John Quiggin notes that Michael Shermer and Sir David Attenborough have now accepted that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and that the skeptics now mostly consist of the deluded like Ken Ring and the shills like the CEI.
Speaking of which, here's the latest from Ken Ring.
Cameron: CO2 is all around us, its part of what makes air air. Plants take up CO2 through stomata, on the UNDERSIDE of their leaves Kenny - not a good strategy for your "falling CO2".
Ken Ring: If CO2 doesn't fall then how does it get to vegetation? I suppose you think it rises then twists in the air doing a 180, then plops onto the top of a leaf. At least plants, which haven't been to a university, still have the nouse to have their leaves upturned to catch the falling CO2. Further, if CO2 doesn't fall, what do you think happens to the tons of the stuff that daily comes shooting out of volcanoes? Does it just sit up there accumulating?
I'd love to see Louis Hissink and Ken Ring discuss global warming.
And here's the latest CEI move: attack Gore for flying in a plane to promote awareness of global warming.
Oh and here's Tech Central Station's Nick Schulz doing the quote mine:
Of course, Gore himself, in an interview with Grist magazine recently shed light on his efforts to persuade people by saying, "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Over-representation, indeed.
"At least plants, which haven't been to a university, still have the nouse to have their leaves upturned to catch the falling CO2."
Holy smoking moly. Who let this guy graduate from grade school?
On the other hand, this explains why our noses are hole-down: so as to aid the CO2 to drain.
"Paramount has committed to making the entire tour promoting the film carbon neutral."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/22/drudge-falsely-smears-gore/
I don't know about whether making the film was also carbon-neutral, but it puts the attack in perspective - that it's stupid.
Let me see if I get this right. Alright, so CO2 is more dense than air (as can be seen when the gas bubbles out of a bowl containing dry ice), so carbon dioxide accumulates towards the ground? And, I guess due to mixing, it gets thrown around?
/slept through the part in Chemistry where they were talking about the atmosphere
Michael Shermer and Sir David Attenborough have now accepted
Was Sir David ever a global warming contrarian? I don't remember him making much comment on the issue at all.
Excuse me while I go shoot my brain.
You silly people and your chicken-little fears. Now listen: CO2 falls downwards. The surface of the earth is convex. Ergo, the CO2 will in time slide down to the bottom, collecting in Antarctica and filling up from there. This will both plug the ozone hole and give eventually give proper upwards-nourishment to the poor starving trees and plants, which if you haven't noticed, have been massively deforesting in recent years -- which statistically correlate to the left's negligent CO2-reducing policies.
Let's see: carbon dioxide's molecular mass is 44*. That's more than nitrogen gas 28*, therefore carbon dioxide falls to the ground.
Now, ozone's molecular mass is 48*. So, ozone forms a layer even lower than carbon dioxide, and if you get down on the ground for long, you'll get your respiratory tract all irritated.
And obviously, the "ozone layer" is a Evil Ambientalist Socialist Ant-CFC Industry Lie.
Yes, this is Twilight Zone.
*For oxigen-16, nitrogen-14, and carbon-12 isotopes.
On the other hand, this explains why our noses are hole-down: so as to aid the CO2 to drain
Z, I think you are onto something here. That is why when we lie down at night we go to sleep. The holes in our noses are now pointing horizontal and thus allowing some CO2 to creep in and render us unconscious.
During the night we roll over and point our noses down - the CO2 falls out and we wake up.
I never knew biology was so logical!
Unfortunately, the oxygen, having a molecular mass of only 32, floats on the CO2, out of reach of the animals, which explains why we've all keeled over.
I just read the Louis Hissink comments in that link you provided. For future reference, Beer and sinuses do not mix.
Bill Moyers was right: "The delusional is no longer marginal."
So all we need to do to remove CO2 from the atmosphere- assuming its a problem at all - is let it drain down into old mine shafts and then seal them off.
The Ringworld IS unstable.
More adventures in Ringworld:
Obviously the reason carbon dioxide doesn't pool at gorund level is that it seeps back down into the Earth.
Some of the carbon dioxide is then ejected back ito the atmosphere (since volcanic eruptions are apparently the only source of the CO2 in the upper atmosphere) but the rest reacts with superheated water/steam in a natural version of the Topfer process to produce natural gas, coal and oil, making all of these renewable resoruces.
so if carbon dioxide is life, and gore gallavants around the world producing more of it, the CEI thinks we should be disgusted because... um...?
Tim,
"I'd love to see Louis Hissink and Ken Ring discuss global warming".
And who is Ken Ring?
So Louie also needs help understanding how those linky thingies work?
Louie, have you tried holding your cursor in one place as the earth rotates beneath it and, when this rotation stops, clicking on whatever it is now pointing at?
Sooner or later you could get lucky and find out who Ken Ring is.
Ken Ring is a deluded fool who makes silly statements about climate change, and is reffered to in the 5th line down in Tims post- it even has a link to some stuff by him. I suggest you go read it, its entertaining.
"So all we need to do to remove CO2 from the atmosphere- assuming its a problem at all - is let it drain down into old mine shafts and then seal them off."
That might not work. If there are any cracks, it will only leak out from the bottom of the earth.
We need to ensure the CO2-serpent never again rears its ugly (but life-giving) head. Perhaps a one-way trip with CO2-(or nukyalar-) powered rockets to the Sun would do the trick.
There MAY be another alternative short of sending CO2 off into space on rockets: dig a black hole and bury the CO2 in there.
Forget all this science crap: What I want to know is, where's the nitrous oxide layer?
Ringworld is a strange and wonderful place. Ken's an ozone nut as well as a lunar weather forecaster. A "lunatic", I suspect, if the strict definition is applied.
In Ringworld, there's some stuff called "hard water" (H3O, don't y'know). And there's no ozone hole, and even if there was, it couldn't cause any trouble because...
"I've saved the best till last. The Sun shines, in NZ, from the north. That's why all the houses mainly face north; to catch the day's warm sunshine. NZ is therefore south of the Sun, at all times. The South Pole is south of NZ, at all times. For the Sun to shine through the ozone hole in the south-polar skies and onto NZ to cause skin cancer, is utterly impossible unless the Sun scoots around under the south pole or Antarctica races up to sit next to Fiji. Never mind the ozone thing; what great headlines that would make."
Chortle. And I've asked him to explain how the greenhouse "cover" works in Ringworld.
I've heard of Ken Ring, Bozo the Clown and Tim Blair - but who are you, "Louis Hissink"?
At least Ken Ring as the honesty to wear a clown suit. What does Louis Hissink wear, besides the dunces hat?
But when is Tim Lambert going to join John Howard's Great Debate on nuclear energy. For if the above comments are correct, the unmentionable N is what we need. Stephen Berg et al: How about this for starters? (from www.dunmgeness.org (seems to be a not for profit site unrelated to the reactor)
"Dungeness is also home to a unique variety of wildlife and more than 600 different types of plants - about one third of all plants found throughout the UK. Also Dungeness is one of the best places in Britain to find rare species of moths, butterflies, bees, beetles and spiders. Many of the insects not to be found anywhere else".
I have relis living close to similar reactors in Suffolk and Somerset with equally super-abundant bio-diversity and pristine unspoilt beaches(thanks perhaps to absence of SO2 and other pollutants, even CO2?).
Tim Curtin, we had 100+ comments on [my post on nuclear energy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/patrick_cofounder_of_greenpeac…) last month. How come you are only interested now that Howard brought it up?
Tim Curtin, we had 100+ comments on my post on nuclear energy last month. How come you are only interested now that Howard brought it up?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | May 27, 2006 04:51 AM
Tim Lambert: that was classified under both DDT and global warming, and your own comments were on the former, while mine were on the ostensible subject, so clearly I was interested before our great leader proposed the debate to which so far you appear not to have responded. But three errors in two lines is about par for you!
Seeing the reactions to my post cannot spell my name right, Tim, you do live in a Zoo of neanderthals, don't you.
Lambert does not have a 'nuclear power' classification (yet).
Curtin left only one comment on the post, referring only to Quiggin and the Allen report. He did not join the discussion directly.
Forget the trip to the crowded malls,
Let's go to the Zoo of Neanderthals,
It's better than a Zoo with cows,
Cuz Neanderthals have bushy brows.
Their jutting jaws are really funny,
"Let's bring the kids, they'll love, it Honey."
Their brains are bigger than yours and mine,
But they don't use them half the time.
They jump and fight and "ooo" and "eee",
It really is a sight to see.
The Keeper is a man named Tim,
And all the Thals just worship him.
They think he's one of them, you see,
And not just anyone a Thal can be.
So grab the kids and grandma too,
Let's all go to "Neaderthal Zoo."
"Seeing the reactions to my post cannot spell my name right, Tim, you do live in a Zoo of neanderthals, don't you."
Seeing Louie cannot master basic syntax and grammar, he does live as the star exhibit in a Zoo of neanderthals, doesn't he?
Good to see you back with us, Louis.
Did you ever get around to explaining how you reconciled the existence of seasons with your theory that the Earth's temperature was primarily caused by heat from the core and not from solar radiation?
If you did I must have missed it and would appreciate a quick recap.
I also have a related question: given that the Earth is an oblate spheroid with an equatorial bulge (meaning that the surface at the equator is further from the core than the polar surface)shouldn't it be hotter at the poles than at the equator?
Ian Gould,
You are innumerate.
The dimensions of a standard billiard ball are a diameter of 2.25 inches with a tolerance of plus or minus 0.005 inches.
From these numbers we can calculate the maximum and minimum dimensions of a billiard ball.
They are: Max diameter = 2.255 inches
Min diameter = 2.245 inches
Sphericity is defined as max diameter/min diameter.
So for a sphere, Sphericity = 1
For a billiard ball, Sphericity = 1.004454 (as a ratio units of measurement become irrelevant).
For the earth we have:
Equatorial diameter = 7926.77 Km.
Polar diameter = 7899.909 Km.
Sphericity therefore = 7926.77/7899.909 = 1.003378.
From these calculations we conclude that the earth is closer to a perfect sphere, in its dimensions, than a billiard ball.
We therefore dismiss your statement that the earth's oblateness might mean that it is hotter at the poles, than the equator.
References:
http://www.caroun.com/Geography/General/Earth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiard_ball
Secondly Ian Gould,
when you state "Earth's temperature" do you mean the earth, or its atmosphere, and then which part of the atmosphere.
I know from personal experience that the temperature of the atmosphere at 1000 meters height is quite, quite different to that at 2 metres height. And it is certainly not the temperature of the earth, a physical property which is actually impossible to measure.
Which is why you and your global warming fellow travellers worship false gods.
Third reply to Ian Gould:
The diurnal variation is essentially one on top of the earth's base-level temperature that has, by definition, to be the mean about which the seasonal temperatures fluctuate. The seasons are simply the variations about a pre-existing mean temperature of the earth.
But then have we, from our instruments, measured the temperature of the earth, or merely the temperature states of our measuring instruments, a point emphasised by Essex and McKitrick.
Louis and friends need to relearn the zeroth law of thermodynamics: "If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium."
Translated from the English, that means that yes, the temperature as given by the states of the thermometer is the same as the temperature of the thing that the thermometer is in contact with.
But the fact that Louis and Kenny like to quote Essex and McKitrick is a good indication of the respect the latter are due
The earth is not in thermal equilibrium...
You notice how Louie is now using the Royal "we"?
Or perhaps there's now more than one pysche inhabiting his skull?
Right Hans, thanks to increased greenhouse gas concentrations about 0.5-1.0 W/m2 are coming in than going out on balance, so we are commited to more warming, even if no further emissions occur.
On the otherhand, your argument about thermal equilibrium is about as bogus as saying that the thermometer your mom stuck you know where could not measure your temperature. Enjoy.
Eli
Except the earth is not in thermal equilibrium, period.
So your logic fails totally.
Notice Nabakov that we don't vilify or use adhominems? That you need to merely means you have no argument, or, more likely, no understanding of the issues.
Nabakov,
Another point, if I may, but your understanding of English is somewhat incomplete - we is used as plural, as in we humans, who are measuring, backed up by "our". To most class ignorant commentators that means plural. However lefties seem to be distinctly class sensitive.
Incidentally I have been advised not to waste my time here, but then when nature calls, a man has to do what a man needs to. :-). Deposit his waste somewhere.
Louis: you call it waste, CEI calls it life.
Nabakov,
further to your comments above, the term "neo-coprolite" comes to mind.
Strictly geological mind you. :0
Eli
Kenney does not quote Essex and McKitrick.
[Vilification deleted. No personal attacks please. Tim]
Louis: You said ...
From these calculations we conclude that the earth is closer to a perfect sphere, in its dimensions, than a billiard ball.
We therefore dismiss your statement that the earth's oblateness might mean that it is hotter at the poles, than the equator.
Ah, I see - they are the same temperature!
John Cross,
True, but from what source? And while the dirurnal variations observed remain fact, the assume, explicitly a base temperature, around which they vary.
But as you said, in your post above, " - they are the same temperature!"
Yes the minor and major axes of the oblate spheroid are at the same temperature!
Splendid!
Should we start a company up to provide these ?
Waste = Life?
Ah a microbial perspective, surely.
Tim,
please be consisent in your censoring.
Nabakov as an example.
Since thermodynamic equilibria are never strictly reached, one can never measure a temperature in the strictest sense. However there is always that bit about for all practical purposes. More concerning is that our emereti appear to be going postal at an alarming rate http://tinyurl.com/mcbjm
"Notice Nabakov that we don't vilify or use adhominems?"
"you do live in a Zoo of neanderthals, don't you."
Don't look at me. I just direct traffic here.
"we is used as plural, as in we humans, who are measuring, backed up by "our". To most class ignorant commentators that means plural."
"But then have we, from our instruments, measured the temperature of the earth, or merely the temperature states of our measuring instruments, a point emphasised by Essex and McKitrick."
But only you are asking that question and no one else thinks it's worth answering. So why the plural?
Nabakov,
Because to use the personal "I" is egotistical, and not representative of the facts.
Humanity is a "we". Plural, some billions of us, of which a smaller number measure things like temperature. So I cannot say "I" have measured all the 10,000 (say) temperature readings for a particular day in the year.
Eli Rabbet,
Either you measure a temperature or you don't.
Finally Nabakov,
"But then have we, from our instruments, measured the temperature of the earth, or merely the temperature states of our measuring instruments, a point emphasised by Essex and McKitrick"
I suspect we lost you here - too explicit? Too factual?
You and Eli should have a personal session together, and see if either of you are writing about the same topic.
Louis dear, you are trapped in your own denial. Either the zeroth law applies to the system, or it does not. If it does you can measure a meaningful temperature in terms of any number of physical properties, with any number of thermometers. A base problem with E&M is that different thermometers based on different physical principals will all measure the same temperature of the atmosphere. If they are only measuring the (temperature) state of each instrument why are all the measurements the same? I would suggest that you repair to your cave (where else would a rock hound live) and read a decent equilibrium thermo book. Fermi is a personal favorite, quite short and to the point.
Eli,
The earth's atmosphere has never been in thermal equilibrium nor will it.
Go read Fermi Louis, or are you claiming that all those weather guys and girls who signed the OISM petition are clueless?
For that matter consider your statement with respect to heat flow in the core or anywhere else. You can define local temperatures, you can average them if properly weighted by heat capacities.
You need to have a local thermal equilibrium to define a temperature.