As I have said before, basic science and liberals, apparently the twain shall never meet. Global warming has sadly been the subject of so much hot air (sorry, I can’t resist) and become so politicized that the subject is now close to religious doctrine. My own personal theory was that since it is the sun’s radiation that powers our climate, it would make sense to study the sun and look at other planets to see if there have been any fluctuations with their weather cycle which would provide evidence on why our own is changing. And not surprisingly, there is some useful data out there that the MSM is conveniently ignoring.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: “Global Warming Fast Facts”.)Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
the source is here.
And if you think that is a fringe scientist, there is some independent confirmation on his findings.
Mars Ski Report: Snow is Hard, Dense and Disappearing
Mars would make a lousy host for the Winter Olympics. Yes, there’s the lack of air to consider. But more important, Martian snow turns out to be rock hard. Worse, it is melting away at an alarming rate.
In fact, Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.
It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year’s change represents a trend. But the study provides a surprising new view of the nature of the southern ice cap, said Michael Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems.
the source is here.
And this is from NASA itself.
Mars is Melting
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. It’s not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.
the source is here.
Now since Al Gore did not fund this study, liberals will question it. But if there is some proof of changes in the Sun’s output and changes in other planetary climates that match our own, then the facts strongly suggest global warming is a natural phenomenon. It might be best to take a detour and review some basic science first.
Global Warming and Basic Science.
Curt at Flopping Aces has covered the story regarding bad temperature data from Hansen’s Y2K error and the change in the U.S. leader-board. However, there is a more basic error with the global warming cult that I would like to address. Remember the dire predictions for Europe following Chernobyl and the Iraqi oil fires causing a nuclear winter? All were in error. The fallout area in Chernobyl was much, much less then predicted and the suggestion by Carl Sagan that the Iraqi oil fires would generate a small scale nuclear winter was an embarrassing blunder. Why did intelligent men commit such major errors? One, they drifted outside of their error of expertise. For instance, a man who designed nuclear bombs may not be the best scientist to predict fallout. The second area is that they allowed science to become politicized. Thus, it was no longer science.
This politicization has allowed the liberals to miss some basic points about the climate. First of all, what drives the climate?
What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Climate change is complex—there are many dynamics involved. A major factor may be the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 – 1958) studied the variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.
Milankovitch studied three factors:
1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.
the source is here.
The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s
the source is here.
Finally how these facts never make Al Gore’s talking points. But of course there may be a simpler explanation for climate change. It is not the rotation or aix or orbit around the Sun, it may be the Sun itself.
Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.
The source is here.
So, in another words, climatology is a subject better left for astronomers then biologists and environmentalists. Thus environmentalists may not be the best scientist to predict climate change. But it actually gets more confusing then this, as plate tectonics may also play a hand in climate change.
So the Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, Precession, plate tectonics, a change in the Sun’s output, (words liberals never use in any of their articles) and co2 emissions all may play a part in the earth’s climate. But according to the liberals, it is all man made CO2 emissions and it is all proven.
Stick with one factor, ignore all the others, and beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees.
That is Al Gore. That is liberal science. And this is the biggest scientific hoax in a very long time. And that is what you get when you allow science to be politicized.
If the Sun’s output is increasing and at the same time Mars and Earth’s polar icecaps are both shrinking, then the most likely conclusion is Global Warming is a NATURAL phenomenon., unless you think there are Martains with SUV’s and Humvees. What does the climate do? It changes. That is what it is suppose to do. What is our Sun? It is a variable star. What does that mean? That its luminosity and thus it’s output varies, as most stars do. I find it amusing many of global warming’ s biggest defenders question the intelligence of it’s detractors when it is readily apparent to me that it’s defenders are the ones that need to brush up on their basic science (or not have allowed their science to become politicized.) For when you pick the data to support your conclusion, as opposed to the other way around, you have left the path of science. Perhaps human activity plays a small past. (Thought I think not, and I hope it might be possible to measure the rate of shrinkage between the two planetary icecaps and looking for correlations and thus test this theory.) However, to say global warming is an entirely man made phenomenon is entirely disingenuous. One thing is for certain though, it is utterly impossible to stop climate change, as the one thing the climate does do is change. To think otherwise is just scientific ignorance.
In short, in my opinion, global warming is real and an entirely natural phenomenon due to changes in the Sun’s output that we have little to no control over. And I am not willing to destroy our economy over a natural phenomenon. But others have other ideas.
Bill Clinton: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy” to Fight Global Warming
Readers will recall that we’ve warned time and again that global warming alarmist’s first target is the U.S. economy.
Here’s more proof in a report from ABC’s Jake Tapper:
January 31, 2008 9:26 AM
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”
At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?
I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
Save the planet so our grandchildren can live in poverty? Is that the deal? Clinton went on to talk about how other countries would have to join us in this effort, but do we really believe that nation’s like China, Brazil and Mexico will all of a sudden begin start living up to the international agreements they sign?
And of course we know that GOP candidate McCain is also an adherent to the global baloney frenzy.
From Flopping Aces.
What I am annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to become politicized and thus may be missing some important data on our climate. are not mutually exclusive concepts.But the blame America first crowd once again shows they lack any ability to think outside of current liberal thought.
The danger here is not just that by focusing on just CO2 emissions and burning at the stake anyone who disagrees we may be missing other important signs concerning our climate, but that real danger is that the scientific community will continue to be politicized and will give us more global warming, nuclear winters, and other ideas that are based more on politics then science.
What we need is real, un-politicized science, not this.
And hell, not even all the scientists agree.
The “Consensus” On Global Warming Inside the IPCC Report
With MSM reports coming out daily like “Walruses Die; Global Warming Blamed“, “Global Warming “Tipping Points” Reached, Scientist Says” or my favorite “Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made” it’s little wonder many believe in the hoax known as man-made global warming. Especially in light of the new IPCC research.Of course if you look hard enough at the IPCC you will find a particular fact thats been overlooked. There is no consensus on the man-made baloney:
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
So it appears that this “consensus” is really seven impartial scientists, and even one of those called the assertion by the IPCC that greenhouse gases have caused most of the global warming “doubletalk”. Now that is something the environazi’s should hang their hat on.
Sigh….
And then no one noticed the letter sent to Ban Ki-Moon signed by 100 scientists which said the following:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
No, the MSM missed that one in their zeal to help their compatriots on the left push through agendas that ultimately lead to Socialism::
“The media obsession has been on the efforts of delegates at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference to craft an agreement for a climate treaty that would take effect after the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2011.
Though it appeared the meeting would end with no deal, the delegates looked to be near a compromise late Friday. That treaty is likely to be as effective as the useless, symbolic Kyoto protocol with which no nation has yet complied.
A day earlier, however, a panel at the IPCC conference titled “A Global CO2 Tax” took a step that will have a more lasting impact than an empty agreement. It urged the U.N. to adopt taxes on carbon dioxide emissions that would be “legally binding to all nations.” And guess who would be hit the hardest? That’s right, the tax, if levied, would put an especially high burden on the U.S.
“Finally, someone will pay for these costs” related to global warming, Othmar Schwank, a global warming busybody from Switzerland, told Sen. James Inhofe’s office. We imagine Schwank, a panel participant, took great glee in saying the U.S. and other developed nations should “contribute significantly more to this global fund.”
And now you see the real agenda by our environazi’s……Socialism:
The driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet — or a world that doesn’t get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth. A CO2 tax does this and more, choking economic growth in the U.S. and punishing Americans for being the voracious consumers that we are.
Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they’re becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” Emma Brindal, a “climate justice campaign coordinator” for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network’s blog.”
My favorite:
“When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it,” he says. “This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”
Long live freedom! As long as your doing and paying what we tell you.
The source is here.
If the liberals would simple read and research things on their own as opposed as letting someone else think for them then some of these facts might be better known to the general public. But alas, the essence of liberalism is groupthink. But I for one am not willing to destroy our economy and put hundreds of thousands or even worse, millions out of work because of bad politics and poor science. It is a natural phenomenon. It is that simple.
UPDATE
Update: Looks like I got sloppy on one thing. Jake Tapper took the Clinton Quote out of context. The full quote is this:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties [sic] — would say, “OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”
Sorry about the error.
Blogs at Orbys.net
“What I am annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to become politicized”
They know which side of their bread has the butter on it. A climate researcher lives on grants for studies. Before “global warming” came along it would have been nearly impossible to get grants. The only people really interested in long term climate trends were the energy companies who wanted to know what future energy requirements might be.
Cooling is a much scarier scenario because one single cold night can destroy an entire crop. A warm night won’t.
Crosspatch beat me to it. It is all about grants. Science shows a cycle of changes in our dynamic climate system which, aside from absolute wanton destruction far surpassing the ecological damages the former USSR and in current China, there is little humans can do to change it. Facts such as these do not get one grants, and grants (plus published papers) equal success I current science. Calamities, crisis, and “the sky is falling” get grants.
If CO2 were such a HUGE threat, then why not create huge CO2 filter systems as are used on USN Subs? Why not create huge air scrubbers the size of sky scrapers? When I asked these questions at the beginning of the “man-made global warming” myth in college (global warming following very close on the heels with the “New Ice Age” myth), I was told that there no man-made solutions (aside from destroying Western Capitalism) were “feasible”.
So if, aside from become good little socialists, man can do nothing to stop CO2 in the air, then how do we think we are so powerful to create enough of it to change the climate? One of the many, many logical fallacies of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming.
Way to go Rob! Your post is like throwing fresh chum in the water. Soon we’ll be overrun once again with enviromoonbats all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky is falling and our doom is near and woe is us if we don’t put them in charge.
Oh well, some people throw chum in the water because they like to eat shark steaks. Some of us like speared moonbat too.
Mars warming up? Only one cause possible…
Manbearpig
Don’t you mean McCain?
“Climate Science” is a newly invented academic discipline, emerging in the past several years to support the findings of those who believe in Global Warming and provide for them a career-niche. As such its current thrust as an evolving academic bureaucracy is to secure long-term funding and a place for itself at the University/Government feed-trough. It’s as much hard “science” as Anthropology is “hard culture” (ask an anthro-major) – and it exists within a framework that supports it only because of all the post-modern relativism that infuses the whole teetering edifice of Academe.
“I was told that there no man-made solutions (aside from destroying Western Capitalism) were ‘feasible’.”
Yeah, ChrisG, bet they never mentioned Chinese Communism … which has now surpassed the US as the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and still climbing. Truth is that warming is actually better overall. More food production, longer growing seasons, etc. And the longer plants can grow the more CO2 they take out of the air. In the last interglacial … the warm period before the last ice age … the temperatures were warmer, sea levels higher, and trees grew much further North than they do today. This interglacial is rather cool compared to others. Also, the Earth has been experiencing declining atmospheric CO2 over the eons. CO2 is about 1/5 of what is optimum for plant growth. This burning of fossil fuel we are doing is simply RETURNING the CO2 to the atmosphere that was taken out millions of years ago. All that CO2 was going to return to the atmosphere anyway when those oil fields and coal fields subduct under the crust or a volcano erupts up through them.
In fact, there are recently active volcanoes not so far away from oil fields in Saudi Arabia as a matter of fact. One volcano erupting through one of those oil fields can release more CO2 in a day than we would release in a decade.
Oh, come on now, the answer is obvious. It’s all our fault for sending (gasp!) cars! to Mars. (ducks and runs).
Crosspatch,
When we mention China today, the talking (or is it shouting?) point from the environmentals is that us *evil Capitalists ™ are forcing the Chinese to create pollution. It is like the troofer movement/the Area 51 true believers/Elvis lives/black helicopter crowd: Whatever science and reason is presented is “refuted” by more insanity and dogma.
Conservatives, of course, never have needed to understand the scientific method, as long as their political agenda is served.
Let me give a brief overview. In the scientific method, one observes a set of events happening. From that observation, one forms a hypothesis as to what is going on (evolution, the atomic model of matter, gravity, relativity, …).
For Conservatives, that is as far as they go, everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, take your pick.
To the scientist, more is required.
That hypothesis is then subject to scrutiny, with further observations and experiments conducted. The hypothesis must explain what is seen, and what is not seen. If, after verification by INDEPENDENT scientists, the hypothesis is is not contradicted, it is considered “generally accepted”. At that point, the hypothesis might be called a “Law”, a “Theory”, or a “Model”. It does not matter, just that it is generally accepted.
Habibullo Abdussamatov has proposed a hypothesis, with no data made available to support his hypothesis. Of course, since Conservatives like his hypothesis, they accept it and declare “case closed”.
Hoever even the first few comments from scientists (meaning not the Washington Times) are poking holes in his hypotheses. I guarantee that not one single Conservative outlet will carry the story when his hypothesis is finally discarded, since that will not support their agenda.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov’s theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet’s surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth’s climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But “without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice,” said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/blogs/astronomy/archive/2007/03/21/333108.aspx
I was moved to write this blog after watching this “global warming on Mars” story spread like a virus across the blogosphere for 3 weeks. One thing became obvious after reading all the posts: political agendas, not facts, were in the driver’s seat. Nobody seemed curious about Abdussamatov’s data — if he has any — or what an actual living, breathing Mars researcher might have to say. Nobody even raised these questions.
Also absent was any attention to the obvious flaw in the “global warming on Mars” logic. On Earth, what we commonly refer to as global warming is a systematic pattern of climate change driven by a rise in the atmosphere’s average temperature. It’s supported by decades, if not centuries, of data, decades of climate modeling research, and endorsed by the most knowledgeable climate researchers in the world: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC recently came to the consensus that 1) global climate change is happening and 2) humans are responsible for making much of this change happen because of stuff they do, like pumping enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
And the “global warming” on Mars? Over a period of several years, Mars Global Surveyor images showed that the planet’s south polar cap of frozen carbon dioxide has been thinning. This suggests the martian climate may be warming — at least at the south pole. The bloggers also mention research they say shows warming is also occurring on Triton, Pluto, and Jupiter.
But what does this mean? OK, I thought, maybe anti-global warming bloggers can’t just e-mail a scientist and have any hope of getting an answer. So I did. I contacted Bruce Jakosky, a professor of geological science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Among many other things, Jakosky studies the evolution of the martian atmosphere and climate. Here is what he said in his e-mail:
“I’ve heard the argument and it is not a valid one. The ‘global warming’ on Mars is an observed transient effect that manifests itself as a decrease in one location of the covering of CO2 frost (as I understand the argument). The key issue is that it is a transient, not that it represents a monotonic warming …
“Using the Mars data as an argument for a changing solar constant is absurd. We don’t understand Mars well enough to make that case. And, more importantly, we have direct measurements of the solar input to the Earth over a couple of decades now that show no such increase.”
But you don’t need a Ph.D. in Mars science to figure out that a pattern of warming in one region of Mars (the south pole) observed for a few years does not “global warming” make. It’s comparing apples and oranges.
But, like I said, this isn’t about science. It just reminds us that nothing — not even our beloved egg-headed planetary research — is immune from being turned into fuel for partisan political warfare.
Steve: I’ll be happy to have you list your environmental and or scientific credentials.
As a employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, I was a first hand witness to the politicization of environmental science by the left. It’s been one of the most effective tools they have to enable their fundraising efforts.
And now, with the big scare of global warming, they can shake down Uncle Sam for more and more grants to underwrite and subsidize their political activity.
P.S. Pluto, Triton and Jupiter are warming too! But you stick your head in the sand (or elsewhere) if that’s what you need to do to ignore objective reality. Your continued environmental cherry picking is yielding nothing but pits.
Well,
It’s typical Steve. Take a really long article with a large number of facts, and use one weak argument in an effort to try to refute the whole thing while ignoring the rest of the piece. That is why no one respects you and thinks you are a moron.
It’s funny listening you talk about a political agenda, when you are the biggest slave to it.
Steve, you, like the ass you are, ignored the article where a NASA Goddard scientist agreed with the theory. You also ignored the letter from the 100 scientists who also thought global warming was natural. Perhaps your argument might have some merit, if you knew how to present it(You don;t) and bothered to try to refute the rest of the points I made or the other scientists who agreed with the central thesis.
I actually do not mind if someone disagrees with me if they are respectful and have intelligent arguments. You are neither, so I will treat you like the child you are. The only think you prove here is just how pathetic both you and your arguments actually are.
Re: “If CO2 were such a HUGE threat, then why not create huge CO2 filter systems as are used on USN Subs? Why not create huge air scrubbers the size of sky scrapers? When I asked these questions at the beginning of the “man-made global warming” myth in college (global warming following very close on the heels with the “New Ice Age” myth), I was told that there no man-made solutions (aside from destroying Western Capitalism) were “feasible”. “
As usual with Conservatives, if it works in the comic books or movies, then it must be true.
Let’s take a look at ChrisG’s “simple solution” (Please note that my links below document my numbers).
The total worldwide output of carbon dioxide due to human activity in 2004 was calculated at 26.9 billion tons. For 2015 it is projected to rise to 33.9 billion tons.
A scientist (real one, not a Washington Times one) has cited experiments constructing such scrubbers as part of experiments (real ones, read the source). His estimate is that the costs could range up to $1,000 per ton removed from the atmosphere. But he hopes it could come in at $200 per ton.
So, ChrisG’s “skyscraper solution”, when OPTIMISTICALLY calculated out would cost a total of 5.38 TRILLION DOLLARS, PER YEAR. Up to $6.78 trillion in 2015. (Pessimistic is $26.9 to $33.9 trillion dollars a year).
Conservatives: Since you love ChrisG’s solution so much, get your checkbooks out.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/uofcpublications/umagazine/fall2007/planet
Arriving in Calgary shortly thereafter, Keith took advantage of his new mandate to get back into some hands-on research. “I was doing a lot of policy work at Carnegie Mellon and I missed the lab work, so when one of my students came up with the idea to make a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber, I jumped at the chance.” A CO2 scrubber consists of two parts: a contractor vessel and a caustic-recovery system. The contractor vessel uses a caustic solution, like sodium hydroxide, which combines with carbon dioxide to make a salt. One then recycles the sodium hydroxide from the salt to capture the carbon. “It had been done a long time ago, in the 1950s, but there was a lot of skepticism that carbon could be scrubbed out of the air efficiently, so I thought, this could be fun.”
Keith and his students put together a large, Rube Goldberg-style contraption from various sources. “We used 48-inch concrete pouring molds to create the main scrubber vessel then put the rest together with ducting and plywood from Home Depot.” The scrubber consists of a five-metre vessel into which air and sodium hydroxide spray are mixed. Gauges measure the portion of CO2 in the air as it enters and leaves the vessel. The sodium hydroxide is then collected and recycled.
The experiment showed that the process could be used to remove CO2 from the air on a large scale. “There’s a lot of interest in this right now,” says Keith. “Some people have said it could be done for $100/tonne, others have said that it’s closer to $1,000. In my view, it’s closer to $100 than $1,000. If you could get it down to $200, then who might use it? There’s the Richard Branson Prize of $25 million to come up with a way of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe there’s a reason Branson (his Virgin Group is co-owner of Virgin Atlantic Airways) has put up $25 million. Carbon coming
out of aircraft is especially difficult to deal with. What if you had a system to offset it? At $200 per tonne, it might add five percent to the cost of an airline ticket.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Carbon dioxide is the most abundant anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In recent years, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been rising at a rate of about 0.5 percent per year, and because anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy, world energy use has emerged at the center of the climate change debate. In the IEO2007 reference case, world carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 26.9 billion metric tons in 2004 to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030.17
Ditto Robert and TIMES TEN.
In the global warming articles list above we didn’t include the December Senate report of 400+ environmental scientists, some of whom used to be on the UN Climate Change panel, who have now declared that manmade global warming is bunk:
Stuff that Steve!
Re: “Steve: I’ll be happy to have you list your environmental and or scientific credentials.
…
P.S. Pluto, Triton and Jupiter are warming too! But you stick your head in the sand (or elsewhere) if that’s what you need to do to ignore objective reality. Your continued environmental cherry picking is yielding nothing but pits.”
BS, Drexel University College of Science.
MBA, Wharton Graduate School.
And the cited article noted that the measured solar input on the earth has not varied significantly, an item you chose to ignore in favor of your political agenda.
Seriously, do you enjoy looking stupid?
Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.
The source is here.
and besides, why else would a number of moons and planets all warm at the same time…you are freakin retarded….
beating Steve in an argument should be a requirement for passing first grade….
Ah Steve with the typical demonization and patronization of conservatives (whom he mislabels, misidentifies, and projects his own ideology’s plethora of failings onto… But do not call him a hateful leftist, it will anger him).
Again Steve, you are projecting and your hatred and ignorance is showing even if you refuse to look in the mirror ad see it. But then leftists are not allowed to step off the Party(tm) line for fear of re-education. You know, with most mental irrationalities like projectionism, reflecting the speech back to the patient helps them realize how wrong they are… Steve, you obviously do not respond to that. You might want to seek mental help from people who will charge you for it, our free clinic may not be enough.
How many ways can one tear your argument apart? The field is so full.
You may not know this (few on the left seem to), but all officers in the US Armed Forces have college degrees. OCS grads are allowed until the time they reach O-3 to get theirs. Mine is Industrial Engineering so I am quite familiar with the Scientific Method you foolishly say we are not following.
Let us start with “observation”: As the monitoring stations have proven to have compromised data (putting the scanning devices on hot asphalt, towing them in ship’s wakes and picking up the exhaust heat, ignoring contrary data, etc), one cannot base a serious hypothesis on these observations, though they are the basis for those you follow and cite. HOWEVER, one can look at ice core samples, soil samples, archaeological digs (like the Viking colonies with grape arbors in Greenland; Silver Mines in Sweden showing up as ice melts, and records from previous eras) and see that the Earth has a short term warming and cooling cycle of which we are in the warming phase. Also, as more accurate measurements of the Sun and other planets are showing they are also warming. From that, new competing hypothesis are coming out which are based, not on politics and corrupted data, but on verifiable, clean data sources. These are the ones the left is attacking and trying to silence (and I witnessed FORCEFUL silencing by leftist in the mid 90s at my university), NOT us “evil” conservatives.
But you throw that data out and state it is the Conservatives who are ignorant and wrong. Projection again.
Next we test said hypothesizes. When it became know the ground station and towed ocean temp sensors were corrupt data, replicating the hypotheses becomes impossible, especially with the clean, verifiable, and empirical data showing that all the planets are warming and that, historically, the Earth is warming according to the cycles of the past. Core samples also show that gases such as methane and CO2 do not always correspond to changes in temperature (it would take a huge, and deadly, increase in CO2 level world wide to have an effect, though plant life would flourish for a short time and drastically reduce CO2 levels).
And INDEPENDENT scientists ARE disproving the myth of “man made global warming” and debunking the pseudo-religion it has spawned (again, coming close on the heels of the equally disproved “new Ice Age” myth of the 70s). The left’s response, and yours, is to silence these scientists because they dare question your Party’s line.
And yet you project this faults onto us and we disprove you hypothesizes as fast as you can copy paste your “conservatives are not allowed to (insert Stevism)” bile.
Robert,
Please confine thoughts to one larger post as it drowns out other posts for topics. Multiple posts bury replies on the sideboard at the top-left.
Thanks.
ChrisG
I don’t see your numbers, or sources.
Oh no, Steve never attacks anyone…. No hate in him at all……
Steve, you poor delusional leftist slave. You believe anything your masters tell you and then project all of your hate on us. Now, before you think this is a spam post, know that this reply I posted to got caught in the spam guard and was not posted when I wrote the other reply out. That is fixed now.
As for my CO2 scrubber example, I was being sarcastic. I am sorry that in your haste to bash all things conservative, that you missed that. Though reading your projectionist rant is comical, and your remarks are wrong as ever. The Earth is a dynamic system, but your driveling, spoon fed talking points and the speed of light remain constants.
I know full well these things would be money pits and worthless. Like stating your “conservatives (this/that/whatever) comments back to you, it was meant to illustrate the absurdity of the “man made” global warming position. Both cases seem to go right over your head and gain altitude. Plant life is a far better CO2 filter. However, in the multi-billion dollar industry that is the Church of Man-Made Global Warming, shutting down the US economy is their solution, and just as worthless.
But thanks for spending an entire post belittling me on a sarcastic comment. You prove, yet again, that it is you who are the hateful moron filled with leftist talking points dictated by your masters.
Steve,
Look in the archives on this site. I would link to them, but your inability to achieve rationality makes it worthless. That and I did it before for another comment of yours on another thread and proved the preceding sentence.
But to make it even easier, since you may have missed it in the article above:
The link you are looking for is there. See, all this without charge. Where else can you get counseling at such cut-rate deals?
When did an MBA qualify the holder to forecast climatic change?
Thanks Stevie! Once again you ignored every counterpoint.
Your arguments are as empty as your talking points.
Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter
I missed that. That really nails it for me…..
Give it a bit and Steve will ignore this thread as he has done all others. Typically he demands answers, which are given. But once a demand is made of him for some answers all we hear is crickets.
Re: “I know full well these things would be money pits and worthless. …..”
Of course.
The standard Conservative line when they are caught: “I was only kidding”.
Re: “Give it a bit and Steve will ignore this thread as he has done all others. Typically he demands answers, which are given. But once a demand is made of him for some answers all we hear is crickets.”
No.
Once the replies descend into fifth-grade name calling (which is immediate, since it appears that not one single Conservative here is capable of posting something without spewing venomous insults), and the “proofs” turn into circular references to their own opinions, “personal experiences”, references to testimonials without peer-reviewed and verified research, or just plain old gobbledegook, I decide that I have wasted sufficient time bestowing facts upon this site and call it a night.
Conservatives are thus free to wallow in hate to their hearts’ content.
And I apologize for the double post as it is indeed rude to the other posters. But I’m calling it a night anyway.
Have a good evening, be safe and stay healthy.
Rofl….you take the cake man. You really do. All those facts, all that evidence….in this thread and that and what do you do? You run.
I really am glad you comment here Stevo, it gives all of us something to point to when warning people about whats wrong with liberals. They’ve lost all ability at cognitive thought.
Also, it isn’t just Earth and Mars … Jupiter, Neptune and at least one satellite of Uranus and Pluto all show signs of climate warming over the past several decades.
Steve, you started the name calling and refuse to actually debate, so we are just giving it back to you. And again, I will repeat, no one respects you because you are doing it again. You take a really long article with a large number of facts, and use one weak argument in an effort to try to refute the whole thing while ignoring the rest of the piece. Who is the slave to the political agenda here….. ? And I am not kidding with any of my posts. So come on, take me on.
Steve, you, AGAIN ignored the article where a NASA Goddard scientist agreed with the theory. You also ignored the letter from the 100 scientists who also thought global warming was natural. NOW you are ignoring the evidence of other planets warming. My facts are from legitimte scientists and organizations with links to the original article and it is not a personal experience or any of that BS you were muttering. That is another reason I do not like you. You are a liar. As long as you debate dishonestly I will treat you like the child that you are. You deserve no better then this kind of treatment.
Steve,
As I stated again and again, you are wrong as usual and projecting again. Sarcasm is obviously beyond your capacity as is thinking beyond what your leftist masters dictate. Everyone else got the joke but you did not.
Re: “You take a really long article with a large number of facts, and use one weak argument in an effort to try to refute the whole thing while ignoring the rest of the piece.”
The “one weak argument” was the basis of your entire point: That Global Warming (which Conservatives are not even allowed to believe is happening) is caused by increased solar radiation on the surface of the earth.
My cited source included reference to the fact that solar radiation is NOT increasing energy levels to the face of the earth. Therefore increased solar energy input to the Earth’s surface cannot be causing Global Warming (which conservatives must pretend is not happening anyway).
Without that, what was the point of the reference to the thinning CO2 sheet on Mars and the posted hypothesis that it was evidence that Global Warming was due to increased solar energy input to the surface of the Earth?
Steve,
No one is saying the Earth is not warming. It has before and it has also cooled dramatically. What we are saying is that humans are not responsible for it as it has happened in the past without any intervention, just as it is happening now. That is the way the Earth is. The Sun plays a pivitol role in this warming trend. CO2 does not unless present in incredably huge (and toxic to humans) quantities. In your lust to attack all things you think are conservative (your projection issues again) you miss this. Just as your blind loyalty to the left induces you to think conservatives somehow go in back rooms to think of how to destroy the Earth. We are also calling out the political “science” concerning bad data, and the efforts by leftists who refuse to see anything their masters do not want them, to use the “man-made” global warming myth a door to societal and economic ruin.
But leftists are not allowed to believe in this and they must pretend that the shoddy, and increasingly disproven environmentalist hype is the gosphel according to Gore. (*You do know I am throwing your absurd statements back at you? I figured I have to come out and state it as you are not capable of doing so)
Re: “What we are saying is that humans are not responsible for it as it has happened in the past without any intervention, just as it is happening now. That is the way the Earth is. The Sun plays a pivitol role in this warming trend.”
And, as my reference noted, the sun has not increased its energy input to the surface of the Earth over the periods being measured now as part of global warming. If the sun is not contributing more energy to the surface of the Earth, how then can it be causing global warming?
Since Philadelphia Steve is no expert on scientific method…
A theory is an explanation of what has been observed. It must do two things: 1. It must explain what has been observed and it must be useful and successful in predicting the results of future experiments. Any theory that fails in either way must be revised or dismissed. By this normal standard CO2 causing catastrophic global climate change is dead and has been for years. A law has little or nothing to do with a theory, a law is something that has been observed over and over without exception it is not an explanation. It has nothing to do with who accepts it.
On another front it is not “conservatives” who must pretend anything. That is simply projection on your part. I’m not even a conservative but I can recognize this distortion of a conservative view.
Carbon Dioxide emitted by man causing catastrophic warming on the Earth is not a theory. It is not really even a scientific hypoithesis at this point, it is a hypothesis that so far has done very poorly in meetiong the experimental test. To become a theory it needs to do more than be widely accepted by people whose livelihood depends on that acceptance. If there weren’t thousands of jobs and Billions of dollars riding on it I am confident it would already be widely dismissed.
The Mars, Jupiter Titan, Pluto stuff is all trivial. Is the world warming in the last 150 years? Probably. Is that bad? Not a chance. Is man the main cause? Unlikely. Will it be catastrophic for life on earth? Extremely unlikely, it is far more likely to be a universal benefit, this is overwelmingly supported by the paleo record and current research.
Will carbon dioxide cause future warming? Possible. Will it be large? very unlikely. Current temperatures are significantly below even the most conservative models of the IPCC despite proven upward bias in the surface data. Feedback effects that were to magnify the warming have not been shown experimentally. The effect of the sun on climate is not well understood but it is not a hypothesis that has already failed experimental tests.
I suggest you ty to open your mind a little bit then you wont be quite so shocked 20 years down the road. If CO2 does become a concern I am certain their are some reasonable cost answerrs.
Freeman Dyson has already proposed a good one.
Since the resident enabler of world socialism seems determined to ignore the countering points that I and others have raised, I am sure my Flopping Aces friends will forgive me if I reprint the following excerpt of an earlier post:
I notice that you failed to mention the person behind this “report”. It is James Inhofe, the second largest recipient of Oil and Gas industry money (after Cronin of Texas I believe) and a political tool of that industry for quite some time.
Since you are posting a partisian political “study” as though it were somehow objective, I am now free to post a counter aregument site that refutes his points.
http://www.socyberty.com/Issues/Global-Warming-and-Senator-Inhofe.54166
So we should not use conservative sources, only partisan leftist sources of Party Truth ™? Oh, I forgot, this is the “Philadelphia Steve’s death to *evil* conservatives blog”.
No. Just that, since you introduce a report issued by James Inhofe: Someone about as objective as NewsMax, then I did not feel inhibited by rebutting the claim from an opinionated source.
Unless you somehow believe that the Senator Inhofe is actually not bought and paid for by the oil industry?
No, if the sun is changing it’s output then the amount reaching the earth will also change. What evidence do you have that it won’t? Thus, a change in the sun’s output will change the amount of radiation reaching the earth and thus warm it up? Are you really saying a change in the sun’s output has no relation to the warming on the earth…? That is one weak argument. And you are a fool if you really believe that.
No I do not Steve. Do you believe that Murtha, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reid, et al are bought and paid for by George Soros/Move-on/ANSWER/ACT/WWP/ACP etc? I can find a lot more evidence of them being owned than Senator Inhofe.
But since he is conservative, to you his opinions and research do not matter. I guess leftists are not allowed to view such things.
“Unless you somehow believe that the Senator Inhofe is actually not bought and paid for by the oil industry?”
Something that only happens to Republicans. Democrats are not at all owned by oil companies, insurance companies, organized labor, etc.
tip:
You can go to the Federal Election Commission website, search on a candidate or a contributor, and see who contributed to each campaign. It’s very interesting-particularly if one thinks that oil is biased towards Republicans. OR, you could look up April 17, 1998 and see what happened in world events that day (just to name one of the infinite examples).
Steve has to go that road Chris. He can’t put his nimble brain around the fact that so many prestigious environmental scientists who were formerly a part of the UN climate change panel are now openly expressing their dissatisfaction with that panel’s report.
And again, no countering info from Steve and he admits he has NO environmental credentials.
The fact that so many of the planets including earth are showing a warming trend should open the eyes of anyone not wed to the flat earth/sky is falling ideology supporting the flawed theory of manmade global warming.
The motives of Steve and other advocates of constraining the growth and energy use of Western Society have been unmasked.
And it’s not a pretty sight.
Re: “No, if the sun is changing it’s output then the amount reaching the earth will also change. What evidence do you have that it won’t? Thus, a change in the sun’s output will change the amount of radiation reaching the earth and thus warm it up? Are you really saying a change in the sun’s output has no relation to the warming on the earth…? That is one weak argument. And you are a fool if you really believe that.”
No.
If you read my source, the point was that the amount of energy input to the Earth’s surface has not changed significantly over the measurement period. Therefore Global Warming cannot be attributed to a phenomenon that is not taking place. The fact that, if the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface did change, then it would affect ambient Earth temperature is not relevant, since that is not what is occurring.
Do you understand the difference?
Give it a rest Steve! You’re done!
That makes no logical sense to me. The energy from the Sun is exactly what is heating the earth. And you are telling me that a change in the sole source of energy has NO EFFECT on our temperature? And at the same time the sun’s output changes other planets warm, but when our planet is warming, it is some other factor. I think that study is BS, and makes NO logical sense at all. Steve, think about it, I turn the heater on in your car, using a simplistic example, and you are telling me the interior of the car is warming up for reasons other then the heater, and that a change in the heater setting plays no part in the temperature of the interior of the car. I understand what you are saying, but that makes no common sense. Nor is there a reason given WHY there is no change in the input of energy on the earth’s surface when there is a change in the output from the sun. The two should have some correlation. And there is no collaberating study to support this, where I have given you multiple sources, which makes me believe the data is ratty, or like you, the scientist has let politics influence his facts. Now do you understand?
also, Steve, different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have different properties, different absorbtions and different penetration power (which is why we do not have to worry about gamma rays on the surface), so even if you are right (which I doubt) that there is no net increase in radiation reaching the surface, that does not prove that there is no increase in the upper atmosphere, which would alter global temperatures.
Re: “And you are telling me that a change in the sole source of energy has NO EFFECT on our temperature? And at the same time the sun’s output changes other planets warm, but when our planet is warming, it is some other factor.”
You keep declaring that the amount of energy from the sun being input to the Earth’s surface is increasing. The source to which I linked said that is not happening. How is it that you keep insisting that it is? Talking about car heaters makes no sense if ther is no change in energy delivery. You are just pretending that something is happeneing because it fits your agenda: Then going on to construct entire sets of conclusion and inferences from that false assumption. Lewis Carrol wrote similarly, however everyone understood the purpose of his writing and did not interpret is as literal science.
Re: “also, Steve, different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have different properties, different absorbtions and different penetration power (which is why we do not have to worry about gamma rays on the surface), so even if you are right (which I doubt) that there is no net increase in radiation reaching the surface, that does not prove that there is no increase in the upper atmosphere, which would alter global temperatures.”
I cited a scientific source stating that was not happening. Please cite your source as to why do “doubt” it: Other than the fect that you do not wish to believe something (“Fantasy Land Science”).