Nexus 6 has opened a school to teach global warming deniers the tricks of the trade. Lesson 1 was on the straw man, while lesson 2 revealed the secret of making things up. Andrew Bolt then almost immediately demonstrated lesson 1 and lesson 2.
It's scientifically proven that made-up statistics account for 99.99970912341374123894713% of all denialist "facts".
Hi all
Where is the science at this site?
Temps are cooling and all you can find is some bullshit name calling by warmers.
I thought the critque by Tampax, opps, I mean Tamino, to show MM were a falacy should be here being a site of science to discuss.
Beyond you cobber?????
regards from New Zealand
Peter Bickle
depp=true
notiz=[please don't feed the troll]
bullshit name calling by warmers. I thought the critque by Tampax, opps, I mean Tamino
The irony.
Hi all
Irony alright, may as well be a tampon, full of bloddy crap.
Why not name him?
A bit of a climate numpty.
Peter Bickle
depp=true
notiz=[please don't feed the troll]
Peter Bickle:
You can't spell, and you accuse people of "name-calling" and then turn around and call people names yourself. Go away, denialist.
In the meantime, here you can find more climate science than you care about, but I'm sure you'll simply ignore it all.
Oops! Someone I forgot to add to my dild kill file.
CO2 represents only 5 percent of global greenhouse gas. -- Harnett White
Bi, CO2 provides about 5% of the warming not the 26% your link talks about. It has been discarded many times.The actual number as derived by many is between 3.6% and 8%. Water vapour is the heavy lifter. CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas and our contribution is even less than trace.
I hardly call roughly 9% of the greenhouse effect, then adding another 3%, trace. Trace is more like ppm.
Please provide an actual scientific reference that puts CO2's influence at 3-8% of the Greenhouse effect. Not opinion pieces, blog posts, personal communication, or books written by thinktanks.
"Water vapour is the heavy lifter"
Are you asserting that water vapor remains constant as CO2 or anything else alters the temp?
"our contribution is even less than trace"
yeah, only a 60% increase in CO2.
math exercise:
if the entire greenhouse effect raises the planet's temp 33 degrees K, then what fraction would we need to increase it to raise the earth's temp another couple of degrees K?
Not only are these FHs polluting the low quality media space (e.g Shotties ) they are also polluting high quality media space . Jennifer Marohasy on Rn's Counterpoint :http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm
Anybody who cares should complain to the ABC.
kent:
CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas
For the benefit of the mathematically challenged, here's how to calculate the percentage of CO2 in greenhouse gases, with the figures from IPCC WG1:
Fraction of greenhouse gass that are CO2 = 365,000,000ppt / (365,000,000 + 2,060,341.5)ppt = 99.4%
(OK, 60 should be 69, but the proportion of CO2 among greenhouse gases is still 99.4%. Not 5%.)
CO2 provides about 5% of the warming
Considering that CO2 on its own produces just over 1 deg C of warming for each doubling, the above quote means we will get around 20 deg C of warming in total for each doubling of CO2 (unless of course you're crazy enough to believe that the amount of water in the air does not change with increasing/decreasing temperature - this means among other things humidities way over 100% if it got colder).
Imagine, 20 deg C for each doubling of CO2. kent is such an alarmist.
Ha,
Andrew Bolt sure has a lot of gumption. Yes, the South Australian heat wave is a single event, but what an event! We are talking about 15 days in a row above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) when the previous record was 8 days (on numerous occasions, but most recently in 2004). The CSIRO has calculated that this heatwave has a one in 3000 year likelihood.
It is also the hottest march on record, records have fallen across southern Australia, and this is on top of 2007 being the warmest year on average ever recorded in South Australia, and record low flows into the Murray Darling river basin. Check out the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for data.
Surely Bolt could come up with a straw-men that are a little easier to knock down.
(Mind you, I admit that some people are taking the long dry a little too much to heart - my father has canceled a water tank order because he has concluded that it will never ever rain again, and so there is no point trying to catch any!)
kent posts:
[[Bi, CO2 provides about 5% of the warming not the 26% your link talks about. It has been discarded many times.The actual number as derived by many is between 3.6% and 8%. Water vapour is the heavy lifter. CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas ]]
CO2 provides 26% of the clear-sky greenhouse effect:
No, you're confusing our contribution per year (small compared to the total) to our total contribution. The preindustrial concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million by volume; the present figure is about 385 ppmv. That means 27% of the CO2 presently in the air is artificial. The small contribution is repeated year after year; it's a compound-interest expansion, and it has risen greatly in the past few years as fossil-fuel-powered industry comes on line in India and China.
bi, you're right that CO2 is the most important trace greenhouse gas, but that calculation doesn't count water vapor. Water vapor is about 3900 ppmv compared to 385 ppmv for CO2. It's also a more powerful greenhouse gas. But its scale height is very shallow, so CO2 contributes more than you'd expect from a simple comparison (CO2 is well mixed throughout the troposphere).
Water vapor is about 3900 ppmv compared to 385 ppmv for CO2.
Oops... But even taking that into account, I still can't figure out how anyone can conclude that CO2 takes up 5% of greenhouse gases.
Barton; I have been looking for a site I stumbled on some time ago that was a thesis dealing with the topi of global warming, greenhouse gases, etc,etc,. I have been trying to find it for weeks and have had no luck. It totaly destroyed the 26% waring caused by CO2.
You point out that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was 270ppmv but that number is in dispute. I have seen a graph of the original data points and to arrive at the 270ppmv the authors cherry picked very few measurements.Without the cherry picking the ppmv came out to something like 350. It should also be noted that the 380 ppmv is normally the one taken from Mona loa. Which is situated 4 KM away from actively venting volcanic vents.
Barton, I wonder what the definition of "clear sky" is. Maybe I missed the humidity level but the % effect of CO2 would depend on just how much waater vapour was in the air.
Chris, better get a calculator 5% of 33 degrees is 1.65 degrees. Doubling CO2 does not double warming, it is a logarithmic effect.
Pico, While Darwin is setting a record, Sydney is setting records for rain, lack of sun, etc. Other parts of Aus are flooding, and don't forget it is summer down under.(which is a misnomer because according to the galactic plane Aus is in the northern hemisphere.
Try telling NSW and Victoria this was a great summer. It was shit. Sth Aust is a localised event.
I have been looking for a site I stumbled on some time ago that was a thesis dealing with the topi of global warming, greenhouse gases, etc,etc,. I have been trying to find it for weeks and have had no luck. It totaly destroyed the 26% waring caused by CO2.
Huh. If it was testable, empirical results derived from solid hypotheses, it would be all over. I wonder why we can't find a hack denialist site to support our beliefs. I wonder...I wonnnnnnder.
Best,
D
Thats funny Kent, I could have sworn that Co2 was measured at other places than Hawaii.
Doubling CO2 does not double warming, it is a logarithmic effect.
Chris didn't say that doubling CO2 doubles warming:
Considering that CO2 on its own produces just over 1 deg C of warming for each doubling
See?
Do you wonder why we don't take you seriously?
Just in case you're as math challenged as I fear might be the case ...
2,4,8,16 - doubling
log2(2)=1
log2(4)=2
log2(8)=3
log2(16)=4
See? Linear increase for each doubling when the impact is logarithmic.
Peter,
You have an odd definition of 'great summer'.
Have a look at the temperature map on this page at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
It shows that a very large proportion of southern Australia - including Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and large chunks of Western Australia and New South Whales had highest on record average temperatures in 2007. This heat wave extended across the same region and is pretty much an extreme extension of the 2007 situation.
Besides, the Bureau of Meteorology climatologist stated that the heat wave was consistent with what is expected with Global warming. He didn't say it proved it. Of course a single event it not a proof of anything, even if it has a one in 3000 year probability. But when these extreme events keep happening, keep outdoing each other, and occur against a background of relentlessly increasing average temperatures surely the most skeptical denialist should pause to reconsider their position.
"You point out that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was 270ppmv but that number is in dispute. I have seen a graph of the original data points and to arrive at the 270ppmv the authors cherry picked very few measurements."
I've seen that graph too. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg
It was real spotty for 100 years, converging downwards,then settled down to a steady value for a long time. Much like the first measurements of the distance to the moon. Are you equally convinced that the moon used to wander about the sky willy nilly?
I note that the earliest measurements were highest, and that none of the measurements ever fall below the "commonly accepted" measurement. Given that heating and lighting at that time was generally accomplished by open flames, which produce carbon dioxide; not to mention the experimenters, who produce carbon dioxide, i'm more of the opinion that the early measurements were sometimes contaminated by locally generated carbon dioxide rather than that the atmospheric concentration in the late 1800s could measure anywhere from 550 to 300 or less ppm. within a single year, then suddenly decided to behave itself. i'm of the opinion that not all those measurements can be correct, in fact. I'm of the opinion that it's a lot easier to contaminate the experiment with excess carbon dioxide when you have flames around and nobody's ever done this before.
Jaworowski himself, the author of this fluctuating carbon dioxide theory, is kind of conservative; he suggests that the average CO2 concentration was 335 ppm in the 1800s, not 290; but from this graph of his, it clearly fell from 475 ppm in 1800 to 292 in 1900 then started to rise again. Now that would definitely get you grant money, never mind this stuff about 'you can only get grants if you have evidence of global warming'.
to sum up:
1. Later measurements are probably more sophisticated than earlier measurements;
2. Measurements of the same thing which are widely scattered are more likely to be wrong than measurements of the same thing which cluster tightly;
3. It's probably easier to overestimate CO2 than it is to underestimate it where there are a lot of rapidly generating sources (particularly when candles and gas flames were used for lighting, before electricity), and nothing is absorbing it faster than a plant.
4. You shouldn't just blindly average a bunch of contradictory measurements that can't possibly all be correct and claim the average is the best possible estimate.
You shouldn't just blindly average a bunch of contradictory measurements that can't possibly all be correct and claim the average is the best possible estimate.
Au contraire!
You can blindly average the Keystone Kop-like contradictory denialist statements to see that they rotate around the same FUD phrases emanating from the same clown car. Indeed, the denialist hopping about is strongly reminiscent of Keystone Kop behavior.
Keystone Denialists. And Harold is comedic gold.
Best,
D
Oops.
Keystone Denialists. And Harold is comedic gold. Following in the publishing footsteps of our very own Hans (of the Morano 400). How's Hans Erren's Galileo-like publishing career going, Harold? A model for your own path, surely.
Bill@12: "Restoring the Balance" ... err ... "Counterpoint" _always_ has people like Marohasy on. They pride themselves on being a right-wing Phillip Adams. Or something.
You'll note David that on the previous item on that show regarding diets and obesity that they did in fact have an expert to counter the unorthodox views of their first speaker. They did not do this when their pet ( Marohasy) touted her dubious wares. This show is a travesty and should be removed from the ABC . As you accurately say it should be called " Restoring the balance " as per that JJJ
show.
better get a calculator 5% of 33 degrees is 1.65 degrees
kent, I wasn't talking about the entire greenhouse effect. I was just talking about the additional effect from a doubling of CO2. 33 degrees is the entire existing greenhouse effect from zero atmosphere to our existing atmosphere. 1.1-1.2 degrees is the warming from just ONE doubling of CO2 on its own, e.g. an increase from 140 ppm to 280 ppm is just one doubling. Try to think about what it means if this is 5% of the greenhouse effect from just ONE doubling.
Don't believe everything you hear about global warming.
Environmental Consultant Dr. Tim Ball says the hysteria about the earth getting warmer is based on incorrect figures.
"What's happening is some of the extremists, the alarmists are saying this is more dramatic than ever, it's never happened before- that's absolute rubbish", he says, "where they had 1998 as the warmest year on record then they discovered they got the numbers wrong, it turns
out 1934 is the warmest year on record and the old people are saying yeah, tell me something I don't know".
Dr. Ball told a full house at the Stavely Community hall that change isn't gradual but can come suddenly.
He says evidence points to the earth actually cooling rather than warming and gives the winter storms this year across North America as an example.
From Hans Erren's denialist link:
they do give the correct impression that small concentrations of greenhouse gases [...] can and do have significant effects on the temperatures of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface.
"Give the correct impression"? That's oh-so-scientific gobbledygook for "I want to question the figures without actually questioning them so I coat them with phrases suggesting doubt".
- - -
Dano:
How's Hans Erren's Galileo-like publishing career going, Harold?
To the extent that Galileo spammed his ground-breaking theories on blogs all over Europe, I guess Hans Erren's publishing career is indeed pretty much like Galileo's.
And, yet another one from the "make shite up" department. Actually, this is a cross-department effort which also involves the "hypocrite! hypocrite! hypocrite!" department...
Sure, the hipster business community thinks that they can have their cake and eat it too.
"Look how productive/green we are!" "What? Oh, them? Nevermind them or their pollution - they're just our Third World manufacturing base" "Here, have a $5 latte. And don't forget to pick up your complimentary mortgage refi on your way out" -- Grant Williams
the "pollution"-heavy "Third World manufacturing base" of the "hipster business community" is entirely made up in the denialists' own heads. -- me
First. Thank you for comparing me with Galileo, but really, too much honour.
Second. I'm not paid to publish, I write in my spare time.
Third. The reactions to the Barret-Bellamy link are pathetic. If you do care to read it, it uses Modtran by David Archer. It's pretty straightforward radiation physics with albedo held constant.
Try for yourself: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
Hans- what are you expecting us to notice in the BArret-Bellamy link? I don't have time to read every single page, but I note they seem to suggest CO2 has a larger effect on keeping heat in than some people think. If I am reading that right, the atmosphere without CO2 model takes it down by a whopping 10.5 degrees K. In fact it suggests the bare planet temperature would be -34.5C, whereas all I can remmeber it is is more like -15C. So why the discrepancy?
Hansen's paper is out http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf advocating a return to 350 ppm based on his estimate of about 3°C for doubled CO2 including only fast
feedback processes and 6°C for equilibrium sensitivity. I don't think I've seen an analysis previously which separated the two.
The total GHG effect is 34.5 degrees, That comes from assuming the mean temperature is 15 C and using Stefan-Boltzmann on 235 W m^-2. The 33 C GH effect originates in taking the Earth's output as 240 W m^-2
It's scientifically proven that made-up statistics account for 99.99970912341374123894713% of all denialist "facts".
Hi all
Where is the science at this site?
Temps are cooling and all you can find is some bullshit name calling by warmers.
I thought the critque by Tampax, opps, I mean Tamino, to show MM were a falacy should be here being a site of science to discuss.
Beyond you cobber?????
regards from New Zealand
Peter Bickle
depp=true
notiz=[please don't feed the troll]
The irony.
Hi all
Irony alright, may as well be a tampon, full of bloddy crap.
Why not name him?
A bit of a climate numpty.
Peter Bickle
depp=true
notiz=[please don't feed the troll]
Peter Bickle:
You can't spell, and you accuse people of "name-calling" and then turn around and call people names yourself. Go away, denialist.
In the meantime, here you can find more climate science than you care about, but I'm sure you'll simply ignore it all.
Oops! Someone I forgot to add to my dild kill file.
Done!
Another one from the "make shite up" department:
Bi, CO2 provides about 5% of the warming not the 26% your link talks about. It has been discarded many times.The actual number as derived by many is between 3.6% and 8%. Water vapour is the heavy lifter. CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas and our contribution is even less than trace.
I hardly call roughly 9% of the greenhouse effect, then adding another 3%, trace. Trace is more like ppm.
Please provide an actual scientific reference that puts CO2's influence at 3-8% of the Greenhouse effect. Not opinion pieces, blog posts, personal communication, or books written by thinktanks.
"Water vapour is the heavy lifter"
Are you asserting that water vapor remains constant as CO2 or anything else alters the temp?
"our contribution is even less than trace"
yeah, only a 60% increase in CO2.
math exercise:
if the entire greenhouse effect raises the planet's temp 33 degrees K, then what fraction would we need to increase it to raise the earth's temp another couple of degrees K?
Not only are these FHs polluting the low quality media space (e.g Shotties ) they are also polluting high quality media space . Jennifer Marohasy on Rn's Counterpoint :http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm
Anybody who cares should complain to the ABC.
kent:
For the benefit of the mathematically challenged, here's how to calculate the percentage of CO2 in greenhouse gases, with the figures from IPCC WG1:
Concentration of all greenhouse gases except CO2 = (1,745 + 314)ppb + (80 + 3 + 4.2 + 14 + 7.5 + .5 + 268 + 533 + 4 + 84 + 15 + 7 + 102 + 60 + 132 + 10 + 11 + 3.8 + 2.5)ppt = 2060341.5ppt
CO2 concentration = 365ppm = 365,000,000ppt
Fraction of greenhouse gass that are CO2 = 365,000,000ppt / (365,000,000 + 2,060,341.5)ppt = 99.4%
(OK, 60 should be 69, but the proportion of CO2 among greenhouse gases is still 99.4%. Not 5%.)
Considering that CO2 on its own produces just over 1 deg C of warming for each doubling, the above quote means we will get around 20 deg C of warming in total for each doubling of CO2 (unless of course you're crazy enough to believe that the amount of water in the air does not change with increasing/decreasing temperature - this means among other things humidities way over 100% if it got colder).
Imagine, 20 deg C for each doubling of CO2. kent is such an alarmist.
Ha,
Andrew Bolt sure has a lot of gumption. Yes, the South Australian heat wave is a single event, but what an event! We are talking about 15 days in a row above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) when the previous record was 8 days (on numerous occasions, but most recently in 2004). The CSIRO has calculated that this heatwave has a one in 3000 year likelihood.
It is also the hottest march on record, records have fallen across southern Australia, and this is on top of 2007 being the warmest year on average ever recorded in South Australia, and record low flows into the Murray Darling river basin. Check out the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for data.
Surely Bolt could come up with a straw-men that are a little easier to knock down.
(Mind you, I admit that some people are taking the long dry a little too much to heart - my father has canceled a water tank order because he has concluded that it will never ever rain again, and so there is no point trying to catch any!)
kent posts:
[[Bi, CO2 provides about 5% of the warming not the 26% your link talks about. It has been discarded many times.The actual number as derived by many is between 3.6% and 8%. Water vapour is the heavy lifter. CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas ]]
CO2 provides 26% of the clear-sky greenhouse effect:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97…
[[and our contribution is even less than trace.]]
No, you're confusing our contribution per year (small compared to the total) to our total contribution. The preindustrial concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million by volume; the present figure is about 385 ppmv. That means 27% of the CO2 presently in the air is artificial. The small contribution is repeated year after year; it's a compound-interest expansion, and it has risen greatly in the past few years as fossil-fuel-powered industry comes on line in India and China.
bi, you're right that CO2 is the most important trace greenhouse gas, but that calculation doesn't count water vapor. Water vapor is about 3900 ppmv compared to 385 ppmv for CO2. It's also a more powerful greenhouse gas. But its scale height is very shallow, so CO2 contributes more than you'd expect from a simple comparison (CO2 is well mixed throughout the troposphere).
Oops... But even taking that into account, I still can't figure out how anyone can conclude that CO2 takes up 5% of greenhouse gases.
Barton; I have been looking for a site I stumbled on some time ago that was a thesis dealing with the topi of global warming, greenhouse gases, etc,etc,. I have been trying to find it for weeks and have had no luck. It totaly destroyed the 26% waring caused by CO2.
You point out that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was 270ppmv but that number is in dispute. I have seen a graph of the original data points and to arrive at the 270ppmv the authors cherry picked very few measurements.Without the cherry picking the ppmv came out to something like 350. It should also be noted that the 380 ppmv is normally the one taken from Mona loa. Which is situated 4 KM away from actively venting volcanic vents.
Barton, I wonder what the definition of "clear sky" is. Maybe I missed the humidity level but the % effect of CO2 would depend on just how much waater vapour was in the air.
Chris, better get a calculator 5% of 33 degrees is 1.65 degrees. Doubling CO2 does not double warming, it is a logarithmic effect.
Pico, While Darwin is setting a record, Sydney is setting records for rain, lack of sun, etc. Other parts of Aus are flooding, and don't forget it is summer down under.(which is a misnomer because according to the galactic plane Aus is in the northern hemisphere.
Try telling NSW and Victoria this was a great summer. It was shit. Sth Aust is a localised event.
I have been looking for a site I stumbled on some time ago that was a thesis dealing with the topi of global warming, greenhouse gases, etc,etc,. I have been trying to find it for weeks and have had no luck. It totaly destroyed the 26% waring caused by CO2.
Huh. If it was testable, empirical results derived from solid hypotheses, it would be all over. I wonder why we can't find a hack denialist site to support our beliefs. I wonder...I wonnnnnnder.
Best,
D
Thats funny Kent, I could have sworn that Co2 was measured at other places than Hawaii.
Oh, of course, it is:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Chris didn't say that doubling CO2 doubles warming:
See?
Do you wonder why we don't take you seriously?
Just in case you're as math challenged as I fear might be the case ...
2,4,8,16 - doubling
log2(2)=1
log2(4)=2
log2(8)=3
log2(16)=4
See? Linear increase for each doubling when the impact is logarithmic.
Peter,
You have an odd definition of 'great summer'.
Have a look at the temperature map on this page at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
It shows that a very large proportion of southern Australia - including Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and large chunks of Western Australia and New South Whales had highest on record average temperatures in 2007. This heat wave extended across the same region and is pretty much an extreme extension of the 2007 situation.
Besides, the Bureau of Meteorology climatologist stated that the heat wave was consistent with what is expected with Global warming. He didn't say it proved it. Of course a single event it not a proof of anything, even if it has a one in 3000 year probability. But when these extreme events keep happening, keep outdoing each other, and occur against a background of relentlessly increasing average temperatures surely the most skeptical denialist should pause to reconsider their position.
"You point out that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was 270ppmv but that number is in dispute. I have seen a graph of the original data points and to arrive at the 270ppmv the authors cherry picked very few measurements."
I've seen that graph too. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg
It was real spotty for 100 years, converging downwards,then settled down to a steady value for a long time. Much like the first measurements of the distance to the moon. Are you equally convinced that the moon used to wander about the sky willy nilly?
I note that the earliest measurements were highest, and that none of the measurements ever fall below the "commonly accepted" measurement. Given that heating and lighting at that time was generally accomplished by open flames, which produce carbon dioxide; not to mention the experimenters, who produce carbon dioxide, i'm more of the opinion that the early measurements were sometimes contaminated by locally generated carbon dioxide rather than that the atmospheric concentration in the late 1800s could measure anywhere from 550 to 300 or less ppm. within a single year, then suddenly decided to behave itself. i'm of the opinion that not all those measurements can be correct, in fact. I'm of the opinion that it's a lot easier to contaminate the experiment with excess carbon dioxide when you have flames around and nobody's ever done this before.
Jaworowski himself, the author of this fluctuating carbon dioxide theory, is kind of conservative; he suggests that the average CO2 concentration was 335 ppm in the 1800s, not 290; but from this graph of his, it clearly fell from 475 ppm in 1800 to 292 in 1900 then started to rise again. Now that would definitely get you grant money, never mind this stuff about 'you can only get grants if you have evidence of global warming'.
to sum up:
1. Later measurements are probably more sophisticated than earlier measurements;
2. Measurements of the same thing which are widely scattered are more likely to be wrong than measurements of the same thing which cluster tightly;
3. It's probably easier to overestimate CO2 than it is to underestimate it where there are a lot of rapidly generating sources (particularly when candles and gas flames were used for lighting, before electricity), and nothing is absorbing it faster than a plant.
4. You shouldn't just blindly average a bunch of contradictory measurements that can't possibly all be correct and claim the average is the best possible estimate.
You shouldn't just blindly average a bunch of contradictory measurements that can't possibly all be correct and claim the average is the best possible estimate.
Au contraire!
You can blindly average the Keystone Kop-like contradictory denialist statements to see that they rotate around the same FUD phrases emanating from the same clown car. Indeed, the denialist hopping about is strongly reminiscent of Keystone Kop behavior.
Keystone Denialists. And Harold is comedic gold.
Best,
D
Oops.
Keystone Denialists. And Harold is comedic gold. Following in the publishing footsteps of our very own Hans (of the Morano 400). How's Hans Erren's Galileo-like publishing career going, Harold? A model for your own path, surely.
Best,
D
That CO2 graph is available [right here on Detoid](http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/).
Ah yes, S. Fred was on that case. FWIW, Jaworowski and Beck couldn't rent a clue between them during the US real estate bubble. In short, there are some decent (read approximate and reasonably well done using difficult and not very precise methods) measurements dating back as far as ~1880 and those turn out to be under 300. There is also a lot of crap and stuff that does not even reach that level. Follow the links little fella.
Bill@12: "Restoring the Balance" ... err ... "Counterpoint" _always_ has people like Marohasy on. They pride themselves on being a right-wing Phillip Adams. Or something.
You'll note David that on the previous item on that show regarding diets and obesity that they did in fact have an expert to counter the unorthodox views of their first speaker. They did not do this when their pet ( Marohasy) touted her dubious wares. This show is a travesty and should be removed from the ABC . As you accurately say it should be called " Restoring the balance " as per that JJJ
show.
kent, I wasn't talking about the entire greenhouse effect. I was just talking about the additional effect from a doubling of CO2. 33 degrees is the entire existing greenhouse effect from zero atmosphere to our existing atmosphere. 1.1-1.2 degrees is the warming from just ONE doubling of CO2 on its own, e.g. an increase from 140 ppm to 280 ppm is just one doubling. Try to think about what it means if this is 5% of the greenhouse effect from just ONE doubling.
Nexus 6's Lesson 3 is out. O frabjous day!
Dano, I did read that..
Try this on the greenhouse contributors:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm
Denial School alive, but not well, in Canada.
Ball speaks! Here are his latest findings, in a nutshell:
- 1934 was a hot year, therefore global warming in recent decades is not happening
- old people are able to distinguish tiny differences in annual average temperatures over large areas (e.g., 12.57 vs. 12.58 C)
- recent winter storms mean the earth is in a cooling trend
http://www.discoverfoothills.com/index.php?option=com_ezine&task=read&p…
News item.
The Whole Weather Story Not Presented
Don't believe everything you hear about global warming.
Environmental Consultant Dr. Tim Ball says the hysteria about the earth getting warmer is based on incorrect figures.
"What's happening is some of the extremists, the alarmists are saying this is more dramatic than ever, it's never happened before- that's absolute rubbish", he says, "where they had 1998 as the warmest year on record then they discovered they got the numbers wrong, it turns
out 1934 is the warmest year on record and the old people are saying yeah, tell me something I don't know".
Dr. Ball told a full house at the Stavely Community hall that change isn't gradual but can come suddenly.
He says evidence points to the earth actually cooling rather than warming and gives the winter storms this year across North America as an example.
From Hans Erren's denialist link:
"Give the correct impression"? That's oh-so-scientific gobbledygook for "I want to question the figures without actually questioning them so I coat them with phrases suggesting doubt".
- - -
Dano:
To the extent that Galileo spammed his ground-breaking theories on blogs all over Europe, I guess Hans Erren's publishing career is indeed pretty much like Galileo's.
And, yet another one from the "make shite up" department. Actually, this is a cross-department effort which also involves the "hypocrite! hypocrite! hypocrite!" department...
First. Thank you for comparing me with Galileo, but really, too much honour.
Second. I'm not paid to publish, I write in my spare time.
Third. The reactions to the Barret-Bellamy link are pathetic. If you do care to read it, it uses Modtran by David Archer. It's pretty straightforward radiation physics with albedo held constant.
Try for yourself:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
Hans- what are you expecting us to notice in the BArret-Bellamy link? I don't have time to read every single page, but I note they seem to suggest CO2 has a larger effect on keeping heat in than some people think. If I am reading that right, the atmosphere without CO2 model takes it down by a whopping 10.5 degrees K. In fact it suggests the bare planet temperature would be -34.5C, whereas all I can remmeber it is is more like -15C. So why the discrepancy?
Hansen's paper is out http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf advocating a return to 350 ppm based on his estimate of about 3°C for doubled CO2 including only fast
feedback processes and 6°C for equilibrium sensitivity. I don't think I've seen an analysis previously which separated the two.
re 40
Thanks for spotting the glitch guthrie, see the updated page:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page19.htm
The total GHG effect is 34.5 degrees, That comes from assuming the mean temperature is 15 C and using Stefan-Boltzmann on 235 W m^-2. The 33 C GH effect originates in taking the Earth's output as 240 W m^-2