Climate Change Deniers last gasp: do not resuscitate

Hey, I suggested you to my readers on blog day, maybe you'll get a giant traffic spike of 3 new visitors!!

Mark: Thanks. I'll take what I can get!

Oh indeed Revere we are seeing global climate change. Its warmer, but likely not as warm as it was 1000 years ago when Greenland was being farmed by the Vikings. I want you to square that one with me because Pelosi the Putz was dumb enough to stand in Greenland and say, "I have seen the effects of global warming." Uh-huh.

Okay, so really its about carbon this and that in the atmosphere. Supposedly this is going to warm us up. Catch NOVA on PBS on Tuesday night. It might disturb you to know that many are now thinking that we are about to get mighty cold.

But I always give it you that you could be right but I also say that you have to prove it. I have seen more stuff come out since the 70's when we were going to be in a popsicle state according to the EXPERTS. I dont care whether someone teaches it, I dont care whether they say its incontrovertible proof because each time they do, they come back and say "We were wrong, sort of. Uh-sorry, uh could I get a grant and prove myself wrong."

Its all agenda based right now. I challenge anyone to PROVE it. I read a few months ago that they testted the ice in Greenland, the Artic and the Antartic there was even more carbon indicated across the last 50,000 years than we have now and in very interesting periods. We got warm, cold, hot, cool, hot as hell, cold and at one point in time... an ice ball.

So..... Someone come up with something more than ridicule of the thought that the global warmers could be wrong. If they are wrong, then so what? If they are right, its already too late. I watched fmr Sen Gravel say we could be carbon free in under 5 years last night on Maher. That guy is so full of shit his brain and eyes are brown. It wouldnt matter if WE were. The Chinese drop enough into the atmosphere for EVERYONE three times over. Now thats proof and you only have to look up MODIS in a search to find it.

I thought I would comment directly on the Orestes - Schulte matter on the blog that published Orestes response to Schulte at http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schul…

During those postings, something I saw on the web caused me to wonder just how serious was the anthropomorphic contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere. So I did a quick calculation (I have published it as a comment here http://barvennon.com/spin/?p=42#comment-864 ).

To my surprise I found that at current planetary levels of carbon addition (by burning fossil fuels) it would take more than 10,000 years to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Could anybody here who thinks that they could criticize that data please do so? I have rechecked it about 10 times, and still find it hard to credit.

oops. found the error. that is 100 years, not 10,000 to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Bar-Greetings. I too came up with 100 years. On the other hand, that is that all things being equal. It doesnt take into account though atmospheric equilibrium, nor the oceans ability to absorb C02, and the ever present bunch of guys that were just ten short years ago saying that CFC's were causing global warming. Now if the earth receives less sunlight and the dimming of the sun results in more carbon burning how long do we have. Probably dont have to worry about it really because a dimming sun results in fewer people. But as this isnt the warmest time we have ever seen. It was far warmer according to the ice records, it had far more CO2 in the past and we still made it thru. It was also far colder and apparently that happened nearly overnight but no one is sure how that mechanism worked out.

So are we to assume that all of the global warmng deniers (I likely fall into that) are wrong and automatically assume that the global warming people are right. Not from science we wont. No one here can definitively point to it and say that they are right. Salinization of water can cause it to lose heat more quickly, so even something as slight as making the water more fresh could account for it. Its not just one factor. We are also moving into a time that even the Milankovitch cycle could account for it. Either way, if its human related then the earth should just take a bunch of us off the map in the near term if it doesnt like us. Natural selection for elimination. Coule we alter that? Yep, but it only makes more people. The ecosystem from pollution and us just basically being here is stressed and its starting to react as it does when there are too many rats in a barn. Mammals are likely across the board going to get whacked here pretty soon and that might include me. Panflu, polluted water etc. Never has there been such a level of humanity on this planet and a destruction of natural resources. Nature generally doesnt respond unless its affecting the natural order. Then its floods, famine, flu, what have you. I cant see anything that all of this has done except to get it to the point where I believe it will collapse in one fell swoop and then done.

We could still shut everything off and the Chinese would produce enough CO2 to ensure that California fails the clean air act. Now theres something that I can prove.... a little science if you want it.

Randy: There is science in back of all this it would repay you to review. No one ever said CFCs cause global warming. They destroy the ozone layer, which they certainly did and with banning many CFCs it has stabilized and may be coming back. So you need to get some of this stuff straight before forming an opinion.

CFC's destroy ozone Revere, but the samp flights by the TR-1's runs couldnt find CFC's only a depleted ozone layer. CFC's? Maybe, or maybe not?

I have seen so much whipsaw back and forth Revere that like most of the world, it becomes just so much noise. Its not wrong either. Everyone keeps telling America to quit polluting so much and all I see is smog alerts in SE Asia who seem to produce enough for the rest of the world 3 times over getting a pass. So as long as it sounds good in OUR media its reported that we get to lose more jobs to some guy in another country, working for peanuts because they dont have environmental laws that would up the costs for them too.

Now theres a science Revere, its economics.

"CFC's destroy ozone Revere, but the samp flights by the TR-1's runs couldnt find CFC's only a depleted ozone layer."

No CFCs? Really?

"Its warmer, but likely not as warm as it was 1000 years ago when Greenland was being farmed by the Vikings."

No, Randy, the MWP was confined to parts of the Northern Hemisphere: Coral readings from the pacific tropics show a cooling trend. See http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf

Sockie-I can see only a slight upward rise in reading that PDF just after Mt. Pinautubo. Inorganic rather than organic is what they are chasing.

Heres a news flash though. The amount of CFC's has remained pretty much steady since that sampling was done. Its a sampling only and its a lot of assumption made on something thats only been tested some 30 times in the last 20 years. Again, I always say you could be right but that doesnt flip my skirt at all. It also occurs in belts if its organic and tight areas of constraint for non.... Again, all depends on who is doing the nay saying. They do though need to get our little Chinese friends under control. If they continue burning dirty coal we wont have to worry much longer as they produce so much CO that we wont have time to screw with CO2. It wont be global warming it will be global death. That is now being measured by MODIS and other sats..... Its tremendously bad over there and they want us to cut OUR emissions (which by the way are about the same as the Kyoto signers in the EU) right now. So how come Hawaii and Alaska dont pass the clean air act. We KNOW it has to be all those SUV's they drive there and all that heavy industry. Nope, its drift over from SE Asia.

Move to S. America. Their air is nearly perfect from a global standpoint.

Oh and do by all means check this out.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070319_thinning_aerosols.html

Sorry guys, I get so steamed by the "experts" that say we all gonna die, we are all gonna freeze to death that I take great measures to try to be fair and....balanced about everything. Now I get froggy over an 18 wheeler belching out enough soot to blacken my freshly washed car, but is it really causing global warming. No one can say for sure.

Automatically I have to say that Sockie and the others could be right because I think both sides of this argument are full of shit and that by default includes me. Its hotter Yup. But it was crapload hotter in the 30's, it was hotter in the 90's. But no one can point a finger at it and say urps, thats it. It was hotter than this even at 900 year mark or so.

If we are such a burden to the planet I think the planet will take care of itself and us with it. Not to worry. If it wants us, then it will get us. Where do we have to run?

The ozone layer's been getting worse far longer than originally expected because of the interaction between greenhouse warming and stratospheric cooling; claims otherwise lack any basis in the published science. You can look this stuff up. http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/data/antarctic.htm

CFCs did cause global warming, they're powerful greenhouse
gases -- but the progress toward eliminating them to favor recovery of the ozone layer happened before the warming problem was understood. We were lucky that time. THE USA has joined other nations urging speeding up phaseout of continued production of CFCs, primarily by China, because they're gaming the system, producing more to get money to clean up the mess.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/18/9875
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/hansen010302/figure1m.gif

ESS - Governance, Risk and Compliance - Perspectives on GRC
Additional proposals to accelerate the HCFC phase-out were submitted by the United States ... global warming chemicals including CFC, and HCFC refrigerants. ...
http://blog.ess-home.com/index.php?s=depleting

60 Years to Restore the Ozone Layer Over Antarctica
"Its clearly very difficult to control production of CFCs in China," ...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0921-02.htm

As Nobelist Paul Crutzen pointed out in his Nobel Prize speech:

"... if the chemical industry had developed organobromine compounds [halons] instead of CFCs... then without any preparedness, we would have been faced with a catastrophic ozone hole everywhere and in all seasons ... Noting that nobody had given any thought to the atmospheric consequences of the release of Cl or Br before 1974, I can only conclude that mankind has been extremely lucky "

http://tesla.jcu.edu.au/Schools/Earth/EA1004/Climate/Atmospheric%20Chan…

For the contiguous U.S., January 2008 was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below average, and was the 49th coolest January since U.S. weather records began in 1895. It was the coldest January in the U.S. since 2003. January 2008 temperatures across much of the western U.S. were below normal, with near-normal temperatures across the Midwest, South, and Southeast regions. In contrast to the rest of the country, temperatures were above normal in the Northeast, which had its 20th warmest January on record.

This is out of just about 180 years of true monitoring of actual temperatures, snow packs and the like. 49th aint got us out of the global warming gig just yet but there it is.

Dont be surprised if its not a popsicle March. Two volcanos popped their stuff and ejected multi tons of sulfuric acid into the air. That eats GHG and generally results in a cooling trend. Tungurahua is likely to go in a Plinian explosion in the near future whereas the last one was a Phreatic pyroclastic cloud event but it did shoot a lot of stuff into the air.

Save your breath (or your fingers) MRK. These folks have an 'explanation' for everything. For example, global warming doesn't really mean warm, at first it might get cold, then a little warm, followed by really warm, then a little colder, then cold again. Where I am from we call it winter, spring, summer, and autumn. I read a comment somewhere on this blog where someone was sarcastically complaining about folks who say "We just got dumped on by 4 1/2 feet of global warming". Apparently that doesn't work both ways, according to John Kerry those spate of tornadoes a week or so ago was a sign of global warming. John freaking Kerry! As soon as he opens his mouth most folks run screaming and seriously consider poking out their eardrums. The global warming fans need to get another spokesperson (and for heaven's sake not Al Gore). The fact that we didn't get clobbered by hurricanes last summer, even though it was predicted we would is a sure sign of global warming, and if we had gotten beat up with the hurricanes that would have been a sure sign of global warming. Scientists say we are going to get clobbered by hurricans, we don't, scientists are wrong, why? GLOBAL WARMING. As if the weather had a personal vendetta against scientists. Everything is a sure sign of global warming. If something bad weather related happens its a global warming signal, if nothing bad weather related happens thats a signal of global warming. It just doesn't matter MRK, these folks will trot out their holiest of holies in their new religion, the 'peer-review' mantra. Secretly, of course peer review is nothing more then group think or worse, mutual masturbation, but as long as the funds keep rolling in, well all is good.

"Secretly, of course peer review is nothing more then group think or worse, mutual masturbation, but as long as the funds keep rolling in, well all is good."

LOL. Spoken like a true Bushie: "Don't confuse me with the science." This kind of thing brands you as a crank and a troll. Maybe you should return to solving the energy crisis with your invention of a perpetual motion machine. That old Second Law. Bunch of junk, right?

revere - the science is confused, if you had bothered to read and understand the gist of what I was saying in the entire comment. But no, I get hammered and called names because I committed a sacrilege by speaking out against your idol. I know, I'll be one of the first against the wall when you scientists take over.

Pauls-The lefties have their science and it may or may not be correct. I never have said they were wrong, only that they havent incorporated all the data. Nor could they go with what I think is more than a educated guess. Simple things like the monitoring stations recently went thru a review. They were found parked on asphalt pads, near highly reflective surfaces and near discharges from sewer/storm water. I forget the number but it was in the six figures that they found were incorrectly placed. The ones in the Gulf were found to be out of kilter by an average of 2 degrees and some as high as 8. Its all about the input. Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, those GHG's are definitely on the rise. We arent generating them.

There is one clear fact and there is a shit load less ice in the Arctic and that can only mean a warmer atmosphere/water temp. The causes of it could be multiples and since IR imaging in Greenland indicates that there are now at three active volcanos beneath the ice and heating it could account for one hell of a lot of it. Pressure cooker effect. It might just be GHG too. But as those volcano's werent in the info stream because they werent discovered until recently there is no way for the lefties not to start taking that into account either. Yesterday was the best time for this, today is the next best opportunity. We got rid of acid rain. Turns out it might have been a good thing in the fight against global warming.

But they could be right and there is no doubt that man is accounting for some of it. We have 6.5 billion 98.6 heaters on this planet along with cows, pigs etc. all that are warmer than us. I found NOTHING in any report that took that into account.

The water though is warmer in places and much colder than others. The Arctic is one of them. Maunder minimum, little green men, they cant even get the current conditions right by more than 40% so how could anyone say that "THIS" is the cause. . Warming is a bad thing for sure, but so is cold. Too warm and methane hydrate starts to gas from the oceans. NO one is sure what that means but it could be accounting for the warming. I cant find even a slight reference to it in the GW report. They are also fast to hammer on the US. We are always wrong, it has to be us. It has to be Iraq, it has to be Bush. But excuse me, the first indication was that the EU and US while we pollute pretty good really arent the big polluters. We are stable for the better part. Its developing Asia and China with a good healthy swack annually from Africa and S. America as they slash and burn.

But those same Gore'ites want us to cut back even more and they devastate our economy in lieu of theirs. Remember it was My Pal Al who was caught taking illegal campaign money from the Chinese... No impeachment there? Why not? Probably because it was more than just for Clintons re-election, everyone got a piece of the pie. It would also account for the bent this has taken for years. Kind of like the petro industry, the about face came when they started funneling money to campaigns and producing pressure on certain Senators.

Another rub I have with it is California constantly trying to improve air quality and being unable to. Why? Because it drifts all the way from China and we have to suck it up and in. If they knew that the gases originated from SE Asia in Alaska, Hawaii and California and that no matter what they do, be it cut or whatever the China problem is getting worse every year and theirs with it. SE Asia was so bad last year that they gassed out the Indonesians who already had bad air from the forest fires due to no rain. Doesnt take much. But are we the observers of the problem or are we THE problem? We werent here when the temps were 6 to 8 degrees warmer and dino's roamed. Where in the hell did all of that gas come from to keep it that hot. Without slamming, and with a deep respect for Revere(s) they discount that this could be a natural cycle and that we are embroiled in a conversation that might end in an ice age, or toaster oven. Its all based upon current available data and sorry, 100 or so years when you are talking about 5.5 billion years of perspectives data doesnt cut it for me. Its warmer..Okay. Start there....Then prove it. None of this consensus stuff because consensus is based upon the current data. Has it been warmer... terribly so. Has it been colder? This was an ice ball geologically speaking not so long ago. Natural cycle and adaptation of species?..Priceless. Start on that third lung and flippers if its warmer. Else its natural Rogaine for the species.... or death if the extremes go either way. The 1920's-40's proved it could be much, much hotter. 125 in Death Valley.

But listen, do try to keep it civil here even when you get called a name. There are people who have little respect for others who come flopping in and out, call a name and I think its because they were abused as children. You can be called a retard and things like that, but didnt your sister or brother do the same thing? Direct personal attacks are not allowed by any ISP and they know it. Revere is pretty lenient but even he has his limits and especially on trolling.

Its not masturbation, its reiteration of the leftist line. It has to be that way for their agenda to move. The center is a constantly moving and evolving thing. Its only balanced by what people can prove or make suggestions of. If its -32 outside and someone says its global warming then they simply need their brains kicked up into their skulls.

Fact is that neither they or we can prove the causes. We all know the effects of it going even 3 degrees worldwide either way. Swimming lessons or snow boarding. They get it wrong and it tanks the economy then those funds will go away and the pendulum will swing to more hard provable stuff (left or right) than it will on conjecture. The Global Climate Change people are not nutcases, they actually believe what they are saying but I have a hard time swallowing a lot of it because its not hard science. Its molding of facts to fit an agenda... but dont think that my side of the coin wouldnt do the same.

If Revere could ever point to something other than some consensus and say there it is, I might have to back up but not on the crap that was put out in the GW report.

MRK- please see
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/02/15/y…

about that ice thing. (No matter though because the fact that the ice is building up it is probably another sign of global warming - ask revere, he of the "Don't confuse me with science" quote).
It is also good that revere is lenient because revere is the one tossing out words like 'crank' and 'troll' because I have strong suspicions about 'peer-review'. Good of him to be so open-minded.
Right about the science though. I guess in a perfect world science wouldn't be 'left' or 'right' it would be science, of course then we wouldn't have the likes of David Shearman taking control of the world would we? He of the "chosen total liberty rather than life". Good thing he's Australian or Patrick Henry would be turning over in his grave.