The Wall Street Journal writes 640 words on how last month was the hottest July on record—and fails to mention anything about man-made climate change.
Here’s its explanation for the record heat:
Behind the record temperatures was a dome of high pressure over the center of the country, which combined with a powerful drought to create the scorching temperatures, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
It’s hard to imagine a climate scientist like Crouch wouldn’t mention something about climate change very likely being a significant factor in such a record. Indeed he mentioned it to the AP, which quoted him on it:
“This would not have happened in the absence of human-caused climate change,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.
(Jake) Crouch and Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said what’s happening is a double whammy of weather and climate change. They point to long-term higher night temperatures from global warming and the short-term effect of localized heat and drought that spike daytime temperatures.
The AP’s good coverage shows just clearly how bad the Journal’s is.
— Reuters gets more results from its outstanding investigation of Chesapeake Energy, reporting that the Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation into the drilling giant.
Reuters reported in June on emails that showed awfully close coordination between Chesapeake and a primary competitor scheming to lower drilling-rights bids.
The DOJ probe shows that it’s following Reuters’s reporting on Chesapeake closely:
The Justice Department is “moving criminally,” said Darren Bush, a former antitrust attorney for the Department of Justice and a professor of antitrust law at the University of Houston. “They are working their way through the grand jury process to potentially serve up indictments.”
Chesapeake’s disclosure indicates the Justice Department has moved swiftly on the matter. Reuters published its story on June 25. Just four days later, on June 29, the subpoena was served on Chesapeake, according to the company’s quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This is one of the better corporate investigations we’ve seen in a long time.
— Earnings reports are almost invariably boring, but Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Diane Brady has a terrific take on News Corporation’s miserable quarter, emphasizing that Rupert Murdoch—yet again—didn’t even bother to take part in the conference call:
Rupert Murdoch doesn’t like to hang out with losers. If that wasn’t obvious in June, when the News Corp. chief said he’d split his empire and stick to running his robust entertainment arm, it became clear in the Aug. 8 earnings call. The media titan didn’t even show up to explain the company’s bad news—its $1.6 billion loss, the $8.4 billion in revenue that fell short of expectations, the $2.8 billion writedown, and $57 million in legal costs. Why should he? After all, the main culprit was publishing, the business that has brought such misery into his home this year. That’s where he has had to deal with such headaches as legal costs, reputation hits, police probes, bribery allegations, and hacking scandals, not to mention a tough ad environment…
Yet some don’t seem to get that the media mogul has moved on. On Aug. 7, the Church of England sold its entire £1.9 million stake, explaining on its website that the Church’s ethical investment body “does not feel that the company has brought about sufficient change.” Scotland Yard arrested a journalist at The Sun, another Murdoch-owned tabloid, and a police officer. That brings the tally to 70 arrests so far from its probes of payoffs, phone-hacking, obstruction of justice, and other alleged crimes that may include illegal access to medical records. Those are activities so foreign to the ears of most chief executives that similar examples are inevitably tough to recall. For News Corp.’s shareholders, employees, and the hundreds of people so far identified as probable targets of such activities, it’s the sort of thing they’ll never forget.
Ryan,
Say what you want about the WSJ climate article, but if your preferred AP article is going to bring global warming into the discussion of record US temperatures, shouldn't the article at least contain a single reference to what the global temperature was during this time period?
Where global temperatures up? Down? The same?
The reader has no idea.
#1 Posted by Ted Barnhart, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 11:20 AM
Record high temperatures = Global Warming
Record low temperatures = Global Warming
Record rainfall = Global Warming
Record drought = Global Warming
More hurricanes = Global Warming
Fewer hurricanes = Global Warming
Decreasing sea ice = Global Warming
Increasing sea ice = Global Warming
If only the globe would cooperate with Warmingism by actually warming, then Warmingists like Phil Jones could fulfill their stated goals of seeing the "smug grins" wiped from the faces of their critics.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 01:09 PM
padikiller,
Global warming is just the catch-all phrase applied to climate change by the media. If you care to take a look at any statistics you'd note that the average global temperature has increased, and look set to continue doing so.
But feel free to ignore me and continue spouting vaguely worded bullshit.
#3 Posted by Conor, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 02:04 PM
Conor blithered standard Warmingist silliness: If you care to take a look at any statistics you'd note that the average global temperature has increased
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell (courtesy of NASA's publically available dataset):
From 1998 to 2011... The average annual global temperature DECREASED by 0.07 degrees Celsius...
There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995...
This little slice of undeniable REALITY is what drove Warmingist-in-Chief (Lead IPCC Author) Phil Jones (who says global warming is a "bad" thing) to write the following little example of "dispassionate science":
"I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug's paper that said something like -half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently record, 1998!... ...I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
But Hey!...
Why let the mere data get in the way of a Warmingist commie crack dream, right?
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 03:18 PM
"From 1998 to 2011... The average annual global temperature DECREASED by 0.07 degrees Celsius...
There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995..."
I debunked these how many times with you?
Many, many times.
And yet you still repeat them. Why, Pam? Why?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 06:33 PM
For the sake of Sweet Jeebus...
How in the Hell can you "debunk" frickin' arithmetic?...
This is just getting stupid...
Here we go..
According to NASA the average global temperature in 1998 was 0.07 degrees WARMER than the average global temperature in 2011.
Try infusing this little truism into your neural network until it sticks.
1998 average annual global temperature (according to NASA) = 14.58 degrees Celsius.
2011 average annual global temperature (according to NASA) = 14.51 degrees Celsius.
Let's do the subtraction together, shall we? 14.58 -14.51 = 0,07 degrees.
The world, according to NASA, was 0.07 degrees COOLER on average in 2011 than it was in 1998. That's just how it is, Pal.
What part of this REALITY are you having trouble comprehending?
It's called D-A-T-A.
It rules science.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 08:44 PM
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/heartland_gleick_and_media_law.php#comment-58091
padikiller responds: "As for the Global Warming nonsense... According to the best data... We have a 12 year warming trend, as you note."
D·A‹T°A±
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 09:14 PM
Yeah...
But we have a 13 year COOLING trend, according to NASA..
DATA!
The REASON you are dodging and weaving, Thimbo... Is that you can't refute the Gubmint data that irrefutably, unequivocally, undeniably shows that the average global temperature in 2011 was LESS than the average global temperature in 1998.
Any plausible defense of Warmingism will have to acknowledge and explain this little truism.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 09:56 PM
This is how Padi lawyers folks.
According to her, though she's the one using debunked myths over and over again, I'm the one who's dodging and weaving.
Honest people need correction once.
13 year warming trend including this year. Statistically as significant level of warming given the latest data. These facts aren't going away.
:::: D:::: A:::: T:::: A::::
:p
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 11:38 PM
Repetition is the only defense against obstinate liberal idiocy.
So let's do this "Reality Thing" one more time.
According to NASA:
The average global temperature in 1998 was 14.57 degrees Celsius.
The average global temperature in 2011 was 14.51 degrees Celsius.
Thus, according to NASA, the world was COOLER, on average, in 2011 than it was in 1998.
This is called a F-A-C-T.
It won't go anywhere just because Thimbles blithers off some irrelevant and evasive nonsense from alt.vampire.capitalism.sucks or some other such screwy leftist drivel site.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 10:37 AM
Oooookay, that's the game we're going to play then?
In that case from 1998 to 2005 there was a seven year warming trend and from 1998 to 2010 there was a 12 year warming trend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
And most assuredly 2012 is going to be hotter than all three of those years so I guess that will be a 14, 7, or 2 year warming trend depending on what you pick.
Except that would be dumb.
That isn't how trends are determined.
A better measure is the five year mean so that year to year variabilities, like the freak year in 1998, are smoothed out.
That gives you a shape like the graph in this link:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
Now NASA's no alt.vampire.capitalism.sucks, but they do good enough work in a pinch.
And the D. A. T. A. is in. There is a warming trend that is at least three decades long, it plateaued in a very hot state since 2000, which coincided with the deepest solar minimum we've seen this century, and it has started to rise since the sun has become active again.
And that rise has coincided with deep droughts in the us and weird weather across the globe.
We live on a darker planet now. This is the new normal. These are the F-A-C-T-S. they ain't going away no matter how much you ignore them.
So on behalf of the rest of the planet I would like to say, thanks conservatives. Add the ecosystem onto the pile of things you've wrecked for the rest of us.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 05:40 PM
LOL...
Did you READ your link, Thimbles?
2011 was the NINTH warmest year on record? Seriously?
That would mean that there were EIGHT previous years warmer than that!
Eight PRIOR years in a mere 130 temperature history!.
If Warmingism were real, then EVERY year would be hotter than the year before, because CO2 concentrations are increasing at a nearly constant rate and the whole point of Warmingist silliness is that the global temperature is directly and predictably related to CO2 concentration.
But as your link shows, such is not the case, is it?
It all comes down to cherrypicking the sampling period in the temperature record to suit your argument.
But what the Hell...
Let's look at a 50 year period, shall we?
In 1900, according to NASA, the average global temperature was 13.91 degrees Celsius. In 1950, it was 13.84 degrees Celsius.
There you go, Thimbo.. A 50 year period of documented global cooling, right from NASA!
How about a 75 year period? In 1976, according to NASA, the average global temp was 13.85 degrees! So now we have a document 75 year history of global cooling, while CO2 concentrations were increasing the WHOLE TIME.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 06:14 PM
"If Warmingism were real, then EVERY year would be hotter than the year before, because CO2 concentrations are increasing at a nearly constant rate and the whole point of Warmingist silliness is that the global temperature is directly and predictably related to CO2 concentration."
No. That's not how it works. If you're going to be mentally addled about it then I'm not going to bother explaining and / or discussing things like solar variability, ocean acidification, and how temperature alone fails as a measure of change in a system's thermal energy. I'll just point at the dolt who's trying to argue about a cooling trend in the middle of a drought.
Because we both know this isn't about proving anything to you, you're commited to other things, the ///D\\\A///T\\\A/// is just an obstacle to get around for you.
This is about everybody else. I don't need to convince people that someone who's being an idiot is wrong. When you act like one, my work is done.
Keep talking about the cooling trend while the polar caps melt and the ground water runs dry.
The world doesn't care whether you believe you've changed the planet or not. It's there. It's happening. It's not going away.
It doesn't matter if you can't accept the change, the damage is done. Your refusal to recognize it is your delusion, not mine and not our audience.
Thanks for making it easy. Good day.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 09:47 PM
Ps.
"2011 was the NINTH warmest year on record? Seriously?
That would mean that there were EIGHT previous years warmer than that!
Eight PRIOR years in a mere 130 temperature history!"
From the first paragraph in the link:
"The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000."
Sigh. Sounds like cooling to me!
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 09:58 PM
LOL...
It sure does sound like a cooling trend if EIGHT of the ten prior years were warmer than this one!. What else could it be?
Welcome to Realityland, Thimbo!
But seriously..
We have about only about 130 years of temperature data. So the odds that that the most recent decade is the warmest due to purely random factors is about 1 in 13.
If there were a 1 in 13 chance that your kid would get run over crossing the street, would you let your kid cross the street?
But I don't dispute that we are in a warming trend. However, why? And what makes warm a "bad" thing instead of a good thing? What about feedback mechanisms? Other greenhouse gases? What about clouds? Solar variation?
What made the Medieval Warm Period warm? The Little Ice Age cold?
Compared to the history of the Earth, looking at a 130 year temperature record and drawing conclusions on the general global climate is the logical equivalent of measuring the temperature at 11:59:59 pm on December 31st and using one second's worth of measurement to construct a model for the entire past year. And I'm not exaggerating here. In fact, if you do the math, 130 years is to 4,500,000,000 years as 0.9 seconds is to a year.
WHERE is the mathematical process that correlates a particular temperature with a particular CO2 concentration? WHERE is the proof that higher temperatures are bad?
You show me defensible answers to these questions, and I will convert to Warmingism on the spot.
Until then, Preach on, Brother Warmingists!
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 10:23 PM
Thimbles blithers away the First Commandment of Warmingism: If you're going to be mentally addled about it then I'm not going to bother explaining and / or discussing things like solar variability, ocean acidification, and how temperature alone fails as a measure of change in a system's thermal energy.
padikiller responds: WHOA THERE, THIMBO!
Are you admitting here that there is in fact no direct correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures?
That it is not possible to predict a global temperature based solely on a particular CO2 concentration? That other factors besides CO2 concentration are determinative of global temperature?
Is THAT what you are saying here?
Because you understand that you are undermining the Prime Directive of The Cause, right?
I mean, the WHOLE POINT of Warmingism is that CO2 alone causes predictable increases in temperature. (Actually, only CO2 from developed capitalist countries does this... Warmingists aren't interested in clamping down on Chinese, Indian or Brazilian CO2).
Show me the computer model that supports this new stance of yours. The name of this computer model is _______________. The data is uses can be found at ______________________.
Fill in those blanks and I'll study the matter myself. If you have the data to support this conclusion and the methodology to get you there, I'll be the loudest Warmingist of them all!
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 11:38 PM
"Are you admitting here that there is in fact no direct correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures?"
No.
The effect of rising CO2 is a rising amount of retained thermal energy from a variable radiative source - our sun. This thermal energy manifests in many ways within the complex system which we call global climate. One way it manifests is in an increase in global surface temperature.
The oceans also suffer an immense effect and have a huge influence which we are just beginning to understand.
But the simple answer is yes, there is a direct correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures; things that are dark heat up in the sun.
It's that simple.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:50 AM
The oceans also suffer an immense effect and have a huge influence which we are just beginning to understand.
But the simple answer is yes, there is a direct correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures
??????????????????????????
LOL!
This is some damned hilarious Orwellian doublespeak.
For somebody who is "just beginning to understand" the subject matter of Warmingism, you sure do claim a lot of specific understanding, Brother Thimbles!
So... There IS a "direct correlation" between CO2 concentration and global temperature?
WHAT THE HELL IS IT?!
Show me this mythical "direct correlation" of yours. Tell me what the average global temperature will be when the CO2 concentration reaches 600 ppm and SHOW YOUR WORK.
Let's see the math, Thimbo!
SUCH TRIPE!
FACT - From 1900 to 1950 the Earth COOLED.
FACT - From 1900 to 1976 the Earth COOLED.
FACT - From 1998 to 2011 the Earth COOLED.
Now show me how you can account for these cooling periods with your purported "direct correlation" between temperature and CO2 concentration.
See the difference between our comments, Thimbo? I have these "fact-thingies" (courtesy of NASA) and you have blither.
FACT v. BLITHER
That's where we are.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 07:34 AM
Thimbles isn't the only one blithering about "global warming"...
So is NOAA.
In fact, the Gubmint keeps two sets of books on climate data - it has two networks of thermometer stations.
The first (and oldest and least reliable) network is the COOP/USHCN ("Cooperative/United States Historical Climate Network"). Because of problems with siting and other controls, this network was deemed to be too unreliable for good science and so beginning in 2002, NOAA began building a more reliable network of better sited and more accurate temperature stations, the USCRN ("United States Climate Reference Network").
According to NOAA:
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis
So how the Gubmint is cooking the books on the "Global Warming" schtick?
NOAA recently announced that July was the "hottest month on record" in the Continental U.S., averaging 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit - using data from the OLD AND UNRELIABLE COOP/USHCN NETWORK instead of data from the NEW network of stations it built specifically to study climate change!
In FACT, the data from the NEW USCRN NETWORK shows that the average temperature from July was MUCH COOLER - in fact just 75.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature is actually COOLER than the historical average.
And there you have it! Your tax dollars at work.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 08:38 AM
"So... There IS a "direct correlation" between CO2 concentration and global temperature?
WHAT THE HELL IS IT?!"
Thimbles: There's a direct correlation between the tone of your car's paint job and its temperature. This is a proven and demonstrable fact of science.
Padkiller: If that was the case THEN EVERY MOMENT would be hotter than the one before, because EVERY MOMENT, according to toningism, causes "more radiation" to get absorbed! BUT I'VE DETECTED a SERIES of 8 to 12 HOUR COOLING TRENDS! AND on 'Watt's the Latest Find In My Toilet' this proves EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WORNG.
Thimbles: You're talking about night, right?
Padikiller: I'm talking about THERE'S NO RELATION between the tone of Paint and the temperature! SCIENCE! DATA! FACT! I WIN! *padi tosses some feces*
Okay Mister, "I don't have a problem answering questions or defending my position, unlike screwy leftists."
Want to revisit this ole post?
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/richard_muller_converted_skept.php#comment-64096
"It is a scientific fact that carbon dioxide and other GHG levels have increased. It is a scientific fact that co2 and other GHG's convert certain wavelengths of radiation into thermal energy. It is a scientific fact that the fusion process within the sun produces large amounts of radiation.
Do you dispute these?
It is a prediction that, on a sunny day, a black car with a black interior will become hotter than a white car with a white interior given equal conditions.
Do you dispute this?
It is a prediction that the earth's atmosphere will become hotter as the atmosphere "darkens" due to rising levels of CO2 and other GHG's absorbing radiation in the non-visible spectrum.
Do you dispute this?
If you do, you must explain why. You must show the model which is the basis of your dispute. You have to be able to explain why an assumption is wrong, in spite of all the scientific facts which lead to the assumption.
Otherwise, we have nothing but your faith to follow on. After all, by your own admission, " I don't have the first clue what effect, if any, a minute increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will have on global climate."
If you don't have a clue about something, then why do you presume to talk about it?
If you believe a doubling of CO2 will have little to no effect:
a) that's a prediction
b) you have to explain the basis of that belief. The scientific facts we have say that this will accumulate thermal energy.
What makes you say science is wrong?"
Sorry about the repost, but according to someone, Repetition is the only defense against obstinate idiocy, and we're dealing with a class A idiot here.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 11:35 AM
Thimbles wrote: It is a prediction that the earth's atmosphere will become hotter as the atmosphere "darkens" due to rising levels of CO2 and other GHG's absorbing radiation in the non-visible spectrum.
Do you dispute this?
padikiller responds: Yes. Because there is no basis for this so-called "prediction". This isn't a "prediction". This is a Warmingist assertion, presented without basis.
You are doing the Ole' Liberal Bait and Switch.
Your car example specifically demands "equal conditions" while your atmospheric example does not.
Futhermore, what "conditions" are we talking about here? What about clouds? Does warming increase them? If so then reflection will COOL the Earth, providing negative feedback. What about convection? What about water vapor? What about plant growth and transpiration? What about the oceans - how much of the CO2 will they absorb? Etc., etc. etc.
Now Thimbles... You claim a D-I-R-E-C-T correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. So WHAT is it? Explain this fantastic and mythical "direct correlation"of yours.
What you are claiming, mathematically speaking, when you assert a "direct correlation" between CO2 and temperature is that the global temperature is a FUNCTION of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Not only that, but since the independent variable (CO2 concentration) is continuous on the interval from zero to infinity, the resulting function (if it actually existed) would also be continuous and therefore would be subject to analysis using both differential and integral calculus.
So WHERE IS THIS FUNCTION, THIMBLES?
WRITE IT DOWN.
Or shut the Hell up and go preach your Warmingism to someone who doesn't understand science and math.
If there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature, then tell us, Professor Thimbles, WHY 1900 was WARMER than 1950... HUH?
And WHY was 1900 WARMER than 1976? HUH?
And WHY was 1998 WARMER than 2011? HUH?
Because here is inconveniently truthful fact-thingie newsflash for you, Professor... In 1900, the CO2 concentration was LOWER than it was in 1950. And in 1976. And the CO2 concentration in 1998 was LOWER than it was in 2011.
So much for your idiotic claim of a "direct correlation" Thimbles.
You aren't going to change the data, Dude.
Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever.
It isn't going anywhere.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:05 PM
Sigh.
You sure are getting animated about this subject Padi.
Yeah, there is a provable direct correlation between global temperature and CO2. Yeah there are other relationships at work within the complex system that is our global climate.
Yes, these systems interact to produce non-linear changes within our world.
What is the trend?
Based on the 5 year mean data which smooths out the the variability, based on the occurrence of exceptionally hot years like 1998 occurring 9 out of 10 this decade, based on the physical changes and chemical changes we observe in our natural world, we can conclude the globe is warming.
Or we can spin the propellor on our beanies and pretend a prediction isn't, that scientific fact isn't, that droughts and melt offs aren't.
And I expect that from a class A.
PS.
"Your car example specifically demands "equal conditions" while your atmospheric example does not."
Do you know what the white car, dark car analogy means?
Go on. You assume to know since you dispute its 'equal conditions', explain what my car analogy means.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:41 PM
Here we go round the Mulberry Bush again: Yeah, there is a provable direct correlation between global temperature and CO2
padikiller asks for the Umpteenth Time: WHERE is this "proof"?
WHERE? WHERE? WHERE?
Do you understand what a "direct correlation" means? It means that if you alter one parameter, another parameter will change in predictable manner.
Such is clearly not the case with global temperature and CO2 concentration.
What are these mysterious "non-linear" "changes" of which you blither? WHERE is the damned math to support you silliness?
You are blithering nonsense out of both sides of your mouth, just as a religious nut does when confronted with biblical contradiction.
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 01:09 PM
"Do you understand what a "direct correlation" means? It means that if you alter one parameter, another parameter will change in predictable manner.
WHERE? WHERE? WHERE?"
A lot of wind coming from the flailer here. Someone stick a windmill in front of her.
"Such is clearly not the case with global temperature and CO2 concentration."
Except it is. Thermal energy manifests within a complex system in many ways. Thermal energy takes time to permiate a deep system and alter it in an orderly way. One of those ways is through tracked changes in temperature. Another way is through decreased ice cover, increased cloud cover in areas as you mentioned (leading to things like snow storms and flash floods), and rising ocean levels due to thermal expansion.
You're asking for a FUNCTION to describe a multifunction process.
Then you ridicule attempts to model that process using multifunctions.
Are temperature and CO2 correlated? Yes. Why? Because temperature is directly related to the level of thermal energy within a system and CO2 and other GHG's cause the retention of thermal energy. This thermal energy produces many effects within a complex system, one of which is temperature.
And if you disagree, you have to explain how and why.
I hate having to do this but,
"If you believe a doubling of CO2 will have little to no effect:
a) that's a prediction
b) you have to explain the basis of that belief. The scientific facts we have say that this will accumulate thermal energy.
What makes you say science is wrong?"
Make me an anti-warmist believer. Give me evidence and the description of scientific processes which prevent our gaseous effluent to excercise their known chemical effects and reindeers to fly and I will believe in Santa Claus. Do the level of work I've done and show the background I have because you aren't going to net any believers with your current line of "I don't have a clue, but I do have a BULLHORN and a copy paste feature on my browser. Let's hope nobody notices the huge difference between a clue and a bullhorn."
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 02:46 PM
Thimbles wrote (paraphrasing) : The climate is complex thing and the correlation exists because of ice cover and reindeer. There is a mathematical model to prove my claims but I won't show to you because it is super secret and I have other things I need to do now. The temperature and CO2 are correlated, but they aren't because of complicated non-linear things I won't describe....
Science, Thimbles style!
What a wonderful thing to behold.
Let's do this again, shall we?
The NAME of the computer model that can accurately predict global temperature based on CO2 concentration is ___________________.
The DATA that is used with this model can found at ______________________.
You fill in the blanks with simple, defensible responses and I will meet you at the next IPCC meeting with my Warmingist T-shirt and my Occupier bongos.
Until then. All you have is useless blither.
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 03:17 PM
Let's try this again with Padi since I've been asking her this since 2009 and her best attempts at an answer have been:
A) a ouija board.
B) her admission that she does not have a clue.
"If you believe a doubling of CO2 will have little to no effect:
a) that's a prediction
b) you have to explain the basis of that belief. The scientific facts we have say that this will accumulate thermal energy.
What makes you say science is wrong?"
For someone who is such a believer, you have startling little amounts of reason behind your beliefs.
#26 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 03:29 PM
Thimbles is out of her mind.
I don't "believe" that increasing CO2 will have little or no effect. I also don't "believe" that it will have a deleterious effect. Because I haven't seen any proof.
If I do see such proof, I'll become a believer.
Until then, I remain undecided.
#27 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 03:53 PM
"I don't "believe" that increasing CO2 will have little or no effect."
Then what effect do you believe it will have and why? It's only taken since 2009 for your answer, it must be a good one.
"I also don't "believe" that it will have a deleterious effect. Because I haven't seen any proof."
Oh goody. You believe it won't have a deleterious effect. This is because _____________.
In spite of the facts you admitted that "CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure. Does increasing CO2 contribute to atmospheric warming? Unquestionably." the amount of atmospheric warming won't affect our civilization and the life upon which we depend because ________________________.
Explain the climate ceiling which will prevent GHG warming from reaching civilization threatening heights though we are covering the globe in concentrations of CO2 that have never existed in human history in a span of rime which is geologic seconds.
Because man, if you've got that information handy, that will be wonderful news.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 04:09 PM
In other news:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/12/160930/is-the-era-of-oil-nearing-its.html
"By 2035, the International Energy Agency projects, the world population will grow by 1.7 billion people, and 850 million more cars will be on the roads.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that oil demand from China and India will have zoomed from a combined 3.5 million barrels per day in 1991 to a projected 25 million barrels per day in 2035.
In the face of these trends, no one has yet explained how the planet will meet enormous increases in energy demand. Hirsch said that cleaner alternatives such as solar power, wind power and electric- and natural gas-powered vehicles still are too flawed and expensive to win broad acceptance.
“Without an urgent and radical change of policy direction, the world risks locking itself into an unsustainable energy future,” International Energy Agency executive director Maria van der Hoeven warned last fall, calling for a $38 trillion investment by 2035 and a shift to low-carbon technologies."
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/keystone-pipeline-canada-11546235
"In Canada, I learned that my entire approach to life is wrong. I tend to trust and believe in the responsible people who are fair-minded and try to see both sides of an issue. I disdain the Not-In-My-Backyard approach of people who only care about their own petty personal issues regardless of the larger good, and I harbored (from lots of reading and zero personal experience) a special secret disdain for Native Americans and First Canadians who try to stop oil trucks to defend some vanished Eden that ain't never coming back. I thought we should soberly consider all the facts — like the global need for oil to warm our houses, to drive to work — and find a reasonable balance.
I was wrong. Global warming turns all those assumptions on their heads. I thought about it throughout my reporting for "Keystone" — which I've been reflecting on all week here and which is now available online in full — from Fort McMurray in Alberta, where the pipeline begins and cannot be stopped, to Port Arthur, Texas, where the oilmen tell you the opposite of the scientists. And, turns out, the crazy people are the sane ones, and the sober, reasonable, responsible people are probably going to be the ones to destroy the world. If that's not the fking bitterest joke of all time, I don't know what is: The Great Destroyer isn't Hitler or Stalin or Mao; it's the Canadians — and all the sober little Canadians within us."
In Canada, the big discussion is about how much BC will get out of a pipeline, that will run over its mountains and into its sea, that will be built by several times negligent oil company Enbridge.
The discussion is about how big the cut will be and how many millions more Enbridge will spend to make the pipeline safe for Asian tankers. It won't be about whether sending the plunder of Athabasca, to spill over the BC wilderness, to burn in China and India is a good idea.
We're so screwed.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 04:56 PM
LOL...
LOOK at Thimbles doing the Ole' Liberal Two-Step Dodge!
This is Warmingism, Illustrated!
padikiller wrote previously: "I also don't "believe" that it will have a deleterious effect. Because I haven't seen any proof."
Thimbles blithers an attempt to change what padikiller wrote : Oh goody. You believe it won't have a deleterious effect. This is because _____________.
padikiller responds: Are you on crack? For real?
You can't distinguish between the absence of a belief and the assertion of a belief? Are you really that stupid?
AS I PLAINLY WROTE, I have no "belief" at all regarding the future of the global climate. I make no assertions. I do believe (according to NASA's data) that based on a meager 130 temperature record, the Earth experienced a warming trend that ended in 1998 and has been holding pretty much steady since then. However, I also believe that the Earth has possibly been warmer than it presently is within the last 1000 years and was warmer during a period when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was much lower than it presently is.
And of course, I am open to any legitimate scientific proof from any side. If you have any, let's see it.
YOU are the proponent of the assertion of a "direct correlation" between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature. The burden is on YOU to back up your Warmingism with data and methodology.
It's called S-C-I-E-N-C-E:
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).
How about some of that "full disclosure" scientific stuff, there Thimbo?
Where's your data? Where's your methodology?
HUH?
#30 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 07:06 PM
"padikiller responds: Are you on crack? For real?
You can't distinguish between the absence of a belief and the assertion of a belief? Are you really that stupid?"
You are asserting a belief though. You are asserting that you believe, in spite of the scientific facts which you don't dispute about CO2 and it's effect on the atmosphere, that the effect will not be deleterious.
Your words. Can't run away from them. That is your belief that no matter how much CO2 and GHG's human society injects into the atmosphere, the warming they cause will not be catastrophic.
And you stake this belief based on _____________________________?
Surely you must have some reason based justification for this belief. Surely you must have some means of describing the climate + 200% more CO2 that comes out sunshine for the human race and the species that exist with it. Based on what we know about the properties of CO2 and other GHG's, how does the world avoid the deleterious effects which, based on their properties, seem increasingly likely as these gases increases in their atmospheric concentration?
That is what you believe. Someone of your enthusiasm should be able to defend your belief in a snap.
I've been waiting since 2009. Care to explain?
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 08:28 PM
Damn, this Thimbilistic Stupdity never ends!
Thimbles drones: You are asserting a belief though. You are asserting that you believe, in spite of the scientific facts which you don't dispute about CO2 and it's effect on the atmosphere, that the effect will not be deleterious.
padikiller responds: No, for the ten zillionth time, I am not asserting any "belief". Please read the following until your lips stop moving, and then perhaps we can put your stupidity to rest.
I DON'T KNOW IF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION (BY A MINUTE AMOUNT) HAS ANY APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE AND ASSUMING (SOLELY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT) IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS EFFECT WILL OR WILL NOT BE DELETERIOUS (OR BENEFICIAL)
What is it about "I don't know" that you cannot understand, Thimbles?
If you can show me DATA and METHODOLOGY to PROVE your assertion that there is a "direct correlation" between CO2 and temperature, I'd sure like to see it...
But there can't be any such direct correlation.
Why?
Because in 1998 the CO2 was LOWER than it was in 2012 but the temperature was HIGHER. And the CO2 was LOWER in 1900 than it was in 1976 but the temperature was HIGHER.
It's called D-A-T-A. And you can't change it Thimbo.
It is what it is.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 09:13 PM
Oh how I hate to do this, but in the face of an obstinate idiot, repetition is the only thing that will do.
You say "I DON'T KNOW IF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION (BY A MINUTE AMOUNT) HAS ANY APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE" (ooo all caps)
But you do admit "the scientific facts which you don't dispute about CO2 and it's effect on the atmosphere" while you refuse to believe the implications arising from those facts.
Now, if you were really interested at rooting out the truth about these matters, and you should be - judging from your enthusiasm, you would be putting in the time and research to find out what is really happening to the climate system in order to form a belief.
But, instead, you cop out by disclaiming any belief.
And while you disclaim any belief, you hype every ridiculous skeptic's claim as gospel and rant IN ALL CAPS against anyone who follows the implications of the scientific facts you don't dispute.
So why don't you follow the implications of your statements on CO2? Why do you ridicule the people who claim these implications have dire consequences for our human society? Why do you lend your support to the skeptics community and give your voice to skeptics arguments - wrong and oft debunked skeptics arguments - if you truly are the dispassionate agnostic who just needs a little more evidence to push her over the edge?
Your agnosticism is a dodge. The truth is your disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. If you could save the planet by giving the 'commies' an inch of slack, you would let the planet burn.
But you can't say that. You can't admit there is no science to your disbelief - it's just a bunch of hatred for government and global institutions - so you claim you don't need to come up with a scientific explanation because you don't believe anything.
You're a coward. Either do the work required to explain how the implications of
a) CO2 is a ghg responsible for warming the atmosphere
b) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising
do not result in deleterious change or don't dispute that they will. Because, hey, by your own admission, you're clueless. Don't bother talking until you bother to get a clue and show your work, coward.
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 10:54 PM
Show me how an increase of 0.02% in a trace gas can have any measurable effect on climate.
Show me the model that accurately predicts temperature based on CO2 concentration.
Show me data.
Show me methodology.
I am not interested in your parables.
I am not interested in your politics or your prophecy.
Get back to me when you have some math to go with your Chicken Little screeds.
If you or anyone else can show me a model that supports AGW to within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, I'll sign on.
Until then, all you've got is a religion, Thimbles.
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 12:52 AM
You show me.
Start with where you got the figure for an "increase of 0.02% in a trace gas".
Because it's wrong and likely from a crappy junk science denial site, you independent little agnostic you.
#35 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 01:59 AM
For the sake of Sweet Jeebus!
An increase in atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial 280 ppm (or 0.028%) to the forecasted concentration 50 years from now of 480 ppm (or 0.048%) is....
Wait for it.....
An increase of 0.02 percent!
It isn't "junk science".
It's called A-R-I-T-H-M-E-T-I-C!
The sooner you familiarize yourself with its mysterious ways, the sooner we'll be able to converse at something higher than a third grade level, Thimbles.
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 03:18 AM
Wow. You're kind of a moron.
When you say an increase of .02% of a trace gas, you're saying that trace gas increased only ... wait for it.. .02 percent! That's the increase of that gas amongst all the other gases in the atmosphere, not the increase of the trace gas which is responsible for a range of 9 to 25% of the current 33 degree difference GHG's make.
The trace gas has increased let's see:
396 ppm is our current level (which means you can't even do your own bum math right, which is why you picked a figure 50 years from now)
280 ppm was our preindustrial level.
(396 - 280) / 280 = 41%
A 41% increase in a trace gas is enough to melt and break up much of the arctic.
It's enough to load the climate dice so that the number that comes up this year is 78% of "the contiguous U.S." experiencing severe drought.
But, of course, none of this is "proof" to the Bircher who thinks commies are coming out of her compost to take her car keys away.
Like I said before, I'm never going to prove anything to you with science because your disbelief isn't science based.
All I ask is that you justify your belief that this "trace gas" CO2 which has only increased .02% within our atmosphere won't cause severe harm to our global civilization and therefore isn't worth doing anything about.
And you won't. You'll disavow your belief 3 times as the cock crows in the background.
Because you're a coward - who has trouble with his own math.
#37 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 10:50 AM
Thimbles blithered: A 41% increase in a trace gas is enough to melt and break up much of the arctic.
padikiller responds: And Bigfoot is a space alien and Martians will invade Utah next week.
Anyone can SAY anything. That doesn't make it true.
Once again... What I am asking for is proof of your assertion. Some of that DATA and METHODOLOGY stuff that goes with that "science" thing.
You show me valid data and methodology and you've got yourself a convert.
Until then, you're just blithering religious nonsense.
#38 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 01:04 PM
I know, the fact that the arctic is melting and breaking up isn't enough for you nor is the fact that nations bordering the arctic circle are enforcing their territorty so they get a cut from the oil and gas platforms which are moving in nor are the signals, from species moving north and to higher elevations which were previously climes too cold to once in a century weather becoming once every couple of years - confirming if not exceeding the climate models we've had for 30 years, none of it is enough to convince you.
You're just need a little more data. A little more proof.
In spite of your statement that the 97% consensus of scientific professionals is just a 'warmingist commie crack dream' you have no beliefs to defend, no judgement on the matter whatsoever.
You're just a blank slate to scrawl on.
Dude, you're a coward. Defend your beliefs or, since you claim to be clueless, do the work required to form your beliefs and defend them. If global warming is a communist crack dream, prove it. Show us we're wrong.
Give us the detailed description of how the climate system really works so we can all see that how carbon dioxide works in a lab does not apply to how it works in our atmosphere. We're all 'commie crack dreamers'. Put up the science required to wake us up or shut up.
But don't try and sell us this "I don't have to defend anything because I don't believe anything" crap. You're not fooling anyone.
#39 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 02:46 PM
Of COURSE 97% of climate scientists say climate change is happening. So do I. Deserts advance and encroach. Mountains grow and erode. Continents move. Ice ebbs and wanes.
Climate change is ALWAYS happening. The climate is in a perpetual state of flux and has been since the dawn of time. What I'd like to know is how they managed to find 3% of climate scientists who deny that climate change is happening.
However, what I want to see before I swallow the blue pill of Warmingism is PROOF that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 0.027% to 0.047% will result in some sort of catastrophe.
Get back to me when you have DATA and METHODOLOGY to support this claim. (If anyone else has the data and the methodology, please feel free to link to them.)
I don't dispute that NASA data shows that a recent warming trend ended in 1998 or that the climate will continue to change as it has always changed. But how will it change? Warmer? If so, how much. When? Cooler? Wetter? Dryer? Cloudier? Clearer?
What about plants? How much carbon will they sequester? What about the oceans? How much atmospheric CO2 will they absorb? Or release?
Where does the greenhouse warming of CO2 occur? At the surface? In the lower troposphere? Higher? It makes a huge difference in terms of thermal radiation.
I suspect that there are simply too many unknowns to reach any sort of accurate prediction, but if there is an accurate working climate model that supports Warmingism, I'd sure like to see it.
So far, not a single Warmingist has been able to name such a model. This is a telling failure.
Furthermore, Thimbles claim of a "direct correlation" between CO2 and temperature is pure unadulterated horse hockey. Any model will will have to account for the documented natural variation in global temperature.
For example, in 1900 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 300 ppm and yet the world was COOLER than it was in 1976 when the CO2 concentration was more than 10% higher than that.
How does this fact-thingie jibe with your supposed "direct correlation" between temperature and CO2 concentration, Thimbles?
HUH?
HINT: It doesn't.
I don't want parables. Or anecdotes. Or sermons. Or appeals to emotion.
All I ask to see it data and methodology.
If it exists, show it to me. If it doesn't exist, just cowboy up and say so.
#40 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 04:06 PM
"Of COURSE 97% of climate scientists say climate change is happening. So do I. Deserts advance and encroach. Mountains grow and erode. Continents move. Ice ebbs and wanes.
Climate change is ALWAYS happening."
That's not what the 97% percent of scientists are saying. If that's what they were saying, then what do you suppose the 3% in disagreement believed?
Yeah, keep dodging, coward.
"Furthermore, Thimbles claim of a "direct correlation" between CO2 and temperature is pure unadulterated horse hockey. Any model will will have to account for the documented natural variation in global temperature."
And we do, but that is not how you prove a direct correlation between one property and another. You do it through simple experiments like this.
Then you extend the principles determined in the lab to see how they work outside of it. The principles determined by scientific inquiry must work the same inside the lab as out. If they don't, or if you dispute that they do, you must come up with a science based explanation of why.
Which is what you run away from doing since you are a coward. Dodge, dodge. Run, Run.
"For example, in 1900 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 300 ppm and yet the world was COOLER than it was in 1976 when the CO2 concentration was more than 10% higher than that.
How does this fact-thingie jibe with your supposed "direct correlation" between temperature and CO2 concentration, Thimbles?"
Explained YEARS ago when you first tried this tact.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php#comment-22545
And then you explained your ouija board theory of climate, if I recall correctly. Have you really gotten nothing better than that over the last 3 years?
Let's add the appendage lazy to your previously earned description, coward. The talk is big, but the content is plainly pathetic.
#41 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 05:05 PM
The data that supports AGW can be found at ______________.
The computer model that can accurately predict global temperature based on a particular CO2 concentration is ______________.
#42 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 06:05 PM
The data that supports the "AGW is a commie crack pipe dream" theory can be found at ______________.
The scientific explanation for the discounting the known properties of manmade carbon dioxide and how they affect our atmosphere and climate is ______________.
"Yeah, keep dodging, coward."
Because I've only been asking since 2009.
#43 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 07:02 PM
In the meantime:
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/05/hansen-on-the-new-math-of-extreme-events/
"PBS Newshour interviews James Hansen on the increasing likelihood of extreme events under climate change."
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/06/mike-mann-on-the-new-math-of-extremes/
Michael Mann: "We need to view this summer’s extreme weather in this wider context.
It is not simply a set of random events occurring in isolation, but part of a broader emerging pattern. We are seeing, in much of the extreme weather we are experiencing, the “loading of the weather dice.” Over the past decade, records for daily maximum high temperatures in the U.S. have been broken at twice the rate we would expect from chance alone. Think of this as rolling double sixes twice as often as you’d expect – something you would readily notice in a high stakes game of dice. Thus far this year, that ratio is close to 10 to 1. That’s double sixes coming up ten times as often as you expect."
And what do we do about it now? The crisis can't be avoided, 30 years of conservatives nixed that plan, it can only be reduced.
We're screwed.
#44 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 08:03 PM
Having some fun looking up the links on co2 and its correlation with temperature, and I came up with some useful language for journalists to describe what we are observing.
First of, the link between CO2 and temperature is very strong according to the findings of paleo-climatology. As temperature rises, CO2 rises right behind. As temperature drops, so follows CO2.
But that's the issue. Historically speaking, CO2 follows right behind. When the temperature changes, CO2 changes follow two to eight centuries behind. Thus minor changes in temperature become amplified by the increase or decrease of CO2 green house gases. This is called a feedback effect, when one change becomes amplified by other reactions within the system.
Where does the CO2 go when temperatures are low? Where does it come from when temperatures are high? The centuries long lag gives us a clue. The ocean is a big deep vessel of water. It takes hundreds of years to move it, temperature wise, and hundreds of years to stop it. When it's cold, it takes carbon dioxide out of the system. When it's warm, it puts carbon dioxide back into the system.
Now CO2, normally is a feedback, but we have seen in the past where CO2 is not just a passenger, its a driver or, if you prefer, a forcing. These were incidents like the Great Permian extinction which could triggered by long term volcanic eruptions.
Drivers kick a process off. Feedbacks react to a process in motion.
So what are we looking at now? According to our best findings, we are seeing manmade CO2 drive the atmosphere hotter. It's not the usual suspects: the sun, the orbit of the planet, or a big belchy volcano. It's our car engines. Our CO2 exhaust has become a driver. We are forcing the climate to change.
But CO2 being the driver does not mean CO2 can't also be the feedback. We know that the oceans dump CO2 gas into the atmosphere when the temperature gets hot. That's why CO2 lags. We know that the ocean has absorbed between 40 and 50 percent of our carbon emissions, enough to alter the chemistry of the ocean.
If we do not stop producing the CO2 driving the temperature change, the ocean temperature will rise and the CO2 feedback process will commence. At that point we can scrap all of our cars and dump all of our coal plants and the world will still burn. Why? Because you can't stop the ocean once it's in motion. When the ocean starts releasing it's carbon dioxide as part of its feedback process, we will no longer be looking at "Aw shucks. Weird weather." We will be looking at a severe global catastrophe which we can't stop. It's these feedbacks which keep climatologists up at night because we really don't know how close we can get to these climatic land mines before they go off, we just know that they're there and that it's going to be incredibly difficult to change the direction of nations who are running full speed towards them. Hell, they may have already tripped some of them up for all we know.
Right now, we are in the driver's seat. How close to these feedback based land mines do we want to drive?
#45 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 03:46 AM
Ps. The truth about padi's model of 'Much global commie conspiracy ado about nothing'?
http://grist.org/article/negative-climate-feedback-is-as-real-as-the-easter-bunny/
#46 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 04:07 AM
Blither: Now CO2, normally is a feedback, but we have seen in the past where CO2 is not just a passenger, its a driver or, if you prefer, a forcing. These were incidents like the Great Permian extinction which could triggered by long term volcanic eruptions.
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: Yeah, except nobody knows what brought the Permian extinction. I mean, there's that little hitch, after all....
More Blither: If we do not stop producing the CO2 driving the temperature change, the ocean temperature will rise and the CO2 feedback process will commence.
padikiller: Says WHO, except you? To withing what degree of uncertainty? When?
Nothing but apocalyptic religious blither from the self-proclaimed Prophet of Warmingism.
This BS makes no sense, even in the context of its own blitheriness.
In the past the world got warmer, so the oceans released CO2 and made the world cooler (somehow). But now, if we make the world warmer, the oceans will release CO2 and make the world warmer (somehow).
?????????
Pure drivel.
#47 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 05:42 PM
The data that supports the "AGW is a commie crack pipe dream" theory can be found at ______________.
The scientific explanation for the discounting the known properties of manmade carbon dioxide and how they affect our atmosphere and climate is ______________.
Because I've only been asking since 2009.
#48 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 06:01 PM
Just LOOK at Ole' Thimbo tripping over himself to attempt to shift the burden and to hide from what has got to be painful reality - namely that he has no proof of his claims - no data, no math, no models.
Just proverbs, parables and prophecies....
The data that refutes Warmingism is NASA's data - the warmest year on record IN FACT occurred in the last millennium - 1998. And IN FACT, 1900 was WARMER than 1950 AND 1976.
This DATA refutes the argument that the temperature of the Earth is directly correlated to CO2 concentration - obviously other factors affect temperature greatly and I have yet to see any AGW model that can accurately account for them.
But if I do see one, I'll be the newest Warmingist.
And nobody is "discounting any known properties of 'manmade' carbon dioxide".
(NOTE: Most of the CO2 released to the atmosphere is naturally emitted and has precisely the same effect, if any, on climate that "manmade" CO2 has)
I'm not saying that CO2 isn't warming the globe (significantly and deleteriously), but before I will believe that it is, I want some of the "proof" stuff.
You know... DATA.. And METHODOLOGY.
Two things that you will not find any any of Thimbles' screeds.
#49 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 06:37 PM
"padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: Yeah, except nobody knows what brought the Permian extinction. I mean, there's that little hitch, after all...."
Show me a paper which doesn't contain a reference to CO2 generated warming.
You won't find one in a respectable publication. You'll find stuff like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html
"So what happened 252 million years ago to cause those physiological stresses in marine animals? Additional clues from carbon, calcium and nitrogen isotopes of the period, as well as from organic geochemistry, suggest a “perturbation of the global carbon cycle,” the scientists’ second paper concluded — a huge infusion of carbon into the atmosphere and the ocean.
But neither an asteroid strike nor an upwelling of oxygen-deprived deep-ocean water would explain the selective pattern of death.
Instead, the scientists suspect that the answer lies in the biggest volcanic event of the past 500 million years — the eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps, the stairlike hilly region in northern Russia. The eruptions sent catastrophic amounts of carbon gas into the atmosphere and, ultimately, the oceans; that led to long-term ocean acidification, ocean warming and vast areas of oxygen-poor ocean water...
And he and Dr. Langdon noted that carbon was being injected into the atmosphere today far faster than during the Permian extinction. As Dr. Knoll put it, “Today, humans turn out to be every bit as good as volcanoes at putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”"
Not that it's important since I mentioned it meerly as an example of CO2 driven climate change, of which there's only been a few. Most of the time CO2 has been the feedback since you have to burn a few gigatons of stuff to overwhelm the globe's carbon sinks and generate climate change. What normally happens is that carbon spills from the sinks as the world gets hot (amplifying warmth) and accumulates as the world gets cold (amplifying cold).
"Says WHO, except you? To withing what degree of uncertainty? When?"
Oh the old 'Says WHO?' argument. It's been three years since I've seen you. Come up with a scientific based model supporting your skeptical case yet?
Didn't think so.
Anyways, we know this from the Vostok core and the Al Gore movie scene every skeptic yelled about. "Temperature drives CO2! CO2 doesn't drive temperature! There's an 800 year lag!"
So yeah, you skeptics are right. When CO2 is not the driver, there is a lag between CO2 and temperature, but there is also a very strong correlation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
So if temperature rises, carbon dioxide will rise. If it falls, CO2 follows. That is the feedback.
Therefore if human action drives temperature up, CO2 will go up as oceans and forests react to the higher temperatures. Feedbacks don't care whether the sun, the earth's orbital variations, or car exhaust have pushed up the temp. They just react.
"In the past the world got warmer, so the oceans released CO2 and made the world cooler (somehow)."
No.
"But now, if we make the world warmer, the oceans will release CO2 and make the world warmer (somehow)."
Yes. Orbital variations and solar variations have forced temperature up and driven it down. When the ocean's were releasing CO2 and orbital forcing was on its way to triggering an ice age, it took time for the deep ocean to chill and begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the cooling.
If you can't get these concepts, then you have no business commenting on these mat
#50 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 08:20 PM
Ps. The data that supports the "AGW is a commie crack pipe dream" theory can be found at ______________.
The scientific explanation for the discounting the known properties of manmade carbon dioxide and how they affect our atmosphere and climate is ______________.
Because I've only been asking since 2009.
#51 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 08:25 PM
"Proof" According to Warmingists : "Additional clues... suggest... scientists suspect....
Suggestion and suspicion = Thimbilistic "Proof"
Too, too funny!...
If and when anyone can show me a computer model than accurately predict temperature.. I'll be a believer..
Until then, all you've got is voodoo.
1900 was WARMER than 1976. PERIOD. NO "correlation" there. PERIOD.
1998 was WARMER than 2011. And 2010. And 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999! PERIOD!
If CO2 historically leads temperature as you say it does... And if the oceans dump CO2 when they warm as you say they do... Then HOW did the Earth ever cool down?
HUH, Professor?
I mean... The dinosaurs didn't have carbon sequestration machines, Thimbles. If the Earth warmed first, and then if the oceans dumped CO2 into the air as you claim they did, and if CO2 concentrations went up as you say they did. and if CO2 causes significant warming like you say it does... HOW did the Earth ever cool back down? WHY didn't we end up with a "runaway greenhouse effect then"?
Your premise defeats itself. It is just silly.
#52 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 09:02 PM
"If CO2 historically leads temperature as you say it does..."
I said the opposite. Is English your first language?
"And if the oceans dump CO2 when they warm as you say they do... Then HOW did the Earth ever cool down?
HUH, Professor?"
Say you've got a camp fire. The camp fire is fed wood from a pile. The wood from the pile drives the flames hotter and higher.
The wood represents a climatic driver like sun or an orbital fluctuation. It fuels the fire.
Then you stop putting wood on the fire because it's time for bed. The orbital fluctuation moves towards a cold inducing position, the sun goes into a Maunder-like minimum. Does the fire instantly go out? Does it take time to go out? Does it eventually go out?
The same thing happens to the carbon feedback. Without the forcing, the feedback sustains itself from 200 to 800 years, but then it goes down. Carbon feedback follows temperature.
"I mean... The dinosaurs didn't have carbon sequestration machines, Thimbles"
Are you an idiot? Plants and the ocean are carbon sequestration machines. That's where we got fossil fuels from, dummy.
Petty f'in insults and ignorance is all you've got to add.
Why don't you step up and do the work required to explain how
a) CO2 is a ghg responsible for warming the atmosphere
b) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising
do not result in a climatic catastrophe.
Or are you a coward who can't stand by her hackery?
What is it, Valois?
#53 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 09:38 PM
So let's get this straight...
You are saying that, historically temperatures increased first... HOW?
And then CO2 went up because the oceans warmed and dumped CO2?
And then plants provided a natural feedback, reducing CO2, cooling the Earth, and thereby preventing a 'runaway greenhouse?
They would have to act fast! The oceans hold MANY, MANY more time the mass of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere does. If ocean warming starts a catastrophic release of CO2 (like you say it does) then those plants must have been gobbling it up fast to stop a runaway condition!...
EIther that, or you're just full of crap and talking out of your hindparts.
#54 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 09:57 PM
"You are saying that, historically temperatures increased first... HOW?"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
This is basic BASIC level stuff.
"And then CO2 went up because the oceans warmed and dumped CO2?
Yes, CO2 goes up (literally) into the atmosphere as temperature increases, just as water vapor does.
"And then plants provided a natural feedback, reducing CO2"
No. Something drives the temperature negative, be it an orbital forcing or a quiet sun. The negative temperature trend does not immediately effect the carbon cycle because of the time required to cool a high heat capacity ocean. Carbon Dioxide levels change slowly, slowing the temperature drop from the dominant driver and the colder ocean begins reclaiming carbon dioxide again through things like rainfall (rain acts as a atmospheric scrubber for CO2 in that CO2 will mix with droplets in the clouds before falling). Since the carbon flushes back and forth between cycles of hot and cold temperatures, it changes the pH within an acceptable range for life. The carbon injection we've done has raised the ocean's pH beyond that comfortable range and an ocean that is saturated with carbon and warming up is going to pose a massive problem.
"If ocean warming starts a catastrophic release of CO2 (like you say it does) then those plants must have been gobbling it up fast to stop a runaway condition!..."
They were consuming a fair amount which is why you have coal, oil, and methane + salty brine in your Marcellus Shale. But the records we have from ice cores like Vostok indicate the CO2 was managed by natural drivers which work in cycles.
What we have here, according to all the data and charts and information I've posted in this thread, is not part of a natural cycle. 97% of people with expertise on these matters are convinced that manmade carbon dioxide is forcing temperatures higher and at a rate that life on earth cannot gracefully adjust to. And in the past it only took a few degrees change to provoke a few degrees more change in feedbacks and cause massive wipeouts of life.
If we don't drop our driving of the climate before the feedbacks kick in, it won't be us emitting the green house gases. Nature will vent and we will not be ready for a pissed off nature.
"EIther that, or you're just full of crap and talking out of your hindparts."
Why you gotta be mean like that, Val?
#55 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 12:15 AM
It shows just what a lousy person you are Thimbles that you respond to criticism with a blackhearted attempt to "out" me in an effort to intimidate or harass me somehow, simply because you can't come up with data to support your position.
Well, it fails on two counts:
1. I'm not who you think I am, as I have notified you in writing several times, and
2. I don't give into this kind of thuggism.
If I learn that this lady is being harassed because of your publication, I will immediately report it to Mike Doucette, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Lynchburg. Internet harassment is a jailable offense.
#56 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 05:23 AM
Oh noes! Seriously, internet threats weren't effective when Clayton used them on you for digging through his garbage, and Val, it turns out I am in no way associating you with the person you think, and Val, I don't stalk and harrassment anyone on the net.
But anyways, why don't you step up and do the work required to explain how
a) CO2 being a ghg responsible for warming the atmosphere
b) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere having risen to unprecedented levels in human history in the space of a century
doesn't result in a climatic catastrophe.
Do you prefer fill in the blanks? Okay. The data that supports the "AGW is a commie crack pipe dream" theory can be found at ______________.
The scientific explanation for the discounting the known properties of manmade carbon dioxide and how they affect our atmosphere and climate is ______________.
Come on gal. Don't change the topic, show us your science! (or we can continue the civil-for-you discussion on feedbacks and forcings. No big deal to me)
#57 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 08:02 AM
You can't cure stupid.
You've been warned repeatedly.
If you think you can publish a woman's name, accuse her of being a pedophile in public, over and over again... You're the one who's going to deal with the ramifications.
I've done my due diligence here.
#58 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 08:47 AM
I didn't. You did. It's not my fault that your email has so much in common with an innocent person's, Valois. Your phone did the auto complete.
And I haven't said anything about you except that you're a liar and a coward, something which is plainly true until you prove different.
Prove me wrong. Fill in those empty blanks.
#59 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 10:56 AM
If you want to (idiotically and mistakenly) call out an attorney by name, and repeatedly accuse her of being a pedophile, I can't stop you, Thimbles.
All I can tell you is that aside from being vile libel, it's also a misdemeanor and a meanspirted and unproductive dodge.
Acting out like this won't make a computer model predict temperature.
#60 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 11:51 AM
Come on Val. I'm trying to talk about climate and you keep bringing up all this unrelated garbage.
It's not my fault Valois is in your email address. I'm sure there's lots of people with the name Valois.
What does that have to do with the great climate conspiracy that 97% of scientists are in on which you, in your great lawyerly wisdom, are about to disprove?
#61 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 12:17 PM
It is not unreasonable to ask for data.
I am not advocating any position and I can't, therefore. propound any data.
Is the NASA surface temp data definitive? I don't know. But if you do, tell us why.
Is the atmospheric data definitive? Why?
WHY?
A computer model that will can accurately predict temperature is persuasive.
Parables and prophecy aren't persuasive.
#62 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 10:12 PM
Make that "will or can"
#63 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 10:23 PM
The data is public, multiple research bodies have investigated it with their own instruments, and the state of the science and instruments are such that there is little difference between the temperature records, not enough to claim the climate is somehow cooling as you have done.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html
But as I've said MANY times in the past, temperature is only one way to measure a flux of thermal energy. We have satellite which measure the incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing from the earth. We have measurements of sea and glacial ice thickness, the same technologies which have mapped the background radiation of the big bang and has peered outward at some of the universe's first galaxies has been turned inward upon earth:
http://aqua.nasa.gov/
We have instruments to really gauge what is happening within the climate and ocean. There's are reasons why scientists are near unanimous about the AGW diagnosis, you can see it in the cat scans of the planet.
"I am not advocating any position and I can't, therefore. propound any data."
That is a coward's cop out, Valois. Just admit that you have no scientific basis for objecting to the scientific conclusions of GHG emissions and their effect on climate. You're scared of socialism and the "inherently evil" governments you harp on about in various threads. It's a problem beyond the ability of ideology to solve, so you deny the problem.
And you can't defend the denial, Val. You're weak.
Come back when you've made an effort, lightweight.
#64 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 11:11 PM
In other news of interest to Ryan,
TV is pathetic, newspapers less so.
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366
"Only 14% Of Heat Wave Stories Mentioned Climate Change. In a study of major media outlets, only 8.7% of television segments and 25.5% of print articles reported on record-breaking July heat waves in the context of climate change."
That is just sad.
#65 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 11:17 PM
Data rules science.
Don't let anyone tell you differently.
If anyone claims any particular outcome, ask them for the data.
If they don't have it, dismiss it.
This is the scientific method.
Anything else is just stupidity.
#66 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 11:30 PM
Ps. On climate models, the wisdom of crowds is key:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_we_trust_climate_models_increasingly_the_answer_is_yes/2360/
"The IPCC’s numbers come from averaging nearly two dozen individual models produced by institutions including the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), the U.K.’s Met Office, and more. All of these models have features in common, but they’re constructed differently — and all of them leave some potentially important climate processes out entirely. So the question remains: How much can we really trust climate models to tell us about the future?
The answer, says Keith Dixon, a modeler at GFDL, is that it all depends on questions you’re asking. “If you want to know ‘is climate change something that should be on my radar screen?’” he says, “then you end up with some very solid results. The climate is warming, and we can say why. Looking to the 21st century, all reasonable projections of what humans will be doing suggest that not only will the climate continue to warm, you have a good chance of it accelerating. Those are global-scale issues, and they’re very solid.”
The reason they’re solid is that, right from the emergence of the first crude versions back in the 1960s, models have been at their heart a series of equations that describe airflow, radiation and energy balance as the Sun The problem is that warming causes changes that act to accelerate or slow the warming. warms the Earth and the Earth sends some of that warmth back out into space. “It literally comes down to mathematics,” says Peter Gleckler, a research scientist with the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Livermore National Laboratory, and the basic equations are identical from one model to another. “Global climate models,” he says, echoing Dixon, “are designed to deal with large-scale flow of the atmosphere, and they do very well with that...
Beyond that, says Dixon, if three-fourths of the models project that the Sahel (the area just south of the Sahara) will get wetter, for example, and a fourth says it will dry out, “there’s a tendency to go with the majority. But we can’t rule out without a whole lot of investigation whether the minority is doing something right. Maybe they have a better representation of rainfall patterns.” Even so, he says, if you have the vast majority coming up with similar results, and you go back to the underlying theory, and it makes physical sense, that tends to give you more confidence they’re right. The best confidence-builder of all, of course, is when a trend projected by models shows up in observations — warmer springs and earlier snowmelt in the Western U.S., for example, which not only makes physical sense in a warming world, but which is clearly happening."
And here's an interesting article on models (the climate kind) and media:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/climate-models-ignored-by-media-except-for-their-critics/
Again, the media? Not so good on the subject.
"The quantity of coverage peaked in 2007... Yet even in 2007, climate models rarely got a mention. Over 4,000 articles (including opinion pieces) about climate change were published that year, but only 100 made reference to climate models."
#67 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 12:08 AM
"If anyone claims any particular outcome, ask them for the data."
By this you mean the principles upon which to make a testable hypothesis?
Or do you mean the observations within a system used to confirm one?
I and the scientific community have provided both, weaksauce.
"If they don't have it, dismiss it.
This is the scientific method."
No, you research it, test it, determine whether the premise of the thought is consistent with observed reality.
Given that, what can be said of the individual who "asks for the data" and, upon receiving it, dismisses it. And when asked on what basis, she replies, "I don't have a basis. I'm clueless. The only thing I believe is that you're a commie, ergo you and what you say is wrong. I have a ouija board that agrees with me."
I wouldn't say that person is using the scientific method. You might say such a person is dismissible.
#68 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 12:50 AM