Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

12 December - More on GHGs

Typical Brazilian made dual-fuel (ethanol and ...Typical Brazilian made dual-fuel (ethanol and gasoline) or full flex-fuel automobile models. License plates blured to protect privacy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Reduction of flood and associated extreme weat...Reduction of flood and associated extreme weather costs is the primary benefit of climate change mitigation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
NASA Scientist James Hansen Arrested, August 2...NASA Scientist James Hansen Arrested, August 29, 2011 Photo Credit: Ben Powless (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Estimated climate forcings between 1850 and 2000Estimated climate forcings between 1850 and 2000 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Animated cut through diagram of a typical fuel...Animated cut through diagram of a typical fuel injector, a device used to deliver fuel to the internal combustion engine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls: Sea Level Rise Has Slowed 34% Over The Last Decade!

Again this is consistent with the ~60 year cycle, which in this paper has been also seen in tide gauge data:
“We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin.”
So this may not be a ‘deceleration’ as such, rather a sine-like curve topping out.
The ~60 year cycle is also visible if you graph HadCRUT, AMO, PDO and quite a few other long term climate datasets. In the case of HadCRUT is represents a swing in temperature of about 0.3 C, so it is no surprise if (a) thermal expansion/contraction should impute a cycle into the sea level data, and (b) that this should lag the temperature cycle (which peaked around 2002 or so).


Nov 30, 2012
WHO CAUSED SANDY? Dr. William Gray image
The main misconception among those who believe in human-induced global warming is to assume that all the many large and varying energy terms of the natural climate system remain constant over long periods and that the only changes that matter for climate are the very miniscule variations of human affects.

Dec 11, 2012
Extreme weather and superstition

Shocking! Cap & Trade Eviscerated by Climate Religion Guru James Hansen!

The system, in which companies buy and sell permits to produce greenhouse gases, is a “half-baked” and “half-assed” way to deal with global warming, Hansen said.
His comments Tuesday were typically blunt. Cap and trade, he said, does little to cut emissions. But it does enrich the trading desks of banks, who have a new market to explore.
“Why do you want big banks in this problem?” Hansen asked. “Why should they be making money? Every cent they make is coming out of the public’s hide. And they add absolutely nothing. What you want is a system which is very simple and makes things cleaner.”


E15 AKA: The EPA wants to kill your old car

what can happen if an automobile is not specifically designed for E15 fuel?  Apparently quite a bit.  First, it can attack rubber hoses, gaskets, seals and o-rings that are not specifically designed to withstand it. This means hoses like the one that goes from the fuel filler to the tank and the ones that go to the engine from the tank. The fuel injection units have gaskets, seals and o-rings it could attack. They also have things made from plastic such as throttle position sensors, fuel temperature sensors and idle air control valves that may not be made to withstand E15. On even older cars using carburetors, it can attack all the seals and 0-rings inside the carburetor.

E15 can also cause corrosion problems with metals like aluminum. It can corrode the aluminum fuel lines to the fuel injectors on some cars and even corrode aluminum intake manifolds.  If you look at a flex-fuel car, it will have all fuel related parts made of materials designed to withstand the corrosion effects of the higher ethanol content. Got an older car with a carburetor? It’s most likely that the body of the carburetor is aluminum.
Can you imagine what will happen to an older car that starts leaking fuel into a hot engine compartment ? Most likely the fuel will spray out someplace and sooner or later leak on to the hot exhaust manifold and catch the car on fire. Same if the fuel line from the gas tank leaks onto the hot exhaust pipe or muffler. All possibilities using E15 in cars not designed for it.

( As it happens, I bought a `98 Ford instead of signing on the never never at my age. Using up a car instead of building from scratch does not equate to using more energy. ) 

Saturday, November 17, 2007

IPCC Synthesis "...abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts..."

Heart-heavy reading, with an impact like the doctor telling you that you have a very serious problem:
clipped from

Global warming could be irreversible: IPCC

Posted 2 hours 48 minutes ago — AAP
The UN's Nobel-winning panel on climate change completed a draft report that said the consequences of global warming could be "irreversible".
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global warming issue, with the goal of guiding policy-makers for the next five years.
Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said.
The so-called synthesis report summarises the main points from three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril.
After Saturday, attention will shift to a meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month.
Governments will try to set down a 'roadmap' for negotiations that will end in a deal to cut carbon emissions and help developing nations adapt to climate change.

IPCC, the UN and Alarmism

by William Yeatman on November 20, 2007
Some of you may have noticed over the past few days the UN’s multi-tiered alarmism road show to push the “new” scary IPCC report.  This actually happens to be a summary of the three summaries released in staggered, media savvy fashion over the past ten months, the window for work to be considered having closed well over a year ago.  As such, it inherently cannot contain anything new or newsworthy without running afoul of the IPCC’s claim that the underlying work and claims made in the summaries has been “peer reviewed” (now proven to be an unsupportable claim, if one that's still made today).
As part of its campaign the IPCC has claimed that everything is happening faster than previously projected.  Why, they’ve even claimed that greenhouse gases are increasing faster than predicted, which is really quite something given that the IPCC assumes, via its computer models, an annual rate of GHG increase that has been exposed as being twice as great as three decades of observations reveal.

Post image for Where Does ExxonMobil Stand on Carbon Taxes?Yesterday on NPR’s radio program To the Point, I said it was dishonorable for ExxonMobil to support a carbon tax. I compared ExxonMobil’s reported embrace of carbon taxes to Enron’s lobbying for the Kyoto Protocol.
Enron was a a major natural gas distributor and saw in Kyoto a means to suppress demand for coal, natural gas’s chief competitor in the electricity fuel market. ExxonMobil is a major natural gas producer. So I took this to be another case of political capitalism – corporate lobbying to replace a competitive market with a rigged market to enrich a particular firm or industry at the expense of competitors and consumers.

Carbon Taxes: Kick ‘Em While They’re Down

The hope among carbon-tax proponents is that they can sugar coat the tax and make it palatable to conservatives, or at least to enough conservatives. This proposed confection has two ingredients. First, the carbon tax is to be a revenue-neutral swap for some even more harmful tax. Second, a carbon tax would obviate the need for regulation of carbon dioxide and for subsidies to low-carbon energy.
“Revenue neutral” is supposed to mean that each dollar raised will cut another tax by a dollar. But with neutrality there is no gravy to spread around to all the special interests—and we are talking about $100s of billions in gravy every year. So revenue neutrality will never happen. . . .
Just in case there might be some confusion as to whether the left is willing to trade off regulation for a carbon tax, Representative Waxman recently cleared things up: “A carbon tax or a price on carbon would be a strong incentive for the development of new technologies. But because it’s so complicated, I would not support preempting EPA. EPA can assure us that we can actually get the reductions we need.” [click to continue…]

UN IPCC Panel Lied To Us -Part 2-

Climate Bill/Carbon Trading- This bill should be dead in the water. We cannot pass with a straight face a bill that was built on a false premise using manipulated scientific information. Carbon trading and all the other money making and taxing schemes should be crushed. 

Scientific Siege Against UN-IPCC Farce Revealed

What I find frightening is the fact that most of the people will buy into Human Caused Climate Change just because power speaks it… even though the data and factual analysis show it to be untrue.
In 1998 a group of concerned scientists began a concerted effort to counter this trend, and to stop the false UN-IPCC push to tax the people of the world and blame climate change on humanity. This HUGE effort has gone totally unreported by the mainstream media. It is the Global Warming Petition Project.
the media.)
Here is a direct link to the thinking and analysis on CO2 I did in a 2007 article.

The climate has always cycled over time. We are now in a cyclic warming trend and the data shows its long cycle predictability. With interdisciplinary communication, science has opened much of the climate change complexity to the light of reason and out of the realm of fear.  Fear is what the UN-IPCC, the politicians, and their minions have chosen to foist on us, a snake god operation in the name of anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC has been unmasked as the political organization it is, with it’s money making, world carbon tax, agenda/scam.
The proponants of human caused climate change rattle on about polar bears being destroyed by humanities evil CO2, which is BS. They also go on about island nations like Tuvalu being flooded by “humanity’s evil.” The data shows that the sea level world wide was about 12 inches higher during the Medieval Climate Optimum from about 750AD to 1200AD. During that time the average ocean temperature reached 24.2 degrees C. Then the Earth plummeted into the Little Ice Age which at it’s coldest dropped the ocean temperatures to 21.8 degrees C in about 1750AD. This is when the Thames, the Delaware, and Hudson rivers used to freeze solid every winter. We are now at 22.8 degrees C, which is below the 3,000 year average of just a tad under 23 degrees C. We are still coming out of the Little Ice age today! 1000 years ago the Island Tuvalu was almost under water, and will be again, but not because of human causes!

The Dangers of Aspartame

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on July 17, 2012 by truthwillrise
I am giving an analysis of the side effects of aspartame. Please check what you are eating! For more great information, check Janet Starr Hull’s book “Sweet Poison”.

EDITORIAL: U.N. climate propaganda exposed

Industry lobbyists behind ‘scientific’ claims in IPCC press release

The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday. The study’s conclusion was such a blockbuster that the panel issued a press release last month previewing the finding. “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows,” it proclaimed.
Since this statement was supposedly based on actual scientific research, Steve McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, did what the IPCC must have assumed nobody would bother doing. He checked the sources cited in the report. He discovered the IPCC’s banner claim was not the work of prestigious and disinterested scientists toiling away in a laboratory, but of hacks with a political agenda and direct financial stake in the issue.

More than 7,000 environmental NGO activists attended the Doha confab — and next time around they won’t forget who sent them, now that Jonathan Pershing, chief U.S. negotiator for climate change at Doha, has pointedly reminded them who paid for their presence in Qatar. They and the official delegates will be there for specific objectives: more money, more power, more control.

Sherry Peel Jackson railroaded for telling the truth!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2012 by truthwillrise
Sherry Peel Jackson was a former IRS employee who discovered the truth about the income tax and started speaking out and sharing her knowledge with people. She was arrested for a non-crime and sentenced to 4 years in prison. Her story is a travesty and more people should know about it.
Check the interview with her husband on Occult Science Radio at…
Watch America: Freedom to Fascism at

  How Educated in the Sciences are You
Yeah it’s all hogwash,the exaggeration is clear and the solutions ridiculous. However you cannot ‘prove’ a negative. Imagine trying to answer a question like what evidence proves God does not exist as opposed to the mountain of things you could say as evidence that God ‘might’ exist.
This is why the warmers have to be the ones presenting real evidence and not just spouting unproven hypotheses ,adjusted data, wild alarmist stories generally based on hearsay,hopelessly inadequate computer models,forgetting history,ignoring the Sun and just general nonsense.
Also global warming ignores quite a lot of basic science facts,such as a lack of co2 is the limiting factor for plant growth,carbolic acid is ‘weak’ therefore having an association constant,co2 being heavier than air so collecting nearer the ground,how trillions of tons of ice can melt nearly instantly with a 100 year temp increase of 0.8c when it’s tens of degrees below freezing for most of the year anyway.The list goes on.
The point is it’s the warmers who need solid 100% proof if they want to turn the world upside down.

Fran Manns
I have a Ph.D. in Geology. I earned it by working my way through school over a period of 15 years of post-graduate education. Moreover, I have read widely in earth sciences and both sides of the anthropogenic story since 1990. The most important learning? “The moment you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist.
As a geologist, because proofs are difficult, I have become very comfortable with the concept of multiple working hypotheses – It is necessary to read widely and to examine the other climate change ideas out there. I’d point out anthropogenic global warming is not a hypothesis. There is no scientific support whatsoever, only belief. It’s a dangerously metastable belief, about to fall over of its own weight.
For instance, the Danes at the Danish National Sace Center have been on the case for a long while, studying the sun. Who would have thought the sun would be involved in warming? The first paper to read is Friis-Christensen and Lassen (Science; 1991) If you can find the entire issue in the reference library, you will see the editor’s comment referred to this paper as hitting the ball into the anthropogenic court. The causation is under scientific review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. The correlation with solar activity broke down when Pinatubo erupted in 1991; my tomatoes did not ripen that summer either. Is this the exception that proves the rule?
The important correlation between warming and cooling is the sunspot peak frequency, not the actual number of spots. However, we all realize correlation is not causation. Sunspot peak frequency proxies for the rise and fall of the sun’s magnetic field, which shields earth from cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation is currently at its highest ever measured because the sun and earth’s magnetic shields are down; climate is changing. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the carbon economy. Maybe not evil; just wrong.
The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails.
What about the sun? Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has experiments scheduled for the Hadron collider to test his basement experiment where cosmic radiation force instantaneous vapour nucleation. Elevated solar flux (> 10 protons per cc) appears to cause fog in the Great Lakes and clouds too.
The hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center is as follows: quiet sun allows the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected resulting in a colder climate. An active sun, in contrast, has an enhanced magnetic field that induces Earth’s geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
That is how the bulk of climate change likely works, coupled with (modulated by) solar magnetism (sunspot peak frequency) there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, all the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, as they have been for this century, all the planets cool.
Many answers yield many new questions: the change in cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 1960s warming period appears to be over, warming and attendant humidity have allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years.
We can likely kick much of the carbon economy sometime late the twenty-first century, but we must not rush to judgement for the wrong reason. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Nothing unusual is going on except for the Orwellian politics. In other words, it is probably not the heat; it is likely the humidity.

Climate and Science Volte Mort

Global Warming and Science: 

Global Warming and Science So far the balanced story of basic science is not getting through to the public There is at least one alternate hypothesis and a new theory Fran Manns, Artesian Geological Research, Toronto

What is Climate Change?: 

What is Climate Change? Throughout time the Earth’s climate has varied Since the base of the Pleistocene (1.8 M ya) there have been at least 30 glacial - interglacial cycles of 40,000 years to 100,000 years duration with interglacial periods warmer than now between them Sea level has risen 125 metres in the past 20,000 years. That 6 mm a year (arithmetic average). IPCC recently cited 2-3 mm a year – one might say it’s slowing down. The world’s coastal tribes have flood myths because they migrated around the world and lived upon the continental shelves Between glacial ages the climate varies due to external and internal influences – some result in cooling. Others allow the Earth to warm There are short-term cycles – e.g. ‘El NiƱo’, among others: for example - the 10 to 12 year long solar energy cycles, and cycles that relate to oscillation of Atlantic and Pacific ocean masses, and the Milankovich orbital cycle.
Back to WUWT
Smokey says:
Paul Vaughn (15:37:43),
You are correct. So we are faced with two likely outcomes here; one highly probable, and the other extremely unlikely:
Either RW is right, and everyone else in this thread is wrong; or vice versa. A reasonable person would conclude that the *ahem* “consensus” is right in this case. Sorry about that, RW. In this case at least, the consensus is correct.
Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click
It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.
Finally, it should be kept in mind that CO2 is beneficial, not harmful, at current and projected levels. Real world experiments have repeatedly shown that more atmospheric CO2 would be far better for all living organisms. Life was much more abundant and diverse during times when CO2 has been much higher than it is today.
We owe it to the biosphere to substantially increase CO2 output. I am not kidding about this. It only sounds strange because of the incessant, wrong-headed and self-serving propaganda demonizing carbon dioxide that we have endured 24/7 for the past twenty years.
Smokey says:
Paul Vaughn,
Just FYI, re point #1: click
Also, I am not correlation hunting by posting these charts. I am simply being skeptical of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, and I have not been persuaded by the main ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes or will cause significant warming, because that putative evidence consists mainly of GCMs. Solid empirical evidence supporting the CO2=AGW hypothesis does not exist.
The real world evidence, on the other hand, shows temps flat to declining, while CO2 is steadily rising. Rational people accept that as a strong argument against the CO2=AGW claims.
The AGW folks need to come up with more credible arguments, or admit that the planet itself is falsifying their belief system.

eric says:
Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click
It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.
I don’t know where John Daly got that chart and what it means.
The charts that I have seen show that annual human emissions are on average twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO. See the chart which shows this on Roy Spencer’s web site.
Smokey says:
Thank you for the link, eric. I’ll have to read it later, since I’m on my way out at the moment [it's Saturday night, you know]. But I respect Spencer’s work, and I always defer to his expertise.
I did notice his comment:

“…most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.”
Which agrees with what I pointed out above: only a very small part of the observed increase in CO2 is from human emissions [<2 -="-" 310="310" 7="7" 8="8" a="a" alarming="alarming" all="all" almost="almost" although="although" and="and" another="another" at="at" because="because" been="been" beginning="beginning" by="by" caused="caused" chart="chart" co2="co2" coffin="coffin" consequence="consequence" cooling="cooling" distortion="distortion" driving="driving" effect="effect" follows="follows" for="for" fun="fun" has="has" house="house" in="in" is="is" it="it" last="last" loa="loa" mauna="mauna" merely="merely" mirror="mirror" nail="nail" natural="natural" of="of" only="only" p="p" planet="planet" ppm="ppm" rather="rather" so="so" than="than" the="the" therefore="therefore" thus="thus" variability.="variability." warming="warming" y-axis="y-axis" years="years" zero.="zero."> And regarding the late John Daly, his site is excellent, and it has withstood many impotent attacks by warmists before. So I accept his charts, unless they can be falsified. Saying you don’t know where he got his chart, or what it means, falls far short of falsifying it. I would recommend accepting it at face value, and dealing with the consequences.
And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can. The fact is that human emitted CO2 does not currently appear in the Keeling chart, because it is so far down in the noise. Therefore, eliminating human emitted CO2 would not show up in the Keeling chart, either.
Smokey says:
Not falsified. There is only a temporary, relatively short term correlation beginning about 1975. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some wonderful parting gifts for you on your way out.
And like Paul V, I’ve lost interest in discussing this with someone hopelessly afflicted with cognitive dissonance; someone who is out of step with every other comment. That’s what CD does to its victims:

As contrary evidence has accumulated, proponents of strong AGW have begun to display signs of cognitive dissonance. The famed social psychologist Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of cognitive dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon…The psychological model is that their belief system became part of their identity, their self, and information at odds with that belief system became an attack on the self. This helps explain why such people can be resistant to information that would be judged positive on a rational basis. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers who predicted the end of the world on a particular date. When that didn’t happen, the believers became even more determined they were right. And they became even louder and proselytized even more aggressively after the disconfirmation. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from proponents as evidence continues to mount. For example we are now told that even global cooling is a result of global warming.
That’s RW to a T.

Smokey says:
In checking back on this thread, I see that you’re still at it two days later. OK then, here’s something to think about.
You asked: “You haven’t explained where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going. Where did 25 billion tonnes of CO2 disappear to last year, and the year before, and the year before that?”
OK, I’ll explain it to you. The answer is that as CO2 [plant food] increases, the biosphere makes good use of it. Prof. Freeman Dyson explains the mechanism very well: click. It’s like putting a culture into agar. The microbes multiply fast, to take advantage of the big food supply. Same with CO2. When plenty of plant fertilizer is available, the organisms that use it rapidly multiply. That’s where where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going.
Next: “You could ask some valid and challenging questions about our understanding of the way the atmosphere responds to changing inputs. But you’re not doing so.”
The atmosphere is not responding to changing inputs, as you assume — the biosphere is. The fact that human CO2 emissions are a *very* small part of the total annual CO2 emission by the planet is a very good reason to just relax an enjoy life.
A change in a very minor trace gas is not causing any problems at all. It isn’t making the polar ice caps melt. And there is no empirical evidence that this minor addition to a minor trace gas has any effect at all on temperature. But there is very strong empirical [real world] evidence that an increase in CO2 is very beneficial. Plant life benefits from more CO2. That is a proven fact.
So relax. Don’t be a worry wart. CO2 isn’t gonna getcha. More CO2 is better in our carbon dioxide starved environment. That’s a fact.
Smokey says:
Paul Vaughn,
I apologize if I upset you. I was responding specifically to another poster’s comments, and I provided several links to support my position. I answered his questions and told him to relax, and don’t worry. Is that what bothered you? Or is it something else? Really, I want to know the specifics.
Based on your comment, I have re-read this entire thread from the beginning. I think you should, too. Comments like…

“Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology. He is a human interest, soft news reporter. He is well past his sell by date. This blog is nothing but cheer leading.”
…are not uncommon on this site.
I’m standing my ground on my skeptical position, and if I come across as being impatient with the escapees from echo chambers like RealClimate and similar sites, who come here solely to argue and disrupt, and tell you and everyone else they’re wrong, I think a few of them need to hear it. I always provide a stream of citations and links to support my views, while posters like the one quoted above just hit ‘n’ run. Don’t you think they are more worthy of criticism than my comments?
Notice that I’ve posted well over twenty charts and graphs supporting my position — and every last one of them was simply dismissed out of hand, with a pf-f-ft attitude. Do you think that every chart and graph mis-states reality, and should be disregarded? If even one chart or graph I posted represents reality, then the alarmists’ position takes a major hit.
My advice is don’t worry about the feelings of the very few closed-minded posters who come here from the other side to tell everyone else they’re wrong, or to run interference. I’m only concerned if I’ve hurt your feelings, or those of the 95% of reasonable folks who comment and answer questions if asked.
I’ve stated several times on this site that I will change my mind if someone provides reasonably convincing evidence that the current situation is not explained by natural climate variability. No one has ever risen to that challenge. I’m not the only one who gets irked at the absolute refusal of the warmists to ever admit that any of us has made a convincing argument. You will routinely read a comment from someone who believed in the CO2 = AGW hypothesis, and then became a skeptic because of what they read here and elsewhere. But show me one poster who used to be skeptical that CO2 would cause runaway global warming, but now believes it’s true.
It is the utter closed-mindedness of the other side that causes frustration, and I’m not the only one who hits back. That being the case, there must be something I said that bothered you, and for that I apologize.

Smokey says:
RW is now claiming to quote me on things that I never said. Smart guy that he is, I’ll let him figure out what they are.
I provide numerous links and citations to back up what I say, while RW just issues his opinions.
RW opines that I do not understand. As I’ve pointed out many times, my 30+ year career was spent working in one of the country’s largest metrology labs, designing, calibrating, testing and repairing weather related equipment; primarily humidity, dew/frost point, temperature and thermocouple instruments.
Calibrations were directly traceable to the National Bureau of Standards [now N.I.S.T.]. We received all the current scientific literature, sent to the lab gratis by the equipment manufacturers. I personally subscribed to the AAAS journal Science for more than twenty years.
In our lab, with over 140 engineers and technicians, no one — not a single one — bought into the CO2 = AGW scam. Whenever the subject came up, people would just roll their eyes or crack jokes about it. These are professionals who, unlike the general public, are well grounded in the physical sciences. Not a single engineer or tech saw the “carbon” scare as legitimate science. It was a fad motivated and perpetuated by money, not by real science. But RW probably thinks all those professionals are wrong, and that the science is settled.
So now I am curious about RW’s CV. Is RW a climatologist? Is RW a meteorologist? Has RW spent his career working in a weather or climate related field? Has RW ever convinced even one skeptic to change his mind here, and accept that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming? Or did RW see An Inconvenient Truth, and become a true believer as a result?
RW claims that “…of course there is empirical evidence that [CO2] affects temperatures.” That is a baseless opinion. RW should provide empirical [real world, verifiable] evidence that purports to measure the exact portion of global temperature increase caused by the very small fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is added to the atmosphere. Explain why the slow, steady rise in Mauna Loa CO2 measurements fail to correlate at all with the rise and fall of human CO2 emissions. Explain why as CO2 rises, global temperatures have been falling for many years. Leaving the always inaccurate computer models out of any putative explanation results in the failure of the CO2 = AGW conjecture. GCMs are very flimsy “evidence.”
Finally, RW’s false claim that there is a “very strong correlation” between rising CO2 and global temperatures has been repeatedly falsified by the planet itself.
Notice the almost complete lack of any R^2 correlation under the graph. The fact is that there is no causal connection between rising CO2 and the subsequent rise on global temperature — as there clearly is between rising temperature and the subsequent rise of CO2: as CO2 rises, temperature falls. The ridiculous Elmer Gantry-style answer by the alarmist contingent is that global warming causes global cooling. Could they be any less credible?
Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario) says:
…the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun induces a reduced magnetic allowing the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected a colder climate.
Active sun has an enhanced magnetic which induces a geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The change on cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario) says:
“Give us your qualificationsFran Manns: I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?”
RW –
I am a registered geoscientist. I earned my degrees by studying the sciences – mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, statistics and geostatistics, and created my own original work in carbonate stratigraphy, largely around paleogeography and paleoclimatology.
I have read many scientific papers on ‘climate change’ since the late 1980s and have read them objectively. I do not need to reply to ‘ad hominem’ remarks but on the other hand, thought I should point out that since ‘ad hominem’ is taught in first year philosophy courses as one of the most common logical errors, I should make a comment. This we see all the time from Hansen, Suzuki, Gore and the like because they have no response to current data or relevant hypothises. Why do they refuse debate? I suggest they refuse debate because they are not competant to do so. I have had Suzuki’s daughter pull out of a debate I participated because of…who knows what – orders from the Orwellian leader.
RW I’ll debate you. Name the stage…
Because of the miracle of inverse solubility of gasses, CO2 has nothing but a trailing correlation with both warming and cooling. There is however solid 95% corelation with sunspot peak frequency with warming and cooling for the 20th century – chopped off abruptly by the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991. Pinatubo nearly compensated for the natural solar warming of the 20th century with one eruption.
Moreover, the fluid inclusion data used to support AGW is worthless because ice is an open system. A geoscientist would never be permitted to use such corrupt data for a term paper, much less publish it in a journal. The light isotopes leave and heavies stay behind during the lengthy and reversible transition from snow to firn to ice. Then the glaciologist celebrities calibrates the top layer to modern temperature. Voila, yet another hockey stick sans Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Who are the referees of this half baked sort of work? They wiould not survive a Masters degree at a decent Geological institute.
Francis Manns permalink
13 July 2009 1:09 am
{FM: I have reformated this citation for greater clarity, and included a link}
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics“, Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, last revised 4 Mar 2009 (version 4), International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.
In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Read more here:

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment