the field of science communication that engages the public in activities and dialogues that interpret scientific knowledge. , where the public actively collects scientific data, offers one such example.

Cooper also points to research that suggests that science educators should embrace media literacy education, so when faced with new information, members of the public will ask such questions as "who made this message?"; "why was it made?"; "who paid for it?" The public might also be taught to question the content in a message, ask what information has been omitted and question the credibility of the information as fact or simply opinion.

In addition, studies have shown that educators would be more effective if they expanded their modes of communication beyond science centers and museums to radio, television, movies and blogs, Cooper adds.

Explore further: Landmark fracking study finds no water pollution

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists urged to spread word on global warming

Apr 12, 2005

Global warming is real, dangerous and ignored at great risk to the planet, a leading environmentalist told an audience of about 250 at last week's inaugural MIT Environmental Fellows Invitational Lecture. Professor James Gu ...

Recommended for you

Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

1 hour ago

The Netherlands on Tuesday unveiled a multi-billion-euro, multi-decade plan to counter the biggest environmental threat to the low-lying European nation: surging seawater caused by global climate change.

Drought hits Brazil coffee harvest

3 hours ago

Coffee output in Brazil, the world's chief exporter, will slide this year after the worst drought in decades, agricultural agency Conab said Tuesday.

Landmark fracking study finds no water pollution

5 hours ago

The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at one site ...

Politics divide coastal residents' views of environment

6 hours ago

From the salmon-rich waters of Southeast Alaska to the white sand beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast to Downeast Maine's lobster, lumber and tourist towns, coastal residents around the U.S. share a common characteristic: ...

User comments : 288

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jscroft
2.1 / 5 (34) Mar 22, 2011
Distrust of climate science due to lack of media literacy...


... or maybe because it's bullshit.
alfredh
2.4 / 5 (25) Mar 22, 2011
Besides statistical linkage proposals, where is the hard science, ie. a hypothesis that as been tested and proven regarding CO2 roll in warming, that public should believe in.
bugmenot23
3.7 / 5 (24) Mar 22, 2011
Uh, maybe it's because republicans still think the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. Of course people who are unable to comprehend data or the scientific method think that whatever science they find to be inconvenient is a hoax.

I only wish these idiots were denied ALL of the technology and benefits brought about because of science. If these idiots want to burn Copernicus, that's cool. But we should also turn off their electricity and slap a few leeches on them when they show up at the emergency room.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (33) Mar 22, 2011
Frankly, distrust of climate science is NOT due to lack of literacy.

Distrust of climate science started with questionable claims of CO2-induced global warming, championed by a large army of federally-funded climatologists and promoted by Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

"EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN",
Energy and Environment 20, pp. 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Suspicion - over claims that the "science is absolutely settled" - turned to conviction when climatologists were found hiding and manipulating experimental data to "hide the decline" of global temperatures.

Attempts to excuse obvious violation of basic scientific principles only destroyed public confidence in the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NOAA, EPA, major research journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) and the news media (BBC, PBS, etc).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
3432682
2.2 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2011
The IPCC AGW theories and predictions are failing to come true. The falsified Hockey Stick history did not help, either. Where are the actual high temperature records being set? There aren't many. There are far more record lows. Where is the extreme weather? Virtually everything is within historic norms. After 20 years of crying wolf, folks have stopped listening.
Arkaleus
2.6 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2011
Distrust does not come from lack of literacy. Distrust comes from people thinking they are being manipulated or lied to.
The ability of the people to be fooled by a complicated lie may indeed be limited by their scientific literacy, but even a child known when he is being lied to, and can sense when someone wants something he has.

The chiefest complaint of the climate howlers is that their dramatizations and manipulations are not having the effect upon the masses as it did with the false erudite and brainwashed college grads, and they attribute this to the lack of proper conditioning or "education" to their sophistry.

The resistance isn't to facts, its to your justifications of authority and power to alter our social order and economies based upon an arbitrary assignment of climate conditions being somehow un-normal. What is normal climate?
skaren
3.2 / 5 (19) Mar 22, 2011
I am an avid gardener and can see the changes that have occurred in the patterns in my own yard. Spring planting is about 2 weeks earlier than it was 20 years ago.

I do not even need a scientist to tell me things are changing I can see it with my own eyes.

Also when orgs and scientists funded by Exxon refute climate change,.. I mean come on folks,.. use your brains here.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (27) Mar 22, 2011
In the late 60s, farmers in SD were planting oats by the first week of April. Now they can't get into the fields until May.

In 1973 the media were echoing the cries of climatologists proclaiming the next ice age.

The reason scientists can't make their propaganda stick is because it is based upon an uncertain model of an emergent system.

Before you 'scientists' blame everyone else, take a look in the mirror first.
skaren
3.3 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2011
b School of Life Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, U.S.A.

c Aerospace Division, Lockheed Electronics Co., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Received 16 June 1978;
accepted 5 December 1978. ;
Available online 1 April 2003.

Abstract

A magnetic tape containing 50 years of daily weather records was modified to synthesize new records representing three different types of temperature change. These data were used as input to a phenological response model for maize in a series of computer simulation studies. Results show cooling as much as 2°F through one type of change could reduce the freeze-free season by one month and severely affect the ability to grow corn and other warm season crops in the northern half of the U.S. Corn Belt. The same decrease with another type of change would not affect the freeze-free season. A trend for warming would increase the incidence of freezing in early planted fields and may result in spurious speculation that the climate is cooling.
entropyrules
1 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2011
I is clear that because 99,999% of the population does'nt know/understand the basics of physics (part of them should by their education, but can't apply it to the AGW philosophy) is the reason that so many people beleive in it.
The biggest GHG theory trap is the neat (simple layman) energy balance claim using the First Law, while in fact the Second Law rules the basic radiation balance on the surface from LWR to SWR.
If GHG backradiation would heat up the surface, a higher backradiation from Earth to the Sun would raise the temperature up to the core.
BaconBits
3.4 / 5 (22) Mar 22, 2011
It is always impressive how quickly the trolls attack articles about climate change. For anyone reading this who's confused, seek out good sources like

Skeptical Science (good review of the science and the controversy)

The anti-global warming faction is a small, well funded and rabid group of critics who spread a lot of misinformation.

The science is not perfect or crystal clear but a large body of well researched, critcally reviewed data and theory exists that indicates that we are trapping more heat in the atmosphere and adding more energy to global climate system. Criticism and skepticism are welcome and encouraged. Outright denial or misinformation will be called out patiently and repeatedly because there's no way to argue with them.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 22, 2011
In 1973 the media were echoing the cries of climatologists proclaiming the next ice age.

No, they weren't. You've been shown that this is false repeatedly. Stop lying.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2011
@entropyrules,
99,999% of the population does'nt know/understand the basics of physics
Based on the rest of your post, you should include yourself within that fraction...
ted208
2.2 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2011
Climategate
Al Gore
Co2 Alarmist
Tax CO2
Cap & Trade CO2
Cap & Trade scams revealed worldwide
Wind farms in total disarray
Wind farms abandoned & destructive to the environment
Governments paying wind and solar farms extravagant fees to NOT PRODUCE ELECTRICITY
Solar produces using diesel generators to produce & charging for electricity scams
Biofuels scams driving up world food cost for little or NO benefit
Science becomes a religion
Scientist selling their soul for a piece of the extravagant AGW grant's
Global Cooling was being pronounced in the 1970's, that is a fact
Global Warming
Climate Change
Climate Disruption.
Climate Re-education.
All Orwellian methods by a SUPER WELL FUNDED Group's like local Municipal, State, Provincial, and federal governments. Every Eco Green or socialist organization pumping HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THIS RIP-OFF! Don't compare Skeptics to the fanatics that have orchestrated this scam we are not funded to 100 of $Billions.
Just the facts!
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 22, 2011
@ted208,Either you understand the SCIENCE of global warming, or you don't. Judging by your misinformed and politically poisoned post, I'd say you fail in this regard rather miserably.
Jaeherys
3.1 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2011
Over the last 10 years it has been apparent that something is happening to the climate. I live in Ontario and have a cottage near Georgian Bay. Slowly but surely the forests have been thinning and dying. And I'm not just talking about a small area, you can notice the change all the way from Barrie, ONT to Thunder Bay, ONT. That's a distance of about 1200km or ~745 miles.

I have noticed the change of bird migrations at Point Pelee, the southern most point of Canada, mainly they are coming earlier and earlier each year.

The most brutal winter I've been through in the last 20 years was in 2001. At that point I was finishing up highschool and I was having a snowday or more a week (plus exam cancellations)! Since then the winters have only been more mild, with some fluctuations of course.

It's hard to say it doesn't exist when I can so blatantly see it infront of my own eyes...

Sometimes I think it will take the total collapse of our society to wean us off of fossil fuels.
LEVI506
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2011
I'd dearly like to meet me man who understands the science of "global warming, cooling, weather or earth techtonic movement. I've been watching for almost 70 years and I've seen everything proved and disproved over and over again. Science is like the blind men describing the elephant. Notice how hurricanes are predicted and then non occur. Now some fool is predicting whats going to happen in the year 3,000. We can't even predict the weather with any reliability more then a day or two in advance. Is the weather changing? Sure. Who's causing it? I go for the cow farts. It's as good an excuse to spend my money on some ignorant theory as anything. Fact is we haven't enough data. Science is the art of discovery. Not always right and ever changing. Keep the politicians and money grants out of it and use a bit of common sense and we just might get somewhere. Think scientific "fact" isn't changing? Check out a chart of the nuclides from a few years ago and look at the changes!
Jaeherys
2.9 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2011
@LEVI506
It's a logical fallacy to assume that because we can't predict a hurricane to 100% accuracy that climate change must be wrong. People time and time again fail to see the difference between weather and climate. Short and sweet, climate is the average of a lot of data and when you have lots of data like that, predictions are more easily seen.

httpDELeTE://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

And what do you mean look at a chart of nuclides? Are you telling me that C-12 was not C-12 a few years ago? Of course we are going to discover new atoms in time, but that has nothing to do with climate change.

All people need to do is spend a little time and learn the math/science behind it. You don't need to learn it all but get a general understanding of the principals. Is it really hard to see that increased insulation around our planet will keep the heat in better?

httpDELETE://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
Maxbyte
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2011
Caren Cooper's response, fairly typical, is a BIG part of the reason climate science is not trusted. It is flat annoying to have someone who should have learned something in graduate school continue to insist that THEY are correct and everyone else is wrong. A second problem with climate "science" is its ad nauseum anthropogenic premise. Climate inquiries will be better received when junk science types have been weeded out. That includes CO2 computer modellers who have almost single handedly defeated consensus work on the various issues. Unfortunately, Jones, Mann, Gore, and the rest of that little coterie need to quietly disappear. Completely.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2011
... or maybe because it's bullshit.
- Tard of Tards

It is funny to see you admit that you are completely ignorant of basic physics.

Since you can't comprehend what is posted here. I wonder what motivates you to come to this particular thread and post stupidity?

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2011
Besides statistical linkage proposals, where is the hard science, ie. a hypothesis that as been tested and proven regarding CO2 roll in warming, that public should believe in.
- Alfred

The hard evidence would be..... Ohhhhhh, the melting ice caps, the melting glaciers, the warming oceans, and the warming atmosphere, the rise in ocean level, the migration of temporate plants and animals northward, etc. etc.. etc...

Theory and common sense say temperatures will go up with increasing CO2. CO2 is observed to be increasing and temperatures are observed to be increasing.

Verification complete.

Only a fool or a liar could possibly disagree.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2011
In 1973 the media were echoing the cries of climatologists proclaiming the next ice age.
- Liar

Which of course is a lie. The scientific literature of the period holds multiple examples of predictions of a warmer world with increasing CO2 concentration. None predict the imminent onset of an ice age, although some articles from the period do discuss the impact of sulphate aerosols on global temperature.

So the question becomes.

What motivates you to come here and lie?

soulman
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2011
The thesis of the article is brilliantly exemplified in the comments section.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2011
"We can't even predict the weather with any reliability more then a day or two in advance. Is the weather changing?" - TardBoy

We can't predict the weather 3,000 years from now either.

But we can predict the climate.

If you can't understand that, they you aren't capable of comprehending the subject. So move on little man.... Move on...

Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2011
"Climategate" - Ted208

Investigated a half dozen times.
No evidence of wrongdoing was found a half dozen times.

Is that all you have Tard Boy?

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2011
"It is always impressive how quickly the trolls attack articles about climate change." - Bacon Bits

They are paid to be here after all.

There are probably only 2 of them assigned to this web site.
Parsec
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2011
The IPCC AGW theories and predictions are failing to come true. The falsified Hockey Stick history did not help, either. Where are the actual high temperature records being set? There aren't many. There are far more record lows. Where is the extreme weather? Virtually everything is within historic norms. After 20 years of crying wolf, folks have stopped listening.

Your completely wrong. There are simply NOT more record lows. If you haven't seen any extreme weather events you haven't been paying attention. The temp is going up, sea levels are rising, and so far it has pretty closely matched the models.

If you do not know what your talking about, people will think your an idiot or stupid when you open your mouth. Particularly when you sprout nonsense like this.

Prove me wrong by quoting sources!
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2011
"If GHG backradiation would heat up the surface, a higher backradiation from Earth to the Sun would raise the temperature up to the core." - FreeTard Thinker

You seem to be working on the false assumption that there is no energy movement from a cold thingy to a cold thingy when those thingies are in thermal contact.

You Poor, stupid... Tard.
alfredh
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2011
This is how it works.
Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don't. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem. This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR).
Certain atmospheric gases, known as "greenhouse gases", absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to "warm" the surface. This is the "greenhouse effect". The "greenhouse effect", in and of
alfredh
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2011
itself, is a completely natural thing, and also a very good thing. Without it, the surface would be far too cold for life as we know it to exist.
At this point, it must be emphasized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is just one of many "greenhouse gases". It is not the most important, nor the most abundant. That distinction belongs to water vapor. Even without carbon dioxide, water vapor alone would cause enough of a greenhouse effect to keep us very near the warm temperatures that we enjoy. Also worth emphasizing is the fact that greenhouse gasses do not "trap" IR. They absorb, then re-emit the IR, in a completely random direction. It could go up, down, sideways, or any direction in between. Re-absorption by other greenhouse gas molecules complicates the path and destination of an individual unit of IR, but what it all boils down to is that something less than half of the IR absorbed by greenhouse gases eventually finds its way back to the surface, with the remainder escaping into space.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2011
"but even a child known when he is being lied to" - Pure Idiocy

Where are those WMD again Tard boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 23, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2011
"turned to conviction when climatologists were found hiding and manipulating experimental data to "hide the decline" of global temperatures." - OmatTard

How dishonest of you to imply that the phrase "hide the decline" was in reference to temperatures.

It wasn't.

And that makes you a liar.

But we all knew that already.. Didn't we.
alfredh
1.6 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2011
Though the greenhouse effect itself is completely natural, and very beneficial, global warming scientists believe that anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) have increased CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we are now experiencing what could be called an "enhanced greenhouse effect". This artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect, could cause significant warming of the atmosphere and the surface, over and above what the natural greenhouse effect causes. Though such additional warming will have both positive and negative consequences for human beings and other life on the planet, global warming scientists believe that the negative consequences far outweigh the positive consequences. (However, in reality, they have no scientific basis for that belief - they just believe, just because it's "man-made", just because it's not "natural", that it must be "bad". Even the alarmist IPCC admits that no one can be certain which effects wil
alfredh
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2011
atmosphere increased a thousand-fold, and even if there was no water vapor, there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb, and that limit is 10% (or less) of all the IR emitted from the surface. And of that 10%, over half of it still ends up escaping into space.
This limit of absorptivity is important because some skeptics argue that, between water vapor and CO2, every available ray of IR within the absorption ranges of CO2 is already being absorbed. Additional molecules of CO2, therefore, will havezero effect on the total absorption of IR. So future warming due to CO2 is simply not possible. The only way CO2 could absorb any more IR than it is already absorbing is if 1) the surface started re-emitting more IR, which could only happen if more sunlight reached the surface, or 2) atmospheric water vapor levels dropped, freeing
alfredh
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2011
up more IR to be absorbed by CO2, in which case, warming would not occur, because that radiation was already being absorbed by the water vapor that disappeared. In fact, if the second option occurred, temperatures would in fact drop, because water vapor absorbs IR over a much wider range than CO2, and therefore, CO2 cannot completely offset the loss of IR absorption by water vapor. However, the existence of CO2, replacing the IR absorption of some of the lost water vapor, would mitigate this temperature drop. Therefore, at current levels, CO2 could be said to be somewhat of a stabilizer of the greenhouse effect, taking up part of the slack when water vapor levels drop too low. In this respect, it is good to have an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
alfredh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2011
It is also possible that, even at pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2, we were already above the "saturation point" of IR absorption by CO2, and therefore, even the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years could not have been caused by carbon dioxide
alfredh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2011
dominate, but, in true alarmist fashion choose to err on the side of pessimism. But that is a completely different discussion, not appropriate to the question at hand.)
Now, here's an important point that global warming scientists don't mention. Though carbon dioxide definitely absorbs IR, it only absorbs IR in two very narrow ranges of wavelengths, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. This is a small percentage of the total IR emitted by the surface. I don't know exactly how small (because I can't find any source for the wavelength distribution of IR emitted from the surface), but it's probably less than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%. And even in those ranges, CO2 has to compete with water vapor, which also absorbs 2.5-3-micron IR. So, even if carbon dioxide in the
alfredh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2011
THE ABOVE NEEDS TO BE INSERTED 3 PARAGRAPHS ABOVE
alfredh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2011
Besides statistical linkage proposals, where is the hard science, ie. a hypothesis that as been tested and proven regarding CO2 roll in warming, that public should believe in.
- Alfred

The hard evidence would be..... Ohhhhhh, the melting ice caps, the melting glaciers, the warming oceans, and the warming atmosphere, the rise in ocean level, the migration of temporate plants and animals northward, etc. etc.. etc...
*** Which they have been doing for millions of years, and will continue to millions of years from now, how does this prove anything

Theory and common sense say temperatures will go up with increasing CO2. CO2 is observed to be increasing and temperatures are observed to be increasing.
*** Not Commom sense nor theory predict anything of the sort

Verification complete.

Only a fool or a liar could possibly disagree.


Calenur
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2011
Great article. Unfortunately there isn't money in rationality, the money is in controversy and inflammatory rhetoric. Additionally, the average American doesn't want to do anything more than turn to their standard "news" station and be fed editorialized information. Very few people actually seek knowledge; just like the talking heads they look to, they want bullet points they can use in daily political conversation.

But what do I know? Maybe the masses are correct...maybe global warming is a hoax, evolution is a lie, nuclear power plants are going to irradiate us all, the earth is 6000 years old and soon the LHC is going to destroy us with a black hole.
MikeyK
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2011
There is a real danger from these deniers...when they can alter education which of course is what the creationists want! Point to prove this, well check this link out...apparently Climate change is caused by astrology!
httDELETEp://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm
Doug_Huffman
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2011
A falsifiable hypothesis is/will be much more convincing than verification of mountains of anecdotes.

Read, understand and practice Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery. Learn the difference between falsifiable science and irrefutable natural history - the history of climate change.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2011
For anyone living north of 40 deg lat in the northern hemisphere be happy the climate changed to melt those glaciers and create the Great Lakes and other features all can enjoy today.
jscroft
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2011
@ryggesogn2: Do you SERIOUSLY mean to suggest that Earth's climate might have changed BEFORE human industry was around to make it change? Racist.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2011
The most credible polls I have seen seem to indicate that the view people take on this issue is not dependent on level of education, though people in certain fields and of certain political stereotypes tend strongly to one side or the other. Maybe stronger political campaigns would do more than an advertising or propaganda campaign like she suggests.

I had a class on how to analyze the things people say when I was at Auburn. The class was called Logic and Basic Reasoning. We had to bring in a printed add every day and point out at least one thing that was BS. We should have done that exercise with science magazine opinion pieces like this one in stead of magazine adds.
PStrand
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2011
You mean that the exposure from 2 decades of climate porn has not converted enough people into disciples of CAGW and that resent revelations that leading scientists in this field has resorted to manipulation of climate data, block articles critical of the CAGW theory from being published in scientific magazines and that some have violated FOI requests and that this has undermined the faith.
Go figure!
Kayla
2.9 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2011
I have been involved in climate science for some 30 years,our planets climate is complex.It is influenced by the pdo,amo,solar activity and other variables.When you oppose the popular beliefs,possible results are harsh.The scientists who were involved in climate gate were judged by their piers,its like the mafia trying their own.Bloggers like Vendicar Decarian give this site a bad name,rude comments not science are used as tools to intimidate.Science is never decided aways open to discusion grow up and leave the scnide remarks for the playground
BrianValentine
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2011
It is indeed, difficult to persuade the public to accept absolute fabricated bunk as "science" and the problem is not "communication" - it is the intuitive understanding that the whole "man-made-global-warming" party is a complete farce.

There is NOTHING anybody can do to get people to swallow a bunch of nonsense - and the people pushing that garbage can't figure out they're only making it worse by turning deceit into howling comedy
BobArmstrong
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2011
The fact that this Global Statist Stupidity is disintegrating is revealed by the subtitle : "Though ***most*** climate science studies show evidence ..." . Gone are the days when the "science" can be claimed to be "unequivocal" even by the true believers .

From the level of understanding of the most basic physics I see demonstrated by Alarmists , it appears one can get a PhD in "climate science" without even learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball . The field has been grossly retarded compared to other fields of applied physics by this fraud .

I applaud jscroft's succinct summary .

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
@alfredh,

Your understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 is only partially correct. Particularly when you get into the "saturation" fallacy, you start to go wrong. See here, if you wish to improve your grasp of the science (as explained by professionals, but in simple layman terms and narrative):

http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
I'm not surprised that I got luke-warm ratings for my previous comment. However I'm sure that's purely due to people trying to support or oppose an agenda. The article itself is a very pro-agenda article.

I think it is really ironic that she is talking about people not being able to critically analyze what they read, when that kind of analysis on her own satements shows so much that is questionable.
Arkaleus
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
The gamble the green-statists had to make was using real math and the language of science to justify their political advance.

When observations updated climate numbers did not generate the hysteria necessary to gain wins in the lawmaking bodies, they retreated to areas where the green-financial consortium have made significant progress like carbon trading and climate law capitalization.
alfredh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2011
@alfredh,
**** A Good article, but not definitive by any measure. But read through it again yourself. If you start with a bias (and I will admit that I also have a bias, mostly based on conviction that humans are very arrogant and have no appreciation of scale), you can see the blow by blow ebb and flow of this debate. It is by no means settled science, and I predict that major revisions will be made over the next 1000-10,000 years (a reasonable geologic time frame).
Your understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 is only partially correct. Particularly when you get into the "saturation" fallacy, you start to go wrong. See here, if you wish to improve your grasp of the science (as explained by professionals, but in simple layman terms and narrative):

http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm

alfredh
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2011
@alfredh,

Your understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 is only partially correct. Particularly when you get into the "saturation" fallacy, you start to go wrong. See here, if you wish to improve your grasp of the science (as explained by professionals, but in simple layman terms and narrative):

http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm


**** A Good article, but not definitive by any measure. But read through it again yourself. If you start with a bias (and I will admit that I also have a bias, mostly based on conviction that humans are very arrogant and have no appreciation of scale), you can see the blow by blow ebb and flow of this debate. It is by no means settled science, and I predict that major revisions will be made over the next 1000-10,000 years (a reasonable geologic time frame).
Maxbyte
3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2011
This article by Krishna Ramanujan helps illustrate the controversial nature of climate science. But Ramanujan's article is not an accurate review of Caren Cooper's March 2011 article.

It is true that the title of Caren Cooper's article puts the focus on public acceptance of climate science and the role media literacy plays in educating the public.

But what Cooper actually talks about are the political / policy consequences of failing to shape the public dialog on climate change. For example: "there is a lack of strong US policies to address climate change", and "democracy formulated policymaking cannot address climate change without public acceptance and trust...."

Cooper then goes after "traditional informal science education (ISE)" which, she contends, does not emphasize critical thinking, and which does not control "[destructive] influences in a media-laden world".

IOW, Cooper would impose policies favorable to climate science, a political no-starter.
alfredh
3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2011
Cooper then goes after "traditional informal science education (ISE)" which, she contends, does not emphasize critical thinking, and which does not control "[destructive] influences in a media-laden world".

It is amazing how few people seem interested in critical, skeptical thinking/logic. I don't know if changing education would make much difference. The wholesale acceptance of "faith" as a logical construct, leads many people to accept all manner of pseudo babble couched in scientific terms. A=B=C therefore A=C seems not to be relevant to most people if the conclusions are unpleasant or inconvenient.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2011
It is amazing how few people seem interested in critical, skeptical thinking/logic.

Such thinking is not rewarded in k-12 or in university. Especially in politically correct classes.
Look at how those who are critical of 'global climate change' are attacked for their critical thinking.
A simple observation that if your climate model can't explain the MWP, how valid is it to predict the future engenders much name calling.
TheShadow
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2011
It is amazing to me how skeptics are attacked for their obvious lack of scientific understanding on the issue of climate change, yet are told things like, "Theory and common sense say temperatures will go up with increasing CO2. CO2 is observed to be increasing and temperatures are observed to be increasing." This statement displays a complete disconnect between correlation and causation. Temperature did indeed increase between roughly 1970 - 2000 as CO2 increased. However, temperature increased from roughly 1910 to 1940 about as much and about as fast as that of roughly 1970 - 2000 without a significant increase in CO2. Also, temperature was relatively flat from roughly 1940 - 1970 with a large increase on CO2. CO2 is clearly not a major source of atmospheric warming.

BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2011
"CO2 is clearly not a major source of atmospheric warming."

Indeed it cannot be, unless someone has designed a perpetual motion (of the second kind) machine.

The stratosphere has to cool with the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. The troposphere has to get warmer, according to the theory. Then if the atmosphere conducts heat, then over the same time period that the troposphere warms (~ one decade), the heat is conducted away to the stratosphere.

So there you go, in one sentence, we have the whole farce dispelled.

P T Barnum: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of the public."
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2011
Any nincompoop can see that, and no genius can refute it.

Tough luck to those whose life's meaning depends on the absurd
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2011
How much money has been wasted on the imbecile?

God Almighty, you couldn't count it
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2011

The stratosphere has to cool with the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. The troposphere has to get warmer, according to the theory. Then if the atmosphere conducts heat, then over the same time period that the troposphere warms (~ one decade), the heat is conducted away to the stratosphere.
I hope you aren't building your grand argument on this statement.

Addition of CO2 increases the heat potential of the troposphere, creating less heating of the stratosphere.

Guess what the satelites show. Exactly what is predicted above by the theory.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
@TheShadow,
This statement displays a complete disconnect between correlation and causation. ... temperature was relatively flat from roughly 1940 - 1970 with a large increase on CO2. CO2 is clearly not a major source of atmospheric warming.
Pot, meet kettle?

Or perhaps you've forgotten that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has a strong theoretical and fundamental empirical (quantum optics) foundation? Or maybe you're unaware of the steadily increasing heat content in the upper layers of the world's oceans -- or any of the other empirical phenomena predicted by and thus confirming the theory?

"Clearly", you don't have much of a clue regarding what you're opining about.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
I agree with Mr. PinkElephant. When obvious is overwhelming, its kind of ignorant to assume stupid is correct.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (13) Mar 24, 2011
It would be interesting to see the first principle analysis of how .05% of the lower atm can absorb so much energy in such narrow IR band passes to enable so much heat retention.

If CO2 were such a heat trap, the deltas between daily high and low temperatures over extremely dry deserts should be measurably decreasing. Typically the temperature in a desert can drop 30+deg F during the night. That extra CO2 is not much of a blanket.
Look at the same data in the tropics with 100% humidity, the delta is a few degrees F, if they are lucky.
Then take a look at the IR absorption bands for H2O and that explains much.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2011
@BrianValentine,
The stratosphere has to cool with the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. ... if the atmosphere conducts heat...
There are three ways the atmosphere conducts heat: sensible transfer, convection, and radiation. With altitude, the atmosphere becomes exponentially less dense, which means it becomes quite poor at sensible transfer; convection slows down as well. At the top of the atmosphere, radiative cooling dominates (ultimately, it's the only way for a planet in thermal equilibrium to shed the Sun's incident heat back out into space.)

With increasing CO2 concentrations, the top of the stratosphere cools not because there is less heat passing through it out into space, but because most of the heat passing through it is radiative, and at wavelengths that it doesn't absorb. The wavelengths CO2 does absorb, are already blocked in the lower layers by the growing CO2 concentrations there. See here for more:

http://www.atmosp...20c.html
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2011
@ryggesogn2,
It would be interesting to see the first principle analysis of how .05% of the lower atm can absorb so much energy in such narrow IR band passes to enable so much heat retention.
See here:

http://www.aip.or...math.htm
Typically the temperature in a desert can drop 30+deg F during the night. That extra CO2 is not much of a blanket.
Non-sequitur. The drop would be even more precipitous without "that extra CO2".
Look at the same data in the tropics with 100% humidity, the delta is a few degrees F, if they are lucky.
Then take a look at the IR absorption bands for H2O and that explains much.
No, deserts can have 100% relative humidity too. The main difference: clouds are more prevalent in the tropics, than over deserts. It is cloud cover that provides the most effective thermal blanket at night (it's warmer on cloudy nights, colder on clear nights.)
BrianValentine
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2011
"Addition of CO2 increases the heat potential of the troposphere, creating less heating of the stratosphere."

That is saying, the addition of a substance to the troposphere can stop heat conduction through to the stratosphere.

It is this imbecile logic that caused the nitwit idea to perpetuate in the first place. The stratosphere can cool for a lot of reasons, and the addition of CO2 in the stratosphere and troposphere isn't one of them.

This is the hallmark of junk science: invent an impossible mechanism so that your stupid idea can happen. You would have more credibility blaming it on phantoms.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2011
@BrianValentine,

Calling something you don't understand and refuse to study and understand, stupid, is only a reflection of your own quality.
BrianValentine
1 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2011
You might as well stick with attempted character assaults to win your argument because your junk science logic isn't on your side!
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2011
That "junk science logic" is called Physics. Flaunting your ignorance of it on a site named "physorg" is ... well....
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2011
The comments here remind me that Al Gore was a genius - not in inventing the internet - but in using it as a tool of government propaganda.

Please see this link to Ron Paul, the Libertarian.

www.prisonplanet....nment.ht
AkiBola
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2011
Let me see if I have this straight. The IPCC publishes alarmist (A)GW claims that primarily rely on fradulent hockey stick graphs and the bogus anecdotal observations of a weekend backpacker, key researchers collude to "hide the decline", and public distrust is the fault of the media for not being literate? Hogwash. To the extent that there is distrust, it is there because the science is not ready for prime time, and the issue has been taken over by political interests. Give the public credit for seeing through the BS.

Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
Addition of CO2 increases the heat potential of the troposphere, creating less heating of the stratosphere.
That is saying, the addition of a substance to the troposphere can stop heat conduction through to the stratosphere.
Not necessarily stop, but slow or delay, certainly.
It is this imbecile logic that caused the nitwit idea to perpetuate in the first place.
So I'm assuming you don't wear a jacket in the winter, because that 'imbecile logic' is a lie perpetrated to make us believe that adding a substance (clothing) would prevent our bodies from rapidly losing heat in the winter time.
This is the hallmark of junk science: invent an impossible mechanism so that your stupid idea can happen. You would have more credibility blaming it on phantoms.
I think I'll keep wearing a coat when it's cold out. You may think it is junk science, but I'd prefer to not get frostbite.
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2011
"Not necessarily stop, but slow or delay, certainly."

If the lower atmosphere warms, and the upper atmosphere cools, doesn't the heat transfer rate increase?

The heat transfer rate is proportional to the temperature gradient (conduction), and proportional to the difference of fourth powers of absolute temperature (radiation), meaning that the heat transfer rate increases if the temperature difference grows wider.

Let's face it. You're trying to salvage a belief that you want to hold onto. You can't, and the usual escape route is to attack someone's "intelligence."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2011
See here:

http://www.aip.or...math.htm

More bs as it ignores spectral emissivities.
TheShadow
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
... -- or any of the other empirical phenomena predicted by and thus confirming the theory?


@Pink Elephant

I agree, there is empirical data and observation to corfirm the theory. But there is also empirical data and observation that contradicts. One cannot simply choose that which supports theory and claim proof.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
"Not necessarily stop, but slow or delay, certainly."

If the lower atmosphere warms, and the upper atmosphere cools, doesn't the heat transfer rate increase?
If you are wearing a jacket, do you get colder faster?
The heat transfer rate is proportional to the temperature gradient (conduction), and proportional to the difference of fourth powers of absolute temperature (radiation), meaning that the heat transfer rate increases if the temperature difference grows wider.
You forgot "assuming both volumes or bodies are alike in content and proportion".
Let's face it. You're trying to salvage a belief that you want to hold onto.
Nah, I'm objectively reading the evidence. My 'belief' before I read up on the topic was that CO2 couldn't possibly be of high enough quantity to cause AGCC. I was wrong, so I've changed my stance.
You can't, and the usual escape route is to attack someone's "intelligence."

I'm not attacking your intelligence. Would you like me to?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
By the way Mr. Valentine, don't you have more important things to do over at the DoE? brian.valentine@ee.doe.gov

A picture of you from the 60's is still a picture of you. It would be fairly stupid for someone to use a teenage picture of themself to attempt to sway those 'young cool kids on the internet' about global warming. Especially when you use your own name and you're so outspoken on Climate Change.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
Just to further drive it home:

http://www.linked.../96b/58a

There's your 'linked in' account, featuring the same picture you have in your physorg profile. Get back to work before we have to call the GAO to account for your time online.

If this isn't indicative of the lengths that these anti-science cretins will go to in order to obfuscate the issue for personal gain, then no evidence will ever suffice of your manipulations from a false platform of authority. You should be ashamed of yourself.
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2011
By the way Mr. Valentine, don't you have more important things to do over at the DoE?


Why does someone hiding their own identity try to expose some one else's identity?

Mr. Valentine's occupation is none of our business, unless he wishes to release that information.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
The heat transfer rate is proportional to the temperature gradient (conduction)
That only applies to conduction through dense objects. The upper atmosphere is closer to a vacuum. The main mechanism of heat transfer up there is infrared radiation. And the temperature of gases up there depends mainly on how much of that infrared radiation they absorb vs. emit. And that's where spectral absorption and emission bands become particularly important.
and proportional to the difference of fourth powers of absolute temperature (radiation)
Radiation either passes through, or is trapped. This depends crucially on how opaque or transparent a collection of gases at a given temperature and pressure is to any particular wavelength of radiation.
the heat transfer rate increases if the temperature difference grows wider
If all other things remain fixed. However, heat transfer rate between a cup of hot water and vacuum, vs. a thermos of same hot water and vacuum?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
Why does someone hiding their own identity try to expose some one else's identity?
Why don't you simply ask me who I am in that eventuality?
Mr. Valentine's occupation is none of our business, unless he wishes to release that information.
Which he has, by posting correlating evidence that allows me to determine who he is.

Not everyone has something to hide like yourself.

On another note, aren't you the one who consistently warns of us "scientists in power within the government". Keep a consistent viewpoint.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
The solution? Cooper draws on a new approach emerging in the field of science communication that engages the public in activities and dialogues that interpret scientific knowledge. Citizen science, where the public actively collects scientific data, offers one such example.


Ah, brainwashing...or EXACTLY what she's accusing the other side of doing...take your pick.

ON EDIT:

Why don't you simply ask me who I am in that eventuality?


I'll bite, who are you?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
Sorry S_H, didn't mean to trample on your posts by repeating what you already said; you posted while I was typing =)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
I'll bite, who are you?
James Wyant. Not the optics professor/author. He's a wholly different person.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
@TheShadow,

The supporting evidence is unambiguous and cannot be explained in any other way. The contradictory data is equivocal, and in many cases erroneous (e.g. apparent contradictions in observation -- such as temperature trends in the mesosphere -- which later turn out to be a result of bad measurements or errors in analysis.)

This is where expertise and experience comes in. People who are not versed in the field, are easily swayed by the gobs of BS spewed by disingenuous think tanks and political talking heads. But the actual science is quite convincing -- both in terms of theory, and in terms of empirical data -- which is why the absolutely overwhelming majority of CLIMATE, SCIENTISTS, do not dispute either the theory or the projections. The remaining debate concerns only the details and precision of the models (will reality turn out to be closer to the lower or upper range of the projections?)
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2011
I'll bite, who are you?
James Wyant. Not the optics professor/author. He's a wholly different person.


I take back all the mean thoughts I just had about you being a cyberstalker :P
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
@ryggesogn2,
More bs as it ignores spectral emissivities.
Yeah, American Institute of Physics is just full of BS.

And of course, radiative heat transfer theory ignores spectral emissivities, since they are a key feature of radiative transport through the air column, and all physicists involved in such analysis are just plain dumb and incompetent.

Not that even simple one-dimensional radiative transfer models since Manabe have accurately derived the thermal and humidity profile of an average air column at any given latitude and time of day/year. It won't be relevant, right? Because agreement between theory and measurement is inconsequential in science.

Please, never let ignorance and political tilt stop you from spouting falsehoods.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
James Wyant. Not the optics professor/author.


You forgot to mention your place of employment.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
James Wyant. Not the optics professor/author.

You forgot to mention your place of employment.
I work for myself. Would you like to call me and try to get me to fire myself? That is your Modus Operandi is it not Mr. Manuel?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
@AkiBola,
fradulent hockey stick graphs
You've been lied to regarding this. There was no fraud. And the graph is still valid:

http://en.wikiped...troversy
key researchers collude to "hide the decline"
You've been lied to regarding this, as well. The "decline" was in reconstructed temps from tree rings in late 20th century. Real temp measurements showed a rise. All it means, is that at least some of the tree ring data used for paleoclimate reconstructions is unreliable. Many other methods of paleoclimate reconstruction (ice sheets, boreholes, lake sediments, etc. and so on) have been employed since, and they mostly, and independently, converge on a "hockey stick".
public distrust is the fault of the media for not being literate
Yes. The media misguidedly or perhaps deliberately gives equal weight to real scientists vs. cranks and political/industry hacks.
Give the public credit for seeing through the BS.
The opposite is the case.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2011
There is one thing that is of extraordinary note when it comes to dealing with people on this site. There's a huge disconnect between people who attempt to stay current with science and technology, and those who don't. The people on these boards who are blatantly paid anti-science agenda people, like Mr. Manuel, Mr. Swenson, and Mr Valentine are ridiculously easy to find. It's as though they don't realize that the internet exists, and every little thing that you've said, every time you've been videotaped, every time you have your picture taken, it's out there in a convenient searchable format.

Perhaps you gentlemen should recognize that shilling is an art that is rather rapidly dying in the digital age. You need to either own it or disown it, but trying to play middleman will simply cause you great amounts of harm in your future prospects.

The revolution was televised, and now, our identities are viral. In the short term, you won't be able to hide behind a screen any longer.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
Funniest thing I have read all day!

Anyway I never have written anything under a pseudonym, because I am proud of who I am. I'm not a little snake who hides under the cover of a pen name nor do I try to "dig up" information about anybody.

I note you didn't send an invitation to be a "Linked In" associate with me!

Don't bother.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2011
American Institute of Physics is just full of BS.

Yes.
What is great about science is that consensus can and is frequently destroyed by data.
AIP is a political organization.
"Professor Lewis detailed five points of contention regarding the APSs alignment on the so-called consensus around global warming. What consensus? The debate isnt over; its only beginning. So said hundreds of APS members, signers of a petition that questioned APSs conclusive positions on global warming.

Professor Lewis pointed out that despite revelations of data cooking, conspiracy to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and conspiracy to prevent opposing research from being published, the APS continued to defend the advocates of global warming"
http://www.examin...-warming
I note that even physorg now allows a few heretical articles.
Oh ye of little faith AGWites.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
American Institute of Physics is just full of BS.


Yes. What is great about science is that consensus can and is frequently destroyed by data.
AIP is a political organization.


The recent global climate scandal revealed the deep roots of the propaganda machine from obvious politicians like Al Gore and the UNs IPCC to once respected organizations like the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UKs Royal Society, the International Alliance of National Science Academies, the government research agencies they control (NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, etc), the news media, including even the most respected ones like BBC and PBS.

Fortunately a greater power, with a sense of humor, seems to be in control and switched off solar activity soon after Al Gores widely publicized dire prediction of global warming.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
consensus can and is frequently destroyed by data
What does that have to do with your false and ignorant assertions regarding physical completeness of radiative transfer models?
AIP is a political organization.
Of course with you, EVERYTHING is political. That would include various deniers, by the way, though admitting that would require some honesty on your part. And AIP is not the same as APS, by the way. Though that's a minor point.
Professor Lewis pointed out that despite revelations of data cooking, conspiracy to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and conspiracy to prevent opposing research from being published...
Oh, really? Seems Professor Lewis needs a few pounds of tin foil removed from the top of his cranium. And, he needs to look at impartial analysis, rather than taking political hacks as his sources.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
Fortunately a greater power, with a sense of humor, seems to be in control
Let me guess... the patron deity of Neutron Repulsion. Hey Oliver, what would be the Sun's mass if its volume (save for a thin surface layer of plasma) consisted of neutronium, as per your model? Get back to me after you've calculated the resulting orbit of Earth...
The recent global climate scandal
You mean, the recent tempest in a tea pot?
revealed the deep roots of the propaganda machine
You'd know all about propaganda, won't you, having cranked all over this site with such dogged determination for so long...
Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UKs Royal Society, the International Alliance of National Science Academies, the government research agencies they control (NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, etc), the news media, including even the most respected ones like BBC and PBS.
The whole world is against you, Oliver. Must be lonely and scary, in your universe.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2011
Temperature at the tropopause by the way is about 222K, pressure about 0.05atm, thermal conductivity of the order E-05W/m-K, which is not large, but over the time frame that CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere the heat from that (and CO2 cooling the stratosphere) is conducted away.

Meaning the "greenhouse effect" can't exist without violating the second law, and let's face it. For as long as CO2 has been around in the atmosphere (since life began!), it isn't possible that the atmosphere would not have long ago saturated with water vapor.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2011
So Pinky does not deny AIP is political.

How well do politics and physics mix? Under the socialist state, that is the only way physicists can be funded, unless, of course, they work for the dreaded private sector for profit.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
Some of this, too, is fear of being smeared on the internet by greenie weenies.

Greenie outfits excel at smearing organizations (and individuals!) with a strong enough backbone to stand up to their bullying and "boycott" campaigns.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2011
Temperature at the tropopause by the way is about 222K, pressure about 0.05atm, thermal conductivity of the order E-05W/m-K, which is not large, but over the time frame that CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere the heat from that (and CO2 cooling the stratosphere) is conducted away.


What is the heat capacity at those altitudes? The heat capacity of the atm is seldom addressed.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2011
So Pinky does not deny AIP is political.
Every sufficiently large organization is political.
How well do politics and physics mix?
Not too well, judging by your performance to date.
BrianValentine
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2011
Cp is of the order E-02kJ/kg-K at the tropopause.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2011
"Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the "U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.""
http://www.mrc.or...omy.html
Soros money is untainted according to the faithful AGWites?

Thanks for the data Brian.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2011
@BrianValentine,

Let's discuss the tropopause. You're aware, I gather, that it is a locus of lapse rate inversion? Let's hear your thermodynamical analysis explaining why heat from the warmer stratosphere does not percolate down to the colder troposphere.

Or, maybe you could just read up on radiative/convective atmospheric heat transport analysis, before opining on such matters? Seems like you'd have the necessary background to understand the technical details, if only you applied yourself...
the "greenhouse effect" can't exist without violating the second law
To the contrary. Every attempt to disprove the "greenhouse effect" has violated some conservation law. And permit me a double-take here: did you just dispute the entire atmospheric greenhouse effect in general?

Incidentally, the second law applies only to ISOLATED systems. No layer of the atmosphere can be construed as such.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2011
So Pinky does not deny AIP is political.
Every sufficiently large organization is political.
How well do politics and physics mix?
Not too well, judging by your performance to date.

So Pinky trusts a biased, political organization for his scientific data. Not very objective.

why heat from the warmer stratosphere does not percolate down to the colder troposphere.

How much heat is that? Heat is measured in units of joules, not Kelvin.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2011
"the second law applies only to ISOLATED systems."

So my car, then, is a perpetual motion machine.

duhh
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
a biased, political organization
Now you're conflating. Politics is not the same thing as bias. And just because scientific findings do not meet your biased expectations, does not mean those findings are biased. It just means your expectations are biased.
for his scientific data
I trust its analysis and review of data. I trust its expertise in physical theory. As for the data, it is multifaceted, and provided by a wide range of research groups and institutions.
Not very objective.
What would you know about objectivity? To date, you've exhibited none.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
So my car, then, is a perpetual motion machine.
Sure it is, as long as you perpetually supply it with gasoline.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2011
The second law is, (entropy change of a system)+(entropy change of ALL the surroundings of the system) is a positive number.

If a system is isolated from the surroundings, then the entropy change of the surroundings is zero.

It is the state of the education system today, where we have this "anything goes physics."
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
So my car, then, is a perpetual motion machine. duhh

So you've never had to insert gas into your 'car system'. You've never emitted exhaust from your 'car system'?

'Fucking retard' is too good a term for you.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
@BrianValentine,

When you invoke the second law as an argument for establishment of equilibrium, you by definition invoke it in the context of a closed system. If there is a continuous exchange of energy between the system and its surroundings, then the system cannot be assumed to have reached internal thermal equilibrium.

For instance, consider a metal rod as a system. I heat one end of it with a blowtorch, and cool the other end of it by dunking it into a river. Under these conditions, will the temperature gradient along the rod ever disappear? I hope your answer is "no".

Now take that same rod, with one end hot and the other cold, and stick it into a thermal cavity. The second law dictates that eventually all parts of the rod will be at the same temperature (thus, maximizing the system's entropy.)

That's the difference between an open and a closed system.
BrianValentine
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
Equilibrium? What "equilibrium"? The Earth never approaches a "steady state" let alone an "equilibrium."

The concept of "local thermodynamic equilibrium" is usually invoked, so that the notion of "temperature" has meaning. In actual fact it is a scattering atmosphere, which is something like the opposite of a "local thermodynamic equilibrium."

But the entropy has meaning outside of the definition of "temperature," because it can be defined (in an abstract sense) as a pure number.

This is getting far afield.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2011
'Fucking retard' is too good a term for you.


Grow up!
BrianValentine
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2011
"Grow up" and behave at least at the level of a juvenile delinquent, instead of a spitting six year old
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2011
For the sake of readers (me included), not 'up' to thermodynamic physics, if you consider the moon, is the complexity of the questions posed, reduced? Can the moon be considered 'steady state' or in equilibrium thermodynamically?

Of course, 'climate' does not apply to the moon.

how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .


A commentator stated this somewhere above. Does the above scenario reduce to this commentator's comment?
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2011
@BrianValentine,
Equilibrium? What "equilibrium"? The Earth never approaches a "steady state" let alone an "equilibrium."
Yes, exactly. Maybe you would now choose to recall something you wrote previously:
over the time frame that CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere the heat from that (and CO2 cooling the stratosphere) is conducted away.

Meaning the "greenhouse effect" can't exist without violating the second law
Maybe now you can see your error. The troposphere is warmed faster with more CO2 (and other GHGs) and water vapor in it, than it can transfer that energy to the stratosphere via conduction or convection. Whereas the stratosphere cools faster with more CO2 and chronic dearth of water vapor, than it can warm up by absorbing any extra (mostly radiant) heat coming off the warmer troposphere.
instead of a spitting six year old
Ha! You should talk, you "stupid", "absurd" "farce" of an "imbecile" "nincompoop" "greenie weenie".
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
Why the Public Distrusts Climate Science

A. Eisenhower warned of potential abuse in 1961 [1].

B. Political bias was noted in IPCC's AGW reports [2,3] before evidence of manipulating and hiding data was discovered.

C. The US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the International Alliance of National Science Academies, government research agencies they control (NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, etc) and the news media failed to speak out after e-mail messages revealed evidence of climatologists hiding and manipulating experimental data.

That is why the public does not trust science.

[1] "Eisenhowers Farewell Address"

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

[2] "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change," NIPCC 50 pages (2008)

www.sepp.org/publ...inal.pdf

[3] "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", E & E 20, 131-144

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
@hush1,
Can the moon be considered 'steady state' or in equilibrium thermodynamically?
No, because the sun-facing side of the moon is much warmer than its night-side. However, to an extent we could say the moon is in a dynamic equilibrium, in that its max/min/average temperatures stay within a narrow range over time, and at any point on its surface the temperature tends to follow a fairly predictable curve.

That said, the Moon's mean surface temperature is -23 C, while Earth's is 14 C -- a difference of 37 C (or K, if you like.) That's despite the fact that the Moon's average albedo is 0.136 while Earth's is 0.367 (i.e. the Moon's surface is on average significantly darker than the Earth's, and absorbs more of the sunlight.)

So even though Earth and the Moon share a very similar orbit around the Sun, Earth's surface is MUCH warmer -- primarily due to the atmospheric greenhouse effect (the rest being geothermal heat -- amounting to about 1/10,000th of solar irradiation.)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
ctd.

Of course, when comparing the Moon and the Earth, it's also important to take into account their respective day/night cycles. Earth exposes every point on its equator to direct sunlight (incident at 90% angle) once every 24 hours, whereas the Moon's "day" is about 708.7 hours long.

In that respect, the Moon's maximal and minimal surface temperatures would be closer to those of a radiantly heated colored ball, than are the Earth's numbers (also, on Earth the difference between the min and max temperature is much smaller than on the Moon -- 147 K vs. 247 K -- not just because of its much shorter day, but also thanks to Earth's atmosphere, and its oceans.)
hush1
3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2011
@PE
Thanks for replying. The discussion prompted me to obtain more on the subject. I have decided on Fundamentals of atmospheric modeling
By Mark Zachary Jacobson

By the time I finished reading, the modeling will have surely changed. Knowledge mimics climate. Always changing.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2011
I find it shocking that a core group of trolls (ie RWing nutties), and elitist right wingers control the debate on global warming here. It's the same "stupid", "absurd" "farce" of an "imbecile" "nincompoop" "greenie weenie" people over and over again making stuff up! Or trying to trip you up when you are describing facts.
Fact. AGW is real. Fact. It is effecting weather. Fact. We are releasing more green house gases by burning fossil fuels than any other processes. Etc... Etc...

Be honest about what you are AGW deniers.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2011
Fact. AGW is real. Fact. It is effecting weather. Fact. We are releasing more green house gases by burning fossil fuels than any other processes. Etc... Etc...

Then prove it. Why is that so difficult?
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
It is indeed, difficult to persuade the public to accept absolute fabricated bunk as "science" and
Nonsense. At least 25 percent of Americans think there is something real in Creation Science which is religion and not science.

There is NOTHING anybody can do to get people to swallow a bunch of nonsense
55 percent of Americans believe that there is something wrong with the well proven theory of evolution.

Heck millions watch Fox News.

The stratosphere has to cool with the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. The troposphere has to get warmer, according to the theory.
Now that one is past being silly. Its a plain lie. The theory is the warming will be in the LOWER atmosphere for the simple reason that the CO2 is in the lower atmosphere. Its heavier than air.

So there you go, in one sentence, we have the whole farce dispelled.
One sentence that was a lie. A new farce.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
P T Barnum: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of the public."
True. Which is why so many people are going with the money. Like you. Telling lies and pretty blatant ones at that.

Any nincompoop can see that, and no genius can refute it.
Lie.

Only those without a clue about the density CO2 could believe that lie you told and I am not a genius and I just refuted you with a basic knowledge of the density of CO2.

Ahh I see that SH has outed you. You really should know better then to post outright lies like those. You have either forgotten everything you learned about chemistry or you are just plain lying. As you are the same age as I am and most likely took freshman chem in 1969 just like I did I don't see how you could have forgotten that CO2 is a tad heavy. Which leaves lying. Well there is a third possibility, you actually let your politics get in the way of your thinking about a scientific matter.

More
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2011
Ethel, millions believe socialism will bring liberty and prosperity. Maybe it will after the socialists murder all those who disagree with them as they did last century.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2011
Which is pretty sick either way. And that photo. Pretty sad that you post one that doesn't even come close to showing someone around sixty. That sort of behavior is not a sign of an honest person.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
Ethel, millions believe socialism will bring liberty and prosperity.
Feeling left out?

I said nothing that in any way had anything to do with you, socialism, capitalism, or even Idiotology so bugger off with your ludicrously irrelevant RightWingNutRetainerClipTM idiocy.

Ice melts whether you like it or not. Whether you are living AnnRandFantasyLand or reality.

If you want to discuss anything with me STICK TO WHAT I SAID. Is that clear enough for you?

Probably not since you can't think past Ann Rand's Vagina.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2011
Which is pretty sick either way. And that photo. Pretty sad that you post one that doesn't even come close to showing someone around sixty. That sort of behavior is not a sign of an honest person.

Ethelred

Don't believe everything you see on the web and don't believe SH. You should be more skeptical, too.

To the larger point, how typical. Make personal attacks instead of addressing the issue. The issue being the weak data supporting AGW and the attacks upon those pointing out the flaws.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
Don't believe everything you see on the web
You should take your own advice to heart.
and don't believe SH.
Never believe anyone you encounter on the internet. Evaluate what they say. Less blind belief is a good thing. Perhaps you should try it.
You should be more skeptical, too.
Like a broken record. Again, another example of how the out of touch don't understand modern media and its extended capabilities.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2011
Evaluate what they say.

I have. SH is not to be trusted.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
Don't believe everything you see on the web and don't believe SH.
I don't. You especially.

ou should be more skeptical, too.
Perhaps, but I am generally fairly skeptical.

So I followed the links. Its the same guy and he is my age and not a young man. He may not be paid to be an idiot but he sure has made idiotic posts here. I am reasonably certain you don't understand that the posts were either lies or stupid because you simply aren't in touch with reality.

Make personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.
Lie. I addressed the issue. THEN I also addressed his duplicitous photo and the way it reflects on him as a person. It makes it very likely that he was not simply being stupid. He is too well educated for it to be ignorance like in your case. That makes intentional lying or politics rotting his brains the most reasonable alternative.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2011
Just to further drive it home:

http:/www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-g-valentine/21/96b/58a

There's your 'linked in' account, featuring the same picture you have in your physorg profile. Get back to work before we have to call the GAO to account for your time online.

If this isn't indicative of the lengths that these anti-science cretins will go to in order to obfuscate the issue for personal gain, then no evidence will ever suffice of your manipulations from a false platform of authority. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Say this with a German accent: "Vee know vere you live."
Intimidate instead of elucidate. I guess that is your only option.
That was the Clinton way and the Chicago way, intimidate.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
One of ethel's aruguments is that AGW must be real as millions believe it is real.
No, it wasn't. That is your reasoning behind the existence of God.
Millions believe in God.
See?
Millions believed in Stalin's socialism and still believe in socialism (SH and ethel for example).
Stalin was a communist, not a socialist. There is a difference.
How typical.
Yep, another wasted 5 minutes of reading your lies.
Say this with a German accent: "Vee know vere you live."
Nationalist puke.
Intimidate instead of elucidate.
Well you're certainly not going to get it either way. I'm starting to think you were homeschooled, perhaps by the livestock, certainly not by anyone I would consider intelligent beyond that level.
I guess that is your only option.
With you, yes it is. You refuse to read, refuse to learn, refuse to think. We can only do so much when attempting to educate the willfully ignorant.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2011
With you, yes it is. You refuse to read, refuse to learn, refuse to think. We can only do so much when attempting to educate the willfully ignorant.

The lies and intimidation continue.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
The lies and intimidation continue.
If you're intimidated by someone on the internet, you must be quite a fearful individual. Explains your lust for guns.
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2011
The Stench of Deceit


World-wide unrest and distrust of science and political leaders have been likened to the behavior of bees:

When bees are happy, the beehive smells sweet.

When bees get mad, the beehive smells sour.

My unrest began at the AGU meeting in Washington, DC in April of 1976, when the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I found that organized science was as dishonest in promoting misinformation about the birth of the Solar System as organized religions were in promoting their own slanted views of creation.

Science 195, 208-209 (1977)
www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

Unease increased sharply in 2009 when e-mail messages revealed evidence of climatologists hiding and manipulating experimental data to promote government propaganda of AGW (anthropologic global warming).

The stench of deceit became overwhelming when the news media joined forces with government science agencies and scientific journals and organizations to promote AGW anyway. - Oliver K. Manuel
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
When bees are happy, the beehive smells sweet.

When bees get mad, the beehive smells sour.

How about when they're all dead? It's environmental tampering on a large scale through a multitude of vectors. The hive is empty, and the crop unpollinated. Then we really suffer.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2011
When bees are happy, the beehive smells sweet.

When bees get mad, the beehive smells sour.

How about when they're all dead? It's environmental tampering on a large scale through a multitude of vectors. The hive is empty, and the crop unpollinated. Then we really suffer.

The world will suffer if politically motivated science organizations die out?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2011
The lies and intimidation continue.
If you're intimidated by someone on the internet, you must be quite a fearful individual. Explains your lust for guns.


So far SH is the only one who has attempted to find the people who challenge his claims and threaten them.
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2011
So far SH is the only one who has attempted to find the people who challenge his claims and threaten them.


Can we give Skeptic_Heretic a chance to quietly change?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
So far SH is the only one who has attempted to find the people who challenge his claims and threaten them.
What threats?
Can we give Skeptic_Heretic a chance to quietly change?
Into what? You guys? Won't happen.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2011
Frankly, distrust of climate science is NOT due to lack of literacy.

Distrust of climate science started with questionable claims of CO2-induced global warming, championed by a large army of federally-funded climatologists and promoted by Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

Suspicion - over claims that the "science is absolutely settled" - turned to conviction when climatologists were found hiding and manipulating experimental data to "hide the decline" of global temperatures.

Attempts to excuse obvious violation of basic scientific principles only destroyed public confidence in the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NOAA, EPA, major research journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) and the news media (BBC, PBS, etc).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


Generally correct. Readers should take caution; rating comments before reading them.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2011
As usual, a gaggle of deniers exhibiting their refusal to acknowledge the well-established, scientifically verified basis of AGW(not to mention SCIENCE in general), and dogged, swirling, move-the-goalposts "responses", replete with strawman "rebuttals" to anyone that dares to contradict their shillery.

Prima facie evidence of the lengths to which people will go to protect their interests. As the man said: you would eat shit and say it tasted good -if there was a dollar in it for you.

Here's a news flash for you: don't expect the rest of us- whose interests are for clean air, clean water, and a planet that remains habitable for us- to be taken by your non-scientific trollery.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
@Ethelred,

CO2 is relatively "heavy", but it is well mixed throughout the air column nonetheless. In this case, convection overcomes gravitational sorting. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is particularly over-represented, both in terms of mass or volume fraction and in terms of its optical activity, in the upper atmosphere (where water vapor is notably depleted due to precipitation, and pressures and temperatures are low enough that absorption/emission spectra resolve into sharp lines thus reducing actual optical overlap between various greenhouse gases.)

The stratosphere IS projected to cool as a consequence of increased CO2, because it becomes more efficient at radiating away its heat, while not being as efficient at absorbing radiated heat from the troposphere because the frequencies absorbed by CO2 are already suppressed by increased tropospheric CO2 and H2O.

In fact, the pattern of a warming troposphere + cooling stratosphere is both predicted and actually measured signature of AGW.
TheShadow
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2011
@ Caliban

I find it truly offensive that you think only CAGW-proponents are interested in clean air, clean water, and a habitable planet. The straw man implication could not be more clear and hypocritical.

I also find it amusing that you naively think only skeptics could be tainted by money. And do you honestly think oil/energy companies care a whit about which way the legislation goes? If it doesn't pass, it's business as usual with hefty profits. If it passes, then they go into the energy trading game and make heftier profits (at our expense). Can you say Enron?

And, please, grow up. Skeptics are not deniers. We have done our research and have simply come to the conclusion that the conflicting and contradictory data and observations do not yet justify regulating/taxing CO2. If there was less bullying on the part of CAGW-proponents and more explanation of the conflicting/contradictory data/observations, perhaps there might be a convergence of opinion.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2011
ctd.

Though for completeness, it should also be mentioned that a significant contributor to stratospheric cooling is destruction of ozone. We all know that ozone absorbs solar UV, and in the upper atmosphere this absorption directly translates into heating of the gas that's doing the absorbing (which then transfers its heat to other gases in the upper atmosphere.) This is the primary mechanism behind the thermal lapse inversion at the tropopause (the upper stratosphere is significantly warmer than the upper troposphere, whereas the tropopause is the inflection point in the atmospheric temperature gradient.)

Initially, ozone depletion was triggered mostly by man-made CFC emissions. Nowadays, there's a feedback cycle where a cooling stratosphere increases the efficiency with which ozone is destroyed, even as CFC concentrations slowly decrease following their phaseout.
ereneon
2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2011
I think it is pretty clear that the climate is changing, but when has the climate ever not been changing? Climate is not a static thing. Look up the little ace age for examples of dramatic climate change in the recent past. Whether humans have a significant effect on the change is another matter. I think humans can definitely affect climate locally (clear-cutting forests and then ending up with dust storms and floods, or something similar) but I think the evidence is less solid that humans are effecting global climate significantly. There are plenty of people on both sides of this argument with huge stakes in it (money, political power, etc.) so I think it is getting harder and harder to find unbiased evidence. The real lesson to take from this is that when science and politics get together, nothing good comes out of it.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2011
There are plenty of people on both sides of this argument with huge stakes in it (money, political power, etc.) so I think it is getting harder and harder to find unbiased evidence.
So, stop looking to people with money (and that would include most media outlets.) Start listening to scientists, instead.
TheShadow
2.3 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2011
Start listening to scientists, instead.


Pink - We are listening to scientists. There are quite a few that have issues with the science behind CAGW. We're not skeptical just to be difficult or contrary. They present, in my opinion, legitimate conflicting data/observations that the CAGW community has not addressed. And, until it is addressed, I will remain skeptical of the CAGW position and oppose any political "solution".
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2011
. . . until it is addressed, I will remain skeptical of the CAGW position and oppose any political "solution".


Many others share your concerns, Shadow.

World leaders and politicians do not yet realize the worldwide repercussions from their united effort to promote questionable climate conclusions as "scientific facts".

Ordinary citizens now doubt the validity of government warnings about second-hand smoke, the N1H1 virus, chromium VI (Cr+6) in the environment, the ozone hole in the atmosphere, etc., etc.

This might have been avoided if leaders of the scientific community had spoken out when evidence of manipulation of climate data was first discovered.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2011
Why did the Chicken Little scientists propose political, socialist options instead of technical, scientific options?
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2011
And when did the Chicken Little scientists stop beating their wives?
Deesky
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2011
And when did the Chicken Little scientists stop beating their wives?

Ouch!
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2011
@PinkElephant:

That was completely inappropriate. If you can't present a relevant argument, don't write anything at all.

The fact of the matter is, climate science is incomplete (at best).

@Deesky:

Same goes for you, but you're much worse. You're a coward sockpuppet with nothing of value to ad, even with your regular account. Are you even 12 yet? Go away and let the grownups talk.

PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2011
@ubavontuba,

I notice you conspicuously omitted ryggie the clown or Oliver the crank from your admonitions. You make me feel so special.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2011
@ubavontuba,

I notice you conspicuously omitted ryggie the clown or Oliver the crank from your admonitions. You make me feel so special.
Although ryggesogn2's choice of adjectives was rather poor, he posed a legitimate and relevant question.

And, omatumr also makes a valid point. For science to actually be science, honesty is a necessity.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2011
Legitimate and relevant question? Like, why an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Like, whether one should hack away at the branch one is perched on? Yes, let's contemplate those impenetrable conundrums... Shall you write the dissertation, or must I?

Valid point? If we are to prefer honesty, shouldn't we condemn sensational and dishonest accounts of "climategate"? But you know what's REALLY important "for science to actually be science"? Basic scientific literacy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2011
"we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility."
"when massive amounts of public monies and human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and
review."
http://www.uoguel...port.pdf
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2011
Sowells book The vision of the annointed describes the behavior of the Nobel-Prize 'team' in charge of climate data and another team in charge of isotope data [1,2] from the Galileo Probe of Jupiter in 1995 that

a.) Cost the US taxpayers over $1,000,000,000 and

b.) Confirmed reports [3] that our Sun is the remnant of a supernova that produced distinctly different elements in the inner and outer parts of the Solar System.

1. "Abundances of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes in Jupiter", in The Origins of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations, O. K. Manuel, Editor, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 589-643 (2000).

www.omatumr.com/a...ietz.pdf

2. "Galileo probe confirms 'Strange' xenon in Jupiter"

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

3. Solar abundance of the elements, Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983).

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2011
Although ryggesogn2's choice of adjectives was rather poor, he posed a legitimate and relevant question.
It was idiotic as usual. Meteorologists are finding the problems. They are NOT engineers and it is up to the engineers to find the technical solutions. If they can not do so that leaves social solutions. It IS a social problem as well as a technical one.

And, omatumr also makes a valid point. For science to actually be science, honesty is a necessity.
Do let us know when that hypocrite engages in honesty. The meteorologists have been reasonably honest. However ONE idiot denier backs Oliver in his vastly silly idea of a RIGID iron Sun so that could be why Oliver backs the deniers. Could just be that he hates real scientists as he definitely hates scientists right across the board.

Frankly he doesn't like anything. He is a very sick person and nothing he says can be accepted without strong evidence to support it. He has lived a lie all his life.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2011
Meteorologists are finding the problems.

But they advocate and support socialist solutions.

"Matt Rogers and Joe Bastardi are not the only meteorologists clamoring for an open and honest debate on the global warming issue. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts, has long railed against the manmade climate change theory and specifically against the outrageous claims of its advocates like James Hansen. John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said that he believed global warming was the greatest scam in history. "
"Satterfields response and others that seem to shout down dissenters without offering any sort of opportunity for reasoned discussion highlights the frustration of other scientists who simply want to have their voice heard."
http://www.examin...g-theory
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2011
One of ethel's aruguments is that AGW must be real as millions believe it is real.
No, it wasn't. That is your reasoning behind the existence of God.
Millions believe in God.
See?
Millions believed in Stalin's socialism and still believe in socialism (SH and ethel for example).

Stalin was a communist, not a socialist. There is a difference.
How typical.
Yep, another wasted 5 minutes of reading your lies.
Say this with a German accent: "Vee know vere you live."
Nationalist puke.
Intimidate instead of elucidate.
Well you're certainly not going to get it either way. I'm starting to think you were homeschooled, perhaps by the livestock, certainly not by anyone I would consider intelligent beyond that level.
I guess that is your only option.
With you, yes it is. You refuse to read, refuse to learn, refuse to think. We can only do so much when attempting to educate the willfully ignorant.


What a sane response. Thx
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2011
"Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem all measures he has promoted before. First, he wants a moratorium and phase-out of coal-fired power stations "
"he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend": a mechanism for putting a price on carbon "
"renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, " {How long will this take to be implemented?}
http://www.guardi...ck-obama
The high priest of AGW proposes solutions requiring govt coercion. But then he IS a govt employee.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2011
This video explains the problem:

"The Vision of the Annointed"

www.youtube.com/w...OSKBR9O8
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
This video explains the problem:"The Vision of the Annointed"
How is a video in reference to a book about social repression have anything to do with scientists advocating for ecologically friendly practices?

Sowell wrote about government enforce multiculturalism, among other things comming from a point of scientific illiteracy. Effectively you're arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to promote your thoughts on the topic due to a lack of authoritative evidence.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys even read the sources you post.
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2011
"The troposphere is warmed faster with more CO2 (and other GHGs) and water vapor in it, than it can transfer that energy to the stratosphere via conduction or convection. Whereas the stratosphere cools faster with more CO2 and chronic dearth of water vapor, than it can warm up by absorbing any extra (mostly radiant) heat coming off the warmer troposphere."
Negative, the conduction heat rate is a lot higher. The stratosphere warms primarily through the reaction of molecular oxygen to form ozone, and is cooled by radiation. (Thus the stratosphere goes through a maximum in temperature above the cooling resulting from the adiabatic temperature lapse with altitude.) How to make junk science: Invent an impossible mechanism for something to happen, then get people on board to regulate things by screaming loudly enough, and demonize people who don't buy it. Like catalyzing chemical reactions at -90 deg.C on "polar stratospheric clouds," for example, to form ClO- and "destroy" the "ozone
ereneon
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2011
So, stop looking to people with money (and that would include most media outlets.) Start listening to scientists, instead.

Though I agree with part of this, I think it is important to realize that scientists are human and subject to corruption as well. I have worked in academia for several years, and I have seen corruption and misuse of taxpayer money like you would not believe. Examples:
$2000 cappuccino machine bought as "lab equipment" with federal grant money
Publishing the same data over and over again with different wording to get more publications
Pushing obviously dead-end projects which waste taxpayer money just to keep the grants flowing
Lying about author lists to get more publications for friends
Corrupt collusion in peer review process (if someone is famous or friends with the reviewers, then it is basically a free pass in some cases) Yes, I know reviews are supposed to be anonymous, but experts in the field can tell who the paper came from.
BrianValentine
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2011
"CO2 is relatively "heavy", but it is well mixed throughout the air column nonetheless. In this case, convection overcomes gravitational sorting."

Gravity influences everything the same way, of course, although a "sorting" occurs as a result of molecular kinetic energy (mv**2)/2 proportional to temperature, the temperature decreases (in the troposphere) with altitude. In this distribution of molecular speeds, the average molecular speed is of the order of sound speed, and so the influence of convection is about nil.

My "reward" for my "denialism" has been a lot of abuse, but it's worth it, I simple cannot stand by and let people get taken in by fraud because it hurts a lot of people for nothing.

Brian G Valentine
Arlington, Virginia USA
bgvalentine@verizon.net
Moebius
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2011
An article here is calling the climate change and global warming skeptics illiterates? That is an insult to illiterates. Just because you are illiterate doesn't mean you are stupid. The people here and elsewhere who are skeptical are not illiterate which makes their stupidity and ignorance all the more profound. Some people should not be allowed to go to school, education doesn't make them smarter, it makes them more knowledgeable and thus more dangerous.
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2011
Sowell wrote about government enforce multiculturalism, among other things coming from a point of scientific illiteracy.


Sowells book, The Vision of the Annointed describes the same approach that teams used to provide 'consensus' misinformation on -

a.) The Sun's origin: Galileo-gate
b.) The Sun's composition: Apollo-gate
c.) The Sun's source of energy: DOE-gate
d.) The Sun's influence on Earth's climate: Climate-gate

The US public paid $$$ billions for deception, e.g. over $1,000,000,000 each for Apollo and Galieo Missions alone.

"Team" members are pawns. The root of the problem is in Washington, DC where science bureaucrats "annointed" the team with research fund in return for endorsements of

a.) Standard Solar Model
b.) The Hydrogen-filled Sun
c.) Oscillating solar neutrinos
d.) CO2-induced global warming

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
BrianValentine
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2011
"Some people should not be allowed to go to school, education doesn't make them smarter, it makes them more knowledgeable and thus more dangerous."

Jesus, and here I thought Joseph Goebbels had been dead a long time
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2011
References:

a.) The Suns origin: Galileo-gate [1,2]
b.) The Suns composition: Apollo-gate [3]
c.) The Suns source of energy: DOE-gate [4]
d.) The Suns influence on Earths climate: Climate-gate

1. Abundances of hydrogen and helium isotopes in Jupiter
www.omatumr.com/a...ietz.pdf

2. Galileo probe confirms strange xenon in Jupiter
www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

3. Solar abundance of the elements
www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

4. Neutron Repulsion
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
Shadoobie

@ Caliban

I find it truly offensive that you think only CAGW-proponents are interested in clean air, clean water, and a habitable planet.


I don't find that surprising at all, since big-mouthed bullies always cry the loudest when they get their nose bloodied or feet stomped on. They always feel "offended" when the shoe -so to speak- is on the other foot.

The straw man implication could not be more clear and hypocritical.


No strawman involved,except by YOUR implication. But let's have a stab at the real truth behind your imputation: denier/skeptics are fence sitters, trying to create the illusion of debate where none actually exists. The science is settled, and deniers/skeptics -knowingly or not- are shilling for NG/OIL/COAL under the pretense of debate. Can you spell hypocrite?

That's best-case scenario. Worst is your kind cynically, Nero-like- letting everyone else burn while you collect profit
to build your private Shangri-La.
cont
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2011
"The science is settled"

Exactly right, I settled it: AGW "science" is a farce and not particularly funny, either.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2011
The science is settled,

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist"
"So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation."
http://blogs.tele...ng-life/
At least 200 members of the American Physical Society don't believe the science is settled.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2011
I guess the White House agrees, the science is settled and cut funding for two projects that would collect data to reduce climate model uncertainty.

"directed cuts have been made to several activities, including two of the Tier 1 missions: CLARREO and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice "
http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2011
"The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster."

This has become a common refrain: Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a "cartel." A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said the scientists implicated in the e-mails "should be barred" from future United Nations proceedings and warned that "the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas." One estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are "up to their necks in ClimateGate.""
"Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are."
{Sounds familiar.}
http://www.cbsnew...383.html
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
cont
meanwhile, the situation worsens. It is apparent that your grasp of the science is nominal. I recommend that you try to comprehend the problem by visualizing a global thermal/hydrodynamic system, and how it reacts when heat is added/lost, with a special focus upon NET HEAT GAIN.
It is gross-scale, but I find that the system is more readily visualized and comprehended in this fashion. If you can't, or won't understand the science, then your relevancy here on a science site is at the very best questionable.

I also find it amusing that you naively think only skeptics could be tainted by money.


This misapprehension can be forgiven under the "Newbie Clause", as everyone else here is aware of my views regarding the corrupting power of money and influence. But to think that the Fossil Energy industry(and its hangers-on) has any but its own interests at heart -or would stop short of ANY kind of chicanery to preserve them- is the very soul of naivete.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
And do you honestly think oil/energy companies care a whit about which way the legislation goes?


Of course they care. The status quo means endless profits.

If it passes, then they go into the energy trading game and make heftier profits (at our expense). Can you say Enron?


If what passes? Do you mean cap'n'trade? I personally don't favor that strategy, but would prefer massive investment in R&D to find alternatives to fossil, with at least semi-nationalization of generation and distribution.

That being said, someone will always find a way to make money, as has already been illustrated by the energy markets- Enron, for instance, as you say. And the history of market abuse and manipulation is long and colorful, and is, as we speak, occuring. But that is a regulatory matter.


Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
And, please, grow up. Skeptics are not deniers. We have done our research and have simply come to the conclusion that the conflicting and contradictory data and observations do not yet justify regulating/taxing CO2.


Well, La-Di-Da! I am so pleased to hear that you at least claim to have have given the whole subject your interest. Unfortunately, your conclusions indicate little understanding, and as I pointed out before, place you in the camp of denier/skeptic obstructionists that endanger the life and livelihood of everyone and everything else on this planet.
I suggest that you grow up and get your head wrapped around that little conundrum.

If there was less bullying on the part of CAGW-proponents and more explanation of the conflicting/contradictory data/observations, perhaps there might be a convergence of opinion.


Sadly, you don't seem to grasp that there is "convergence of opinion" scientifically. This "debate" is, bluntly, Mammonist smoke'n'mirrors.

BrianValentine
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2011
Are you aware that you sound brane ded?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2011
Legitimate and relevant question?
Yes. Why is it that drastic social engineering is the preferred solution? Seriously, what 'problem' are they trying to solve? Did you not know that historically, a warmer earth is a greener earth?

Valid point?
Yes. Without honesty, 'science' becomes fraud.

"Scientific literacy" is NOT necessary for science to be science. This smacks of elitism. Science is observation and verification. Anyone can perform these tasks, therefore anyone can be a scientist - to a degree.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
Are you aware that you sound brane ded?


Mssr Valentine,

Do please forgive me the lack of ability to construct such soaring, ineffable, and incisive analyses as these:

Jesus, and here I thought Joseph Goebbels had been dead a long time


There is NOTHING anybody can do to get people to swallow a bunch of nonsense


Then if the atmosphere conducts heat, then over the same time period that the troposphere warms...[q/]

God Almighty, you couldn't count it


This is the hallmark of junk science: invent an impossible mechanism so that your stupid idea can happen


You might as well stick with attempted character assaults to win your argument because your junk science logic isn't on your side!


This is compelling stuff, and I wouldn't want to seem ungrateful to you for pointing out my stylistic shortcomings by naming you a moron, so I guess I'll just have to live with it, piss ant.


ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2011
Cali and others must resort emotional attacks as the only 'science' he has to support his faith is an incomplete computer model of an emergent system.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2011
Cali and others must resort emotional attacks as the only 'science' he has to support his faith is an incomplete computer model of an emergent system.


And you, too, astonish with your legendary perspicacity.

It goes without saying that your only understanding of science is of the "science" of getting over, as a sockpuppet of your hallowed corporocrat masters.

It will be a sad day for you when the member that animates your puppetry is withdrawn. You will then be indistinguishable from an item often noticed to litter alleys and gutters.

Sic Transit Gloria, Swenson.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2011
Instead of taking advantage of the 1000 words to promote their faith, AGWites prefer to attack those who don't share their faith.
But that is the socialist way, coerce because they can't persuade.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2011
The truth must be winning out. 'Progressives' engage in personal attacks when they are losing.

"Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Foxs top executives but on a series of midlevel officials.
"s looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

Read more: http://www.politi...HrKB7Nwz

The downside of being politically correct is many have never read about the tar baby.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2011
Did you notice how the liberal press stopped bashing Osama bin Laden after he endorsed AGW?

Now there's a super-duper way to rehabilitate your image, I'll say.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2011
The downside of being politically correct is many have never read about the tar baby.


Did you notice how the liberal press stopped bashing Osama bin Laden after he endorsed AGW?

Now there's a super-duper way to rehabilitate your image, I'll say.


More brilliant ripostes contra the science of AGW.

BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2011
"Climate Hero Guns Down Denialist to Save Planet"

Sometimes I don't think we're too far from reading that in the news
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2011
"Climate Hero Guns Down Denialist to Save Planet"

Sometimes I don't think we're too far from reading that in the news


Careful what you wish for -Osama bin Laden may be hiding in yer cupboard...

BrianValentine
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2011
All disputes can be ended with a sense of humor.

Happy Spring to all!
Moebius
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2011
"Some people should not be allowed to go to school, education doesn't make them smarter, it makes them more knowledgeable and thus more dangerous."

Jesus, and here I thought Joseph Goebbels had been dead a long time


Yes, he is dead and he was educated and used that education to become the dangerous person and murderer that he was. He is the type of person that should have been weeded out before being allowed to go to school and consigned to do nothing more than picking up garbage. Maddoff is another, and the Enron executives. The unibomber used his education to kill too. Education didn't make any of these people smarter or moral, it made them more dangerous and able to hurt more people. Education routinely enables those that hurt society.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2011
Yes, he is dead and he was educated and used that education to become the dangerous person and murderer that he was. He is the type of person that should have been weeded out before being allowed to go to school and consigned to do nothing more than picking up garbage. Maddoff is another, and the Enron executives. The unibomber used his education to kill too. Education didn't make any of these people smarter or moral, it made them more dangerous and able to hurt more people. Education routinely enables those that hurt society.


"...climate science...." (excerpt of article's Title)

The sky's the limit. Why stop there? ;)
Preempt education. Preempt real and imagined danger. Preempt Mankind. Preemptivists unite! Preemptivists are never late!
Well, almost always. O.k., guess, better never late again. Who's side is Nature on, anyway?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2011
All disputes can be ended with a sense of humor.

Hopefully not your sense of humor. Example:
Did you notice how the liberal press stopped bashing Osama bin Laden after he endorsed AGW?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 28, 2011
"Bin Laden was speaking about the recent tragic floods in Pakistan, noting that industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis. Maher lauded this comment, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek way, and used it to condemn Republicans that express skepticism about the existence of global warming: a guy in a cave gets it better than every Republican voting for the Senate!"
http://www.mediai...ublican/
MikeyK
4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
I thought the South Dakotans with their "Astrology causing Global warming" were nutty....this Brian Valentine takes the biscuit! Remarkable how he manages to fit so much anti-science into one subject!
Nice to see Oliver still here though.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 29, 2011
I thought the South Dakotans with their "Astrology causing Global warming" were nutty....this Brian Valentine takes the biscuit! Remarkable how he manages to fit so much anti-science into one subject!
Nice to see Oliver still here though.

Real science is what the 'consensus' says it is? Not what can be validated or falsified with theory and data?
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2011
Mr Ryggesogn asks for the scientific basis for global warming here repeatedly, in the context of what "science" really is. His questions have sparked a lot of talk, although no meaningful answers.

I don't believe that any of his questions will be answered meaningfully within these web pages.

omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
Follow the money and discover (in reverse order) how science became propaganda . . .

5. Politicians directing public research funds to manipulate:

4. The US National Academy of Sciences, the UKs Royal Society, the UNs IPCC, and the Alliance of National Academies of Sciences world-wide to order:

3. Federal research agencies [NASA, DOE, NOAA, EPA ] to ask for:

2. Specific research findings [e.g., AGW, H-fusion in the Sun, oscillating solar neutrinos] in exchange for federal research funds, and finally:

1. Pawns hiding and manipulating experimental data purchased with public funds to deceive the public about Earths heat source, the Sun [a,b].

The climate scandal follows the template federal agencies developed soon after Eisenhowers warning in his 1961 farewell address to the nation:

The . . . power of (federal) money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

a.) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

b.) http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2011
Mr Ryggesogn asks for the scientific basis for global warming here repeatedly, in the context of what "science" really is. His questions have sparked a lot of talk, although no meaningful answers.
Because he's a dolt and asks questions then asserts incorrect answers.

His line of questioning is purely political. For example: Mr. Valentine, when did you decide to stop beating your wife?

That is a prime example of a Marjon/rygge/Mr. Swenson question.
I don't believe that any of his questions will be answered meaningfully within these web pages.
His questions have been answered repeatedly for the past year or two on this site, yet he keeps asking them. You were a college professor once, what would you do with such a student?
TheShadow
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2011
@ Caliban

Wow! For someone on the "winning" side, that's quite an attitude. Rather that retort with equal viciousness, I'll just let it slide. Too bad. If you illucidated with as much fervor as you insulted, you might actually make some headway.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
@ Caliban

Wow! For someone on the "winning" side, that's quite an attitude. Rather that retort with equal viciousness, I'll just let it slide. Too bad. If you illucidated with as much fervor as you insulted, you might actually make some headway.
The question isn't, what headway is there to be made? Climate change 'is' settled science.

Yes anti-science types, feel free to try to have a field day with that statement.

The reality is, the science community has been debating 'what are the rammificatations of this action' for about 70 years now.

The question isn't what. It's when, over what period of time, and how much.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2011
@ Caliban

Wow! For someone on the "winning" side, that's quite an attitude. Rather that retort with equal viciousness, I'll just let it slide. Too bad. If you illucidated with as much fervor as you insulted, you might actually make some headway.


@shadow

While your response may have been a little less direct, it was no less vicious. Essentially just a matter of style, though.

You can believe what you want to believe, but if you wish to take up the debate regarding the facts, why have any qualms about the debate being taken up in return?

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 29, 2011
1. Climate is always changing.

2. Correlation is not causation.

3. The only reason CO2 is the culprit is the primitive climate model is tweaked to make it so. It is tweaked because the model is too coarse to predict an emergent climate system.

4. CO2 fits a political agenda.

5. MANY scientists, in the field, do NOT support CO2 as the cause.

AGW is a religion, not 'settled science'.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2011
One.
Two.
Tie your shoe.

Three.
Four.
Open the door.

Five.
Six.
Pick up sticks.

Actually the 'door' is closer to Pandora's lid.
What's settled are the sticks. And more every day.
Oops. My move. You moved the other sticks. :P
BrianValentine
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2011
"3. The only reason CO2 is the culprit is the primitive climate model is tweaked to make it so. It is tweaked because the model is too coarse to predict an emergent climate system."

OK, but the climate models at least prove how large the "climate sensitivity" cannot be - (look at Hansen's projections over the past 30 years, Hansen proved it himself).

The careful reading of the IPCC TAR, ch.6, notably, demonstrates (to me anyway) that CO2 has nothing to do with "climate" change. Different conclusions were drawn, of course, but the analysis was accurate.

The analysis was diluted in the AR/4. unfortunately, to attempt to make the IPCC case stronger, and the only outcome of it was to demonstrate that bad conclusions come from improper analysis using bad reasoning.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2011
The Root of the Climate Problem


Tomorrow the US House opens a hearing on climate change science.

The climate fiasco is an extension of decades of deceit about Earth's heat source - the Sun [1,2]. The problem begins with NAS* reviews of budgets of federal research agencies for Congress. That is why , , ,

Data showing the interior of the Sun is mostly iron [From the $1,000,000,000 Apollo Mission to the Moon in 1969] were hidden and manipulated by NASA [3,4].

Data confirming the interior of the Sun is mostly iron [From analysis of the $1,000,000,000 Galileo probe of Jupiter in 1995] were hidden by NASA [5,6].

Data showing neutron repulsion is the source of energy that powers the Sun [From decades of nuclear rest mass measurements in DOE National Laboratories] are still ignored by DOE [7,8]

Greed and money are the root problem.

*NAS President Dr. Ralph Cicerone was a friend of Alan B. Mollohan (D VA) former Chair of the Subcommittee for Appropriations for Science.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2011
1. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

2. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193:
http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

3. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209:
tinyurl.com/224kz4

4. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847:
http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

5. "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) 5011:
www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

6. Galileo probe confirms 'strange' xenon on Jupiter www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

7. "The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy", 32nd Lunar/Planetary Science Conference (2001) 1041:
www.lpi.usra.edu/...1041.pdf

8. Neutron Repulsion, APEIRON (2011) in press
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2011
Real science is what the 'consensus' says it is?
When the consensus is based on evidence yes.

Not what can be validated or falsified with theory and data?
On that on inteligent modeling.

All of which supports global warming. There is little to the contrary.

And the ice just keeps melting. You denial isn't stopping it Marjon.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2011
Mr Ryggesogn
That is the name he took up after his real name was discovered. He is also known under his original handle of Marjon. He often uses a different handle when discussing religion in an attempt to hide the fact that he is a Young Earth Creationist.

asks for the scientific basis for global warming here repeatedly,
And he has seen it repeatedly. Been here a long time.

His questions have sparked a lot of talk,
Not talk. Well earned derision.

although no meaningful answers.
Sure he got them. You just don't like the answers.

I don't believe that any of his questions will be answered meaningfully within these web pages.
They have been many times. Like you he has a problem with reality.

The ice is still melting. Your denial isn't stopping that.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2011
The ice is still melting. Your denial isn't stopping that.


Neither is anything said on this thread in any way convincing this is linked to CO2 emissions.

I was a young Earth Creationist at one point. It was a lot harder to convince me that I was wrong on that than it would be that human civilization is responsible for natural climate cycles...

All of your (and I'm not just talking about Eth here) arguments have been weighed, and measured and they are sorely lacking.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2011
Ice melts. Ice ablates too. Ever wonder how ice cubes disappear in your freezer at 0 deg F?
I recall images of a US submarine at the north pole with open water all about. I think this was in the '50s.

Other than an uncertain, constantly changing climate model, what data supports the consensus?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2011
Open water at north pole in the 50s:
http://www.prison...ick.html
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2011
Good News from From Today's Testimony to US House Inquiry on Global Climate


"In my view, EPA failed to observe basic requirements set forth in applicable law as to how a regulatory determination such as the Endangerment Finding should be made. These flaws are not technical. They go to the fundamental fairness and transparency of the way EPA arrived at its Endangerment Finding and the quality of the information on which EPA relied."

"EPAs failure to observe these basic requirements therefore undermines confidence in the substantive scientific conclusions in the Endangerment Finding."

- Peter Glaser

Former President Eisenhower exactly warned of the danger of a Scientific-Technological Elite in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

"The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Web: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Video: www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2011
Open water at north pole in the 50s:
http://www.prison...ick.html
Feel free to use your picture from the pacific northwest over, and over, and over again. The rest of us will just laugh at how stupid you are.

Wikipedia has the entry you noted, "pre-edit' as a sub bursting through the ice itself.

More lie3s from Mr. Swenson.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2011
FYI: here's the USS Skate in the exact time period that Mr. Swenson mentions, at the north pole no less.

http://www.john-d...kate.jpg
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2011
More photos:
http://www.navsou...7806.jpg]http://www.navsou...7806.jpg[/url]
http://www.navsou...7814.jpg
http://www.navsou...7806.jpg]http://www.navsou...7806.jpg[/url]
""the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick."
"We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet"
http://www.john-d...ctic.htm
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2011
ryggesogn2 is a creep right-winger that is probably paid to be loud and noisy in public forums. From his M.O we know who he is. He's a woman hater, and probably beats his wife.

Mr. Omatumr is a Nixon republican and listens to too much Rush.He really needs to evaluate what logic is and the review the position he supports, logically.

BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2011
"The ice is still melting. Your denial isn't stopping that.

Ethelred"

Arctic ice has been blown into the Barents Sea as well, which supports the case for AGW (somehow).

Think about it. If Arctic ice melted, where did the heat to melt it come from?

Not the air - too little heat transfer.

Not the water - water is too cold.

If it melted at all, it must have been radiant heat from the summer Sun, resulting from slower water from the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current.

Bet you can't correctly account for a slowdown of the Gulf Stream for a couple of years. (No, it wasn't the thermohaline gradient.)

Is that Ethel"red" as in "Communist"?

BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2011
By the way Ethel, please don't go into criminal justice. Too many innocent people would get accused of crimes by you based on your pre-conceived notions and faulty reasoning.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
@omatumr,
Data confirming the interior of the Sun is mostly iron
The average density of the sun is just ~1.4 times the density of pure water at room temperature and pressure. Homework for the "professor": what is the largest possible volume fraction of the Sun that could be "mostly iron" (never mind things like Silicon, Oxygen, or Carbon) and yet allow the Sun to achieve the above-quoted overall average density? Show your work.

Extra credit bonus question. What happens to an Iron nucleus (or any nucleus) that comes to rest on the surface of a neutron star? (You do still claim there's a pure-neutronium core that served as the seed for the Sun's -- and presumably every other star's -- accretion? And is still there today?) Let's keep in mind that the only way a quantity of neutronium can be stable in vacuum long enough to allow accretion onto it, is if it already had sufficient mass to hold itself (including its surface) together via gravitational compression...
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
I'm not going to answer your questions, Pinko, but I might ask you one: How much of your questioning do you suppose hasn't been thought out already by a some 65-year old individual?
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
How much of your questioning do you suppose hasn't been thought out already by a some 65-year old individual?
Yeah. Admittedly, I didn't take into account the amount of deep and careful thought potentially involved in an average crank's patently absurd rantings.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
Anyway, time for the next crank:
water is too cold. ... it must have been radiant heat from the summer Sun, resulting from slower water from the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current.
Now, let me get this straight. It wasn't the _water_, since it's too _cold_. Instead, it was the WATER, from the current, because it got EVEN WARMER than usual. Ding ding ding! We have a winner. (Who cares if 30% _less_ of the warm water actually makes it up to the Arctic?)
Bet you can't correctly account for a slowdown of the Gulf Stream for a couple of years.
Must've been slowing down ever since the first satellite records began, back in the 1970's: that's how long arctic sea ice has been in decline at a rate of ~10%/decade.

Is 30 years "a couple"? I suppose that depends on where (or whether) one learned to count.

As for your method of "accounting", let me guess: natural cycles. Cycles with a 2000+ year period:

ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=537&L=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=698
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
Neither is anything said on this thread in any way convincing this is linked to CO2 emissions.
The was cooling for that last 13 years and has just started warming up again. Despite that the ice kept melting. So it can't be the Sun. That leaves greenhouse gases. CO2 and methane are the major contributors that WE can do something about. ClFlC are also greenhouse gases but they should be going down in concentration by now.

We can't control the mosture content but that should have gone down during a cooling period and we should have had a dozen years of cooling.

We are not just contributing to the CO2 we are also cutting down forests that could be sequestering CO2.

No the evidence is perfect. But is pretty good and the evidence against is pretty bad. Mostly a lot of whining about the evidence and a consistent evasion of the fact that the Sun was on a down cycle that ran long on top of it. Plus crap like that post of Marjons that gets raked next.

The ice is melting.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Open water at north pole in the 50s:
Irrelevant. That is sea ice. It has no effect on the ocean levels. I am talking about GLACIERS. Greenland and Antarctica and almost all the rest of the glaciers in the entire world are either retreating or holding steady when they should have growing for the last dozen years.

You really should read what you link too.

r. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours.
Wind was the cause that the ice was open temporarily. Sea ice is rarely very thick.

Now if you want to do something relevant for once find a glacier that isn't melting. I know there is at least one and you can pretend that one glacier magically makes all the rest go away. Like the last guy that pulled that crap. One out of fifty in Alaska and he called that proof that the ice wasn't melting.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Arctic ice has been blown into the Barents Sea as well, which supports the case for AGW (somehow).
I make no such claim.

Think about it. If Arctic ice melted, where did the heat to melt it come from?
Don't care much. Sea ice doesn't effect the shore levels.

Not the air - too little heat transfer.

Not the water - water is too cold.
Still melted. In Marjons example it didn't actually melt. The wind pushed it around. And by your claims it should NEVER melt yet it does each summer.

it must have been radiant heat from the summer Sun
Along with heat retention from the higher than in the past levels of greenhouse gases.

Bet you can't correctly account for a slowdown of the Gulf Stream
I am not trying to. I sticking with the clear evidence that the ice on land is melting. Even though the Sun has been colder for a dozen years.

Now you try explaining that. You are the one claiming its not greenhouse gases. Figure out how the ice could melt.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Is that Ethel"red" as in "Communist"?
Can't manage to google it? You went around accusing people of making false accusations and now you call me a communist. I see you have no knowledge of English history. Go look it up, hypocrite.

By the way Ethel, please don't go into criminal justice.
Its a little late for that. I am your age.

Too many innocent people would get accused of crimes by you
For an hypocrite that just called me a communist that is a remarkably stupid statement. Do you really get away with lies like that on other sites? You are the one with the duplicitous photo on your page.

based on your pre-conceived notions and faulty reasoning.
Show where I did that.

Show where I made false criminal accusations. Emphasis on criminal AND false.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
More photos:
http://[url=http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg

You do realize your source according to the John Daly site you link is a personal email from December 2000, right?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet

You do realize your source, according to the John Daly site you link, is a personal email from December 2000, right?

htp://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

reference 5. This is what we call anecdotal. Damn double posts.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
I'm not going to answer your questions, Pinko, but I might ask you one: How much of your questioning do you suppose hasn't been thought out already by a some 65-year old individual?
Looking at your commentary, and your subsequent refusal to even attempt to answer, apparently they haven't been thought out by you. So we can eliminate one 65 year old individual from that boundary condition.

By the way, nice job with the McCarthyism revival. Your wing of the propaganda party has done a great job attempting to make anyone well read on the environment out to be a communist.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2011
By the way, nice job with the McCarthyism revival. Your wing of the propaganda party has done a great job attempting to make anyone well read on the environment out to be a communist.


Great insight, Skeptic Heretic!

I am 74 years old, have supervised the research of over 50 students, published over 100 peer-reviewed papers - some with other scientists with far better credentials than mine - but I blindly overlooked the significance of RED, PINK and McCarthyism.

Yesterday's hearing before the US House Committee on Climate Science has shaken the McCarthyism climatologists and their supporters in NAS to their very roots.

I suspect that RED and PINKO will crawl back into their holes soon.

Thanks again for your insight.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
Yesterday's hearing before the US House Committee on Climate Science has shaken the McCarthyism climatologists and their supporters in NAS to their very roots.

I think you should give what I wrote, and what you replied with, another read to ensure that you recognize how utterly laughable your response is.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
I suspect that RED and PINKO will crawl back into their holes soon.
My that was hypocritical as well a brain dead.

PINKELEPHANT as in DUMBO and pink elephants on parade.

Ethelred. The red is from REDE which is advice. I see that you also don't have clue about English history.

As for crawling back in hole. Please do so. I am not the person that is on parole.

Keep it up Oliver.

Ethelred
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 01, 2011
The Communists in the USSR spread a bunch of lies around so they could have "state" control (actually an oligarchy) of the economy and society.

We see the exact same thing happening here with "global warming," and I feel sorry for the people who have been duped into believing this nonsense. They are spineless little jellyfish who believe anything the "intelligentsia" of their political party tells them to believe.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
The Communists in the USSR spread a bunch of lies around so they could have "state" control
And this relevant to the discussion in what way?

We see the exact same thing happening here with "global warming,"
Well we do see a lot people lying about it anyway.

and I feel sorry for the people who have been duped into believing this nonsense.
I feel sorry for brain dead that can't tell the difference between well reasoned responses and a dead crab. You posts have the Miracle Ingredient FraudulineTM. And that ever popular Tail Gunner Joe flavor. A commie in every box.

They are spineless little jellyfish who believe anything the "intelligentsia" of their political party tells them to believe.
You sure do lie a lot. I see you gave up actually trying to deal with what people have to say. Instead you just tell lies about them.

Nice surrender post.

Ethelred
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2011
Dick Lindzen points out, that ordinary people who don't have much claim to "higher education" can see right through the "global warming" scam for the fraud that it is.

Those who have a claim to "education" have been unfortunately susceptible to believing claims of those supporting AGW because, they have been told that they will be considered "stupid" if they don't.

Let's face it. AGW is a big farce that received sudden media attention all because Al Gore was going nowhere and he had no means of getting anywhere except in his gullibility to promote junk science.
BrianValentine
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2011
Get angry at me if you like, call me a "liar" and anything else, all because I am telling you what your common sense is already telling you to be the truth and you are too afraid or embarrassed or something to admit that you don't believe in AGW anyway because it is silly.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
who don't have much claim to "higher education" can see right through the "global warming" scam for the fraud that it is.
How is that explaining the ice melting when the Sun was cooling. Its a pretty silly statement in any case.

hey have been told that they will be considered "stupid" if they don't.
Nobody told me that. I just look at the evidence. The Sun cooled for a dozen years. The CO2 and methane counts are increasing. The ice melts. You don't seem to have answer for that. Except to tell more lies about people you don't know.

Let's face it. AGW is a big farce
Yes lets face it your posts are completely devoid of evidence.

all because Al Gore was going nowhere
I really don't care one bit about Gore.

Now where is the evidence that deals with the melting glaciers and a cooling Sun? Calling me more names won't answer the question and I can assure that it won't go away until either you answer or go away.

I don't take evasions for answers.

Ethelred
BrianValentine
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
Methane and CO2 have been natural constituents of the atmosphere since there has been an Earth and atmosphere, they have never had anything to do with the "climate" and they never will. (Geothermal energy was the source of heat solving the "early sun" paradox.)

The glaciers are moving, receding, advancing, growing, losing snow continually. They aren't a static thing, with a certain amount of snow that stays fixed for ever. Heat is stored in the oceans and redistributed around over a time period, over the course of epochal time of glaciation, the observed changes are nothing.
BrianValentine
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
The good news is, we can forget about the AGW non problem and move on to do things that will actually help other people.

Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
et angry at me if you like, call me a "liar"
I am not angry. That would be silly when dealing with a crank. And you told a lot lies.

" and anything else, all because I am telling you what your common sense is already telling you
My critical thinking finds that you haven't dealt with the cooling sun vs the melting ice. And instead you told lies about people.

you are too afraid or embarrassed or something
Skilled at critical thinking is the something you are trying to avoid.

admit that you don't believe in AGW anyway because it is silly.
I don't see anything silly in the ice melting.

I do see a person that accuses others of your own boorish behavior.

Methane and CO2 have been natural constituents of the atmosphere since there has been an Earth
Oh my god I did not know that. I must be a communist. No wait. Its wrong for the very early Earth but then I already knew that too.

Tell me something I don't know instead of things I do.

More
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
and atmosphere, they have never had anything to do with the "climate" and they never will.
And you base that on what? They absorb and re-radiate infrared light.

Geothermal energy was the source of heat solving the "early sun" paradox
I don't see a paradox. The Earth produced heat and the gasses trapped some of it. Still do.

The glaciers are moving, receding, advancing, growing, losing snow continually.
And have been steadily receding when the the Sun was cooler. Which can only occur if something is heating them.

They aren't a static thing, with a certain amount of snow that stays fixed for ever.
Do I have to create an acronym for Tell Me Something I Don't Already Know?

Heat is stored in the oceans and redistributed around over a time
TMSIDAK. Now tell us where the heat came from when the Sun was cooling. That would be something I don't know.

You clearly don't know either or you would have answered instead you engaged in all those hate posts.

More
BrianValentine
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
"Tell me something I don't know instead of things I do."

Okay. My wife is a gardener and she does it to make a living and she has told me that within 2 or 3 weeks either way Spring is always the same for the 35 years she has been working the soil and so it can't be "global" warming and maybe the East Coast of the USA is a strange place where "global warming" doesn't happen?
BrianValentine
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
"Now tell us where the heat came from when the Sun was cooling."

As I stated, any "anomalous" heat was apparently redistributed from heat already stored in the ocean. The redistribution is over the time span of decades, not days. Some of the redistribution is periodic (such as the ENSO), some isn't, but over the course of the average, nothing has changed.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
over the course of epochal time of glaciation
A dozen year does not an epoch make. The Sun cooled it didn't get warmer.

the observed changes are nothing.
They are evidence that the glaciers are melting even when the Sun was cooling which is exactly the opposite of YOUR model. No greenhouse gases in your model and that leaves the Sun and heat sinks. Heat sinks that should have cooled and did not.

The good news is, we can forget about the AGW non problem
Are we supposed to forget it until our port cities are under water?

The Sun cooled. The ice still melted. The ocean should have cooled and the ice should have increased. Ice knows no politics. You have no answer.

Ethelred
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
"The Sun cooled. The ice still melted. The ocean should have cooled and the ice should have increased. Ice knows no politics. You have no answer."

You are looking at a micro amount of ice at one time and generalizing about the globe over decades. Your tendency to jump to conclusions without basis is the reason you would not make a good detective.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
he has told me that within 2 or 3 weeks either way Spring is always the same for the 35 years she has been working the soil and so it can't be "global" warming
Oh very good. Unverifiable anecdote that is contradicted by many other people's anecdotes, some of them verifiable.

maybe the East Coast of the USA is a strange place where "global warming" doesn't happen?
Only in your head.

As I stated, any "anomalous" heat was apparently redistributed from heat already stored in the ocean.
Nice handwave. Only the oceans should have been cooling by your model. So I guess you broke your hand.

The redistribution is over the time span of decades, not days.
I am talking about the last 12 years. Not days. And the weather has a 22 year cycle that sometimes gets out of wack. Like this time when the bottom stayed around for 2 or 3 years. Normally the ice packs increase in the down years.

More
BrianValentine
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
Please put your tin foil hat back on to protect you from mind controlling rays from the CIA, then come back when you have calmed down.

Have a happy April "fools" day!
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
but over the course of the average, nothing has changed.
Only it has. The ice has melted when it should have increased. And I note that you are still ignoring the FACT that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. Handwaving didn't change that. ENSO is mostly equatorial. I live in Anaheim CA and I am fully aware of the El Nino.

Now can the handwaving and deal with this. The ice melted when it should have increased. Which is exactly what should take place if the world has been warmed by greenhouse gases as they would preferentially heat the high latitudes and if the Sun had warmed it would preferentially heat the low and middle latitudes. Which is what happened in the warm period prior to the Little Ice Age. Nice crops in Northern Europe and the ice didn't melt much.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
Dick Lindzen points out, that ordinary people who don't have much claim to "higher education" can see right through the "global warming" scam for the fraud that it is.
Yeah, many religious fundamentalists hear the same nonsense from their local 'experts' on the topic of evolution as well.

Lindzen has finally given up on his cloud cooling hypothesis after it was proved incorrect not once, not twice, but 4 times. Do you think he's upset because no one will give him any more money? Of course not. He's tossed his lot in with Frederich Seitz, you remember him. He's the guy who took a bunch of cash from big tobacco and said smoking was safe and had no link to lung cancer. He's also the man who, once told by the Tobacco companies that he was unfit to continue as their lead researcher, went on to take big paydays from the oil and coal conglomerates to speak out about the 'Great Global Warming Swindle'.

Follow the money.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
You are looking at a micro amount of ice at one time
Over a decade and the previous decade when the Sun was warming.

and generalizing about the globe over decades.
Based on evidence over many decades.

Your tendency to jump to conclusions without basis is the reason you would not make a good detective.
Your tendency to ignore evidence and handwave reality makes you a very poor judge of anything.

Now where is something that shows why the ice melted when it should have been increasing?

Please put your tin foil hat back on to protect you from mind controlling rays from the CIA
The Orbital Mind Control Lasers are under my control via Disneyland. The CIA does my bidding since I took them over with Enron and then cashed out to buy control of Disney along with and corner the market on tinfoil hats which we now sell in Tommorow Land. Fnord.

then come back when you have calmed down.
Been arguing with Cranks for a decade. I gave up anger for Lent.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
Okay. My wife is a gardener and she does it to make a living and she has told me that within 2 or 3 weeks either way Spring is always the same for the 35 years she has been working the soil and so it can't be "global" warming and maybe the East Coast of the USA is a strange place where "global warming" doesn't happen?
Perhaps she can teach you the difference between weather and climate.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2011
About photos:
"Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?

The time of year was August, summer.

Read more: http://newsbuster...IIVyeHth
"
Why do AGWites need the propaganda if they are sooooo correct?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.
And I didn't agree with that. I still don't. I think it was manipulative of the public. It was a policy campaign, like the current Republican rally against science in general. It was not scientific research.
All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.
No, you can blame politicians and special interests for that.
Why do AGWites need the propaganda if they are sooooo correct?
People who read and understand the science railed against the polar bear photos just as much as they rail against the propaganda you spew.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
@BrianValentine,
Geothermal energy was the source of heat solving the "early sun" paradox.
No it wasn't. The Sun was a full 30% cooler than it is today. Today, geothermal energy flux amounts to ~44 TW; solar energy flux is 174 PW at the top of the atmosphere (of which about 70%, or 122 PW, reaches the planet's surface, and at Bond albedo of 0.306, about 37 PW is actually absorbed.) Roughly speaking, today's geothermal energy amounts to just 1/1000th, or 0.1% of Earth's energy budget. To compensate for the faint Sun, Earth's geothermal energy flux would have needed to be 300 times larger early in its history, than it is today. Which would, of course, create a strong geological signal, of which there is absolutely no evidence. And calculations based on rates of decay and abundances of radioactive elements, show that 3 Billion years ago Earth's geothermal flux would have been a mere 2 times greater than it is today.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
I wonder if Swenson and Valentine put crash helmets on before they post. If not, gents, I'd recommend you do so. The replies tend to flatten you guys like roadkill.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
The glaciers are moving, receding, advancing, growing, losing snow continually.
Why should they be receding in synchrony, world-wide? Both in the Arctic and in the Tropics? Both near the oceans, and far inland?
Heat is stored in the oceans and redistributed around over a time period
Yes, and the heat content of the world's oceans down to 700 m depth has been steadily climbing since the late 1970's, at a rate of about 3.3x10^22 J per decade:

http://www.nodc.n...dex.html
she has told me that within 2 or 3 weeks either way Spring is always the same for the 35 years ... maybe the East Coast of the USA is a strange place where "global warming" doesn't happen?
"Plants in the Boston area have been flowering earlier and earlier since about 1970. ... Average spring temperatures have been rising since about 1970 ... the average growing season has increased by 8 days from 1900 to 2001"

http://www.ecosys...onse.pdf
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
You're making April fools jokes, right, Pink?

Ever look at Lord Rayleigh's calculations of conduction with a radiant boundary condition ALONE give for the flux of cooling of the Earth through the first 30 million years?

Within 2 weeks either way of March 15, crocus and daffodil (jonquil) have appeared in Arlington for 25 years.

The only "road kill" around here is going to be you, when your shelf life as "useful idiots" has expired. At that point you can remove the word "useful" from your job description.
BrianValentine
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
Stupid people and their stupid science. Crap like this has been around since civilization began, and is why we continue to have a "third world" today, because other people are so gullible and so stupid.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
You're making April fools jokes, right, Pink?
You must be projecting, again.
flux of cooling of the Earth through the first 30 million years?
What does that have to do with Earth's climate conditions 1 Billion years after it formed?
Within 2 weeks either way of March 15, crocus and daffodil (jonquil) have appeared in Arlington for 25 years.
I'm sure that would be even more reliably true if you extended your error margins to +/- 2 years.
Stupid people and their stupid science.
It takes science to conduct systematic measurements, and detect trends in the data. It takes stupid people to make subjective judgments based on anecdotal evidence. By the looks of it, your stupid wife wouldn't know the first thing about science.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2011
No, you can blame politicians and special interests for that.

They are the ones promoting the AGW hysteria.
Don't see many AGWites publicly condemning their actions.
People who read and understand the science railed against the polar bear photos

They didn't protest too hard.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
They are the ones promoting the AGW hysteria.
And you are one of them.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
WOW!!! It is amazing how many complete anti-science losers have checked in on this thread. Loser; ryggesogn2 some how thinks that AGW is an assault on his freedom, when its the scientist that are trying to help better the world and make it more free.

Similarly looser Mr. Apollo NASA guy who for whatever reason, lost his marbles and decided to betray the scientists he claims to be one of! What a sorry mess.

Regardless of what your politics are or who you thing is president of the USA (???), AGW is as real as the radioactive trace elements from Japan's nuclear sites. Only there is better evendence for AGW than radiation falling on CA!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2011
scientist that are trying to help better the world and make it more free.

How are they doing that when they promote laws that make people less free?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
No, you can blame politicians and special interests for that.

They are the ones promoting the AGW hysteria.
Don't see many AGWites publicly condemning their actions.
There you go again using generalizing terms to describe a nebulous group of people that you want to identify as 'different'. Give us a succinct definition of what an AGWite is Mr. Swenson.
People who read and understand the science railed against the polar bear photos

They didn't protest too hard.
No, you weren't listening.
How are they doing that when they promote laws that make people less free?
Name one such law.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2011
No, you weren't listening.

There was nothing to hear.

You mean laws like Kyoto?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2011
How are they doing that when they promote laws that make people less free?


Right on, Mangy.

In fact, I think that we should create a new Constitutional Amendment: "And Congress shall make no Law protecting Swenson from himself".

The irony of your position is truly delicious. If you actually got what you wanted, your relative "elite" status/affluence would evaporate so quickly that you wouldn't even have time to bleat "Ayn Rand!" before you were reduced to ragpicking to support the upkeep of your cardboard shack under the bridge.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2011
How are they doing that when they promote laws that make people less free?


Right on, Mangy.

In fact, I think that we should create a new Constitutional Amendment: "And Congress shall make no Law protecting Swenson from himself".

The irony of your position is truly delicious. If you actually got what you wanted, your relative "elite" status/affluence would evaporate so quickly that you wouldn't even have time to bleat "Ayn Rand!" before you were reduced to ragpicking to support the upkeep of your cardboard shack under the bridge.


More noise from Cali.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2011
How are they doing that when they promote laws that make people less free?


Right on, Mangy.

In fact, I think that we should create a new Constitutional Amendment: "And Congress shall make no Law protecting Swenson from himself".

The irony of your position is truly delicious. If you actually got what you wanted, your relative "elite" status/affluence would evaporate so quickly that you wouldn't even have time to bleat "Ayn Rand!" before you were reduced to ragpicking to support the upkeep of your cardboard shack under the bridge.


More noise from Cali.


The Noise knows -right, Mangy?

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2011
The EPA plans to add more taxes to US energy production to regulate CO2. Taking more money from those who earn it make those people less free.
BTW, what does the govt do with 'sin' taxes? They are added to the general fund to waste on more govt programs.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2011

Former President Eisenhower exactly warned of the danger of a Scientific-Technological Elite in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

"The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.


Oliver,

Eisenhower was warning of the creeping corruption and threat of govrnment treasury/policy subornment posed by corporate interests -a threat that wasn't taken seriuosly- and which has, I am saddened to say, become a fait accompli, nyet?

So, I'm afraid that you've quite gotten it backwards when you quote Mr. Glazer's disengenuous commentary, as he clearly is speaking for those very interests, and the "burden" that EPA regulations would place upon them -ie, forcing them to shoulder their fair share of the costs that their actions generate.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2011
Cali:
"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

When the Congress authorizes EPA to affect the livelihoods of individuals and groups of individuals (corporations), those individuals have every right to petition the govt for redress of grievances, i.e. lobby.

Caliban
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2011
Cali:
"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

When the Congress authorizes EPA to affect the livelihoods of individuals and groups of individuals (corporations), those individuals have every right to petition the govt for redress of grievances, i.e. lobby.


That's right, Swenson.

And when indivuals or groups of them -ie, "corporations"- as you would have it, endanger the safety and livelihood of others -not to mention the environment we all have to share-
then government can, and indeed must, either make or enforce laws or regulatory policy to insure that those interests aren't served at the expense of everyone else's.

Your blind, insistent denial that government power HAS TO serve both sides is the flaw central to every argument you make.

omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
Distrust of government science is now richly deserved, after decades of misinformation. See for example,

1. Eisenhower's Warning of Federal Science Elitism:

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

2. The Sun's Origin:

www.youtube.com/m...e_Qk-q7M

3. The Sun's Composition:

www.youtube.com/w...QSSHIe6k

4. The Sun's Source of Energy:

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011
then government can, and indeed must, either make or enforce laws or regulatory policy to insure that those interests aren't served at the expense of everyone else's.

That is protecting everyone's private property, no?
Of course that those laws and regulations are valid.
The govt authorized Hooker Chemical to bury toxic waste generated by the govt and by Hooker in Love Canal. Local govt forced Hooker to sell the land and the govt built schools.
When the toxic chemicals leaked, the govt was not held liable. Why not?
If anyone is polluting the air over my house or my water supply, I expect the law to protect my property rights. I don't expect the law to enable and allow anyone, including the govt, to violate my property rights and I expect the law to prosecute me if I violate anyone's property rights.
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2011
Though most climate science studies show evidence that climate change is real, the public persists in distrusting the science.

Translation: "The unwashed ignorant proles won't budge!"

The studies have been shown to be fraudulent hack jobs, and the public persists in distrusting the scientists themselves.

That's because of the doubt planted by climate change skeptics in the media and a lack of "media literacy education," asserts Caren Cooper...

Translation: "That's because despite the near universal behavior of the media being that of worshipful lapdogs to the climatologists, there persists a small percentage of people who can properly evaulate data, reason effectively, and communicate with each other, and remain unswayed by our deluge of propaganda. Well call those heretics "climate change skeptics", and treat them with all the respect due leprous child molesters."

Wow! I think I can see up Caren Cooper's nose from here!
deepsand
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
It is also possible that, even at pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2, we were already above the "saturation point" of IR absorption by CO2, and therefore, even the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years could not have been caused by carbon dioxide

Still pushing the "saturation" fallacy, I see.
deepsand
3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Fact. AGW is real. Fact. It is effecting weather. Fact. We are releasing more green house gases by burning fossil fuels than any other processes. Etc... Etc...

Then prove it. Why is that so difficult?

Asked and answered; and, answered, and answered, and answered, ... .

What are you, deaf and blind?
deepsand
3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Are you aware that you sound brane ded?

Have you listened to your own echo?
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2011
Methane and CO2 have been natural constituents of the atmosphere since there has been an Earth and atmosphere, they have never had anything to do with the "climate" and they never will.

Thank you for revealing how great your ignorance of both Natural History and Physics are.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
The studies have been shown to be fraudulent hack jobs
By whom, to whom, when, and where?
the public persists in distrusting the scientists themselves
Well, at least Murdoch's captive audience does indeed persist, in that and many other things...
the near universal behavior of the media being that of worshipful lapdogs to the climatologists
Translation: "giving 'equal weight' to cranks on primetime newscasts equates to 'worshipful lapdog to the climatologists'"
people who can properly evaulate data, reason effectively, and communicate with each other
And who still haven't figured out what they're talking about...
Well call those heretics "climate change skeptics"
Well, sock-puppets more than heretics, really...
and treat them with all the respect due leprous child molesters
Or, just pompous ignoramuses...
I think I can see up Caren Cooper's nose from here!
You sure it's not your own colon you're examining up close?
deepsand
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
"Tell me something I don't know instead of things I do."

Okay. My wife is a gardener and she does it to make a living and she has told me that within 2 or 3 weeks either way Spring is always the same for the 35 years she has been working the soil and so it can't be "global" warming and maybe the East Coast of the USA is a strange place where "global warming" doesn't happen?

Well, here in Pennsylvania it's been obvious to me for decades that the climate was changing.

Must be just a PA thing.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
Well, Oliver, from the "1s" I see that I've got your attention.

Now, let's see if we can progress to improving your comprehension.

Following that, we'll continue on to a study of rationalism.