LOL,Perhaps the truth will come out one day?

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

By Maxim Lott ​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...#ixzz1PYmNneeR

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?​

​

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.
"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).
Taylor calls it tomfoolery.
"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.
Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.
"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."
Taylor agreed.
"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."
In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.
"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.
"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."
But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.
"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.
Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.
"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.
Christy said that would be a welcome change.
"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.
Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.
"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...#ixzz1PYm7eUQL​

__________________

 

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

Be careful what you wish for.

 

When resources become scarce the price moves upward which makes investment in alternatives profitable. Then greed saves the world.....again.

 

I must say, this is terribly disappointing. From a distance the debate looked rather interesting, now up close, it seems rather unoriginal. You'll forgive me if I split your brilliant pros into pieces, I feel it is necessary to do so.

This is a great start to great nonsense. Blind allegiance to anything should scare you. Considering one does not owe blind allegiance, and it is never a forced choice, but a willing choice, then it seems rather silly to choose it at all, even if it be the lesser of two evils, would you not agree?

I suppose that you thought use of the word "clearly" here would carry the day. A daft strategy indeed. However, your conviction on the issue makes it no more believable. I believe we have heard this song before -- and all too often. Any organization that disagrees with you is being paid to do so, the enemy is always corrupt by comparison. Of course just as you know they are being financed by special interests, those on the right will say the same thing about the organizations that disagree with their position. Surely you see the circle, and the problem?

Oh, I'm sure you have your theories as to what shadows are creeping about. I'm not quite sure as to what else you are trying to say though, because you are saying nothing reasonable. Who is trying to undermine science itself? Where are you getting this from? I have yet to hear anyone on either side say that science should be done away with, have you? Is your position really that an argument against global warming is an argument against gravity? You may be stretching things ever so slightly my dear.

By denying what you believe, the other side is seeking to destroy all fact, and further, reality? You give your enemy far too much credit, and your illogical ramblings stink of manufactured fear and paranoia.

Belief in anything unproven is equivalent, this is something that any third rate thinker should know. You continue to use the word "science" as though it were one big tent and one either had to agree with you on global warming or disagree with all science. I assure you, the two are not interdependent, much as you would like them to be.

What I believe in as far as this subject is concerned is what I have already written: the debate of man's effect on the climate is meaningless, so long as we know we pollute the climate, the extent and consequences of our actions are meaningless, we should seek to make it cleaner simply because that is the better of the two options. Forgive me if that is all to reasonable and straightforward for you, I think and act upon logic and first principles, I realize you think in the modern way, waiting for science to give you the details while the devil dances on your dinner table.

Your last comment, well, what's to say? You have just accused someone who supports a strong move towards clean energy as getting his ideas from the right wing-sound machine. How terribly upside down and embarrassing for you. You seem like a smart person, sadly you speak like an elephant cornered by a mouse, and anyone who does not fully agree with you is immediately labeled as a brainwashed menace out to do evil. It is often said that partisanship is a blindfold, and you, it would seem, can no longer even recognize those who stand behind you, and not before you.

 

HINT; George Soros has enough money in his front pocket to convince anyone of anything. Dont you think for one minute that he is not involved in this, it has the potential of being a multi-trillion dollar business.

 

Yep.

And the whole damned country is complicit in the PR campaign. The other day, a "barista" in a Boston Starbucks told me that coffee refills cost less if I take the coffee in a mug than in a paper cup. I asked him why. He said I "share the savings" in terms of one less paper cup used, and one less tree sawn down in the rainforest (most paper is now made from farmed trees, but whatever). I took the mug (indifferently) and laughed in his face. Then I had to explain to him why Starbucks Corporation's latest brainwashing exercise actually costs more in terms of the expenditure of natural resources, by making every participant in the program complicit in a practice that perpetuates a ming-bogglingly wasteful paper recycling initiative. (In short, we would be kinder to the forests and the world if we abandoned paper recycling entirely.) My coffee got cold in the meantime. It cools faster in the goddamned mug than it does in the paper cup, but that's another story. Ironically, the "barista" was holding a big, fat Boston Globe, the entire time, which some other green-conscious idiot had left on the counter after a quick skim. And I had to tell the clueless "barista" that Starbucks Corporation's paper cups are just raindrops in the ocean; that the two biggest contributors to the world's landfills, by an overwhelming percentage, are construction materials and... drum roll... the goddamned newspapers that are telling us to GO GREEN!

WM Corp. (Waste Management) loves the green movement, and so do its shareholders. Extra trucks, double the manpower, double the oil, double the gas, and all to cart out "recyclables" that cost more to reclaim than simply making new paper and glass from raw materials. WM passes the costs right back to local communities, that pass the cost on down to the taxpayers, in terms of tax hikes and/or fees. And we, the People, stand there and take our drubbing happily. Because a multi-billion dollar media/marketing/PR machine has told us that GREEN IS GOOD. Sheesh. We, the People, are fucking chumps. And we deserve exactly what we get.

 

I only have 1 thing to say about this, you and I need to quit going against the grain, follow the rest of the fucking chump sheep, then our coffee wont get cold.

 

Good post.

The problem I have with the AGW hypothesis is that it inspires (and perhaps even demands) the same absolutism that faith requires.

The most fanatical adherents of fundamentalist faiths are incapable of viewing their belief rationally and critically, and couldn't, even if they tried, because they have failed to educate themselves on the foundations of their own beliefs. This is especially true in the United States, where scripture is not studied in public schools. Most Christians have not read the Bible from end to end, or even a majority of it. They attend church and content themselves with the epistles handed down by their ministers. Dogma not only suffices, but is absolute, and instructs the entirety of their belief.

Such people approach "science" similarly, and thus misuse the word egregiously. The vast majority of "believers" in AGW have never read the entirety of the primary data on which the hypothesis is based. (In fact this is now impossible, since the primary data is "gone," whatever that means.) But never mind the primary data... the vast majority have not read the thousand-plus-page summary produced by the IPCC. They have only read politicians' summations of the summary, as delivered by newspapers and television. This ridiculously biased distillation not only suffices, but is absolute, and instructs the entirety of their belief... just like a religion.

That is why I dismiss the AGW hypothesis as nonsense promulgated by the Church of Al Gore.

My opinion is not received by "believers" as skepticism. To the contrary, my dismissal brands me as a denier. If this is the depth to which "science" has devolved, we are ripe for just about any crackpot "theory." Intelligent Design? No, too lame. Too agnostic. Let's go whole-hog, and either believe or deny Creationism. Naw... even Creationism is lame. Too anthropomorphic. Me? I believe it's turtles, all the way down.

 

You guys just have to have your bogey-men, don't you.

 

You have Cheney.

 

I would most definitely agree that if you are allowed to make up your own arguments and attribute wobbly and weak mental capabilities to your opponents then yes its pretty easy to defeat an argument you made up in your own head and has nothing to do with reality.

Because obviously its the global warming/climate change deniers that are clinging to a blind allegiance and are incapable of even considering the more than three decades of scientific study by thousands of scientists all over the world.

But no, I consider it silly in the extreme to even insinuate that being concerned about human caused global warming/Climate change is some fly by night, Johnny come lately theory by some crackpot scientist.

The body of evidence for human caused global warming/climate change spans not only decades of study all over the world but also thousands of scientists in multiple scientific disciplines from climatology through geology.

I think its really irrational, illogical, and actually mentally crippling to go around trying to claim the scientists don't know what they are talking about and are actually conspreireing to pull off a 30 year global hoax.

You're really good at attempting to appear like your saying something when actually you're just going around in circles attacking what Kimiko said but offering absolutely nothing of substance to counter it other than your own hollow criticism. Which is consistent with making up your opponents and their arguments in your own head.

But are you the only one who get's to ask questions? Because I've got a few for you?

How long has the study of global warming been going on?

How many different scientists have studied it in which countries?

How many of the thousands of predictions and data collection has been been found to be wrong?

How many of those predicitons and data collection hjas been supported through the scientific method, repeated experi,ments and peer review of their findings?

Ok fair is fair isn't it? You should be able to answer your own questions shouldn't you?

So who is trying to undermine science itself; the people who accept human caused global warming or the deniers?

But here we are so deep into this lecture of yours and you have not once offered a point of discussion nor defended own. And its your characterization of the arguments and the people making them that are nothing more than your own personal imaginings.

See the fact that vested interests will try to manipulate science and will pay for junk science to cloud the issue is a given because they are the polluters and limiting CO2 emissions will hurt their profits. But they are the opposition not the enemy (stupid to even think in those terms) and there is no need for fear or paranoia because junk science, bought and paid for "scientific" conclusions don't stand up to the same scientific method and peer review that is the essential to scientific progress.

OK let's take your stand here and I get to ask you question. Tell me what scientific facts or theories are proven?

Come on now if we believe you we're the ones being third rate thinkers so it should be no problem at all for you to give us lots of examples of proven science where all scientists are in complete agreement. But if you can't you're obviously just talking out your ass aren't you?

Nope now I can't really go along with this and won't. Its far from meaningless to study our planet, our climate, our atmosphere, our oceans, our ice caps, the geology of earth, and everything else under the sun. And its potentially destructive to ignore what scientists are telling us or to foster even the idea that we can't trust scientists.

Let me illustrate that with a really easy question.

Which is more likely?

That thousands of scientists in multiple scientific disciplines located all over the world have been studying a potential problem for more than 30 years and have formed a consensus that human caused global warming in happening and should be addressed.

Or that for the past 30 years or so thousands of scientists call over the world have been conducting a global fraud and hoax which requires scientists from multiple disciplines to go along with it and yet not once in those 30 years has anyone seeking personal gain and fame hasn't ratted them out.

I could give a shit less about what scientists do when I already know that's not what people do.

The old convict advice just jumps out here and it goes like this:

If you do a job (crime) all alone you will probably get away with it.

But if you do a crime with someone else you're probably going get caught.

And if you pull a crime with more than two other people you're going to get caught because someone always talks.

So I think its a really irrational and illogical for someone to contend the global scientific community is better at fraud and dishonesty than the Mafia.

Again really easy to pull off when you make up your opponent and their arguments in your own head even when they have nothing to do with reality or existence.

Its immaterial to me where you get your information when its wrong and can be proven so. There's no evil, no menace, no 100% certainty, and no enemy on my part.

There is just a great deal of concern over the politicization of science and the number of US citizens easily beguiled and manipulated into protecting the polluters you claim should be dealt with by denying the best definition of reality we have which is science and more importantly the scientific method.

For some reason you remind me more of George W Bush and Exxon/Mobile where they denied the existence of human caused global warming/climate change and even falsified data for eight years and then admit its actually real just before they walk out the door like they never made all the other denials.

 

I'll just leave this here...

March 27, 2010


SGW

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS
THE SUN
------------------------------------------------------------
THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD,
CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW
SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
3/27/10. Cor. 4/17/10.
-​

ABSTRACT

Solar energy as modeled over the last three centuries contains patterns that match the full 160 year instrument record of Earth's surface temperature. Earth's surface temperature throughout the modern record is given by

(1)​

​

where Sn is the increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured as the running percentage rise in the trend at every instance in time, t, for the previous n years. The parameters are best fits with the values m134=18.33ºC/%, m46=-3.68ºC/%, b=13.57(-0.43)ºC, and τ=6 years. The value of b in parenthesis gives T(t) as a temperature anomaly. One standard deviation of the error between the equation and the HadCRUT3 data is 0.11ºC (about one ordinate interval). Values for a good approximation (σ=0.13ºC) with a single solar running trend are m134=17.50ºC/%, m46=0, b=13.55(-0.45)ºC, and τ=10 years.

​

Global average surface temperature with solar formula overlay. The figure is IPCC's AR4 Figure 3.6 from HadCRUT3, with Earth's surface temperature from Equation (1) added in berry color. The new temperature model is a linear combination of two variables. The variables are causal, running trend lines from the solar model of Wang, et al. (2005). IPCC's blue curve is the temperature smoothed by a backward and forward symmetric, non-causal filter.
.

FIGURE 1
.​

All data for this model are primary data preferred by IPCC in its Reports for solar radiation and for Earth's surface temperature. The solar running trends are elementary, backward-looking (realizable) mathematical trend lines as used by IPCC for the current year temperature, but computed every year for the Sun.
.
{Begin rev. 9/21/10} IPCC's smoothed model for Earth's temperature has a noise power of 0.0782 = 0.00614. Compared to the noise power in the original annual data, 0.2392 = 0.0573, smoothing reduces the variance in the temperature data by 89.3%. The noise power in the two-stage estimate from the Sun is 0.110 2 = 0.0120, a variance reduction 79.0%. The Sun provides an estimate of Earth's global average surface temperature within 10% as accurate as IPCC's best effort using temperature measurements themselves. Estimating Earth's temperature from the Sun is to that extent as good as representing Earth's temperature by smoothing actual thermometer readings. Moreover, to the extent that man might be influencing Earth's temperature, the effect would lie within that 10% not taken into account by the models, at most one eighth the effect of the Sun. Any reasonable model for Earth's climate must take variability in solar radiation into account before considering possible human effects. {End rev. 9/21/10}
.
Any variations in the solar radiation model sufficient to affect the short term variability of Earth's climate must be selected and amplified by Earthly processes. This model hypothesizes that cloud albedo produces broadband amplification, using established physical processes. The hypothesis is that while cloud albedo is a powerful, negative feedback to warming in the longer term, it creates a short term, positive feedback to TSI that enables its variations to imprint solar insolation at the surface. A calculation of the linear fit of surface temperature to suitably filtered solar radiation shows the level of amplification necessary to support the model, and isolates the short term positive feedback from the long term negative cloud albedo feedback.
.
This model hypothesis that the natural responses of Earth to solar radiation produce a selecting mechanism. The model exploits evidence that the ocean dominates Earth's surface temperature, as it does the atmospheric CO2 concentration, through a set of delays in the accumulation and release of heat caused by three dimensional ocean currents. The ocean thus behaves like a tapped delay line, a well-known filtering device found in other fields, such as electronics and acoustics, to amplify or suppress source variations at certain intervals on the scale of decades to centuries. A search with running trend lines, which are first-order, finite-time filters, produced a family of representations of TSI as might be favored by Earth's natural responses. One of these, the 134-year running trend line, bore a strong resemblance to the complete record of instrumented surface temperature, the signal called S134.
.
Because the fingerprint of solar radiation appears on Earth's surface temperature, that temperature cannot reasonably bear the fingerprint of human activity. IPCC claims that human fingerprint exists by several methods. These include its hockey stick pattern, in which temperature and gas concentrations behave benignly until the onset of the industrial revolution or later, and rise in concert. IPCC claims include that the pattern of atmospheric oxygen depletion corresponds to the burning of fossil fuels in air, and that the pattern of isotopic lightening in atmospheric CO2 corresponds to the increase in CO2 attributed to human activities. This paper shows that each of IPCC's alleged imprints due to human activities is in error.
.
The extremely good and simple match of filtered TSI to Earth's complex temperature record tends to validate the model. The cause of global warming is in hand. Conversely, the fact that Earth's temperature pattern appears in solar radiation invalidates Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
.

Continue reading "SGW" »


Posted on March 27, 2010 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBacks (0)

March 31, 2009

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT
TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

------------------------------------------------------------​

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD


Revised 9/30/09.

-

.
Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.
.
To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.
On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth’s climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.
.

Continue reading "IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS" »


Posted on March 31, 2009 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBacks (0)
.

July 6, 2007

SOLAR WIND

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE
THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT
OF EL NIÑO

THE CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE
MISTAKENLY ATTRIBUTES SOLAR WIND WARMING
TO MANMADE CARBON DIOXIDE

------------------------------------------------------------​

SOLAR WIND, EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION,
& GLOBAL TEMPERATURE:
EVENTS & CORRELATIONS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Revised 7/10/07

-

ABSTRACT

.
Classical and advanced signal analysis techniques applied to the climate data of global temperature, solar wind, and El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) reveal new events and correlations in graphical form. The results include:
.
1. Major state changes appear in the global temperature record around 1934.4 and 1979.5.
.
2. A major state change occurred in the solar wind index around 1937 to 1939, and a secondary state change occurred in the 1970s.
.
3. Major state changes occurred in the Southern Oscillation Index beginning about 1919.3 and 1979.4. A large state change occurred during the brief period of 1940.2 to 1942.0.
.
4. The state changes are real in the records, but may be due either to data acquisition artifacts or to real physical phenomena.
.
5. The Southern Oscillation Index has a weak cyclic behavior with a period of 3.38 years.
.
6. Global temperature lags the Southern Oscillation Index by about 5 months.
.
7. The global temperature record appears to suffer from excessive processing.
.
8. High correlations found by other investigators may be the result of prior data smoothing.
.
9. The low level of correlation between temperature and other parameters may be due to excessive noise, equivalently due to low signal to noise ratio. More importantly, it may be due to the closed loop gain of a mechanism in the climate, unknown to the Consensus on Climate, that regulates global surface temperature.
.
10. Global temperature is weakly correlated with ENSO. The SOI could account for 4.6% of the measured variation in global temperature.
.
11. Global temperature and the solar wind index are correlated. The solar wind index may contribute as much as 8.9% of the processed global temperature variations.
.
12. Global temperature lags the solar wind index by about two to five years.
.
13. ENSO and the Southern Oscillation affect the global surface temperature. The reverse, that temperature might affect either, is not true.
.
ENSO may, as the Consensus says, devastate, but it has only half the capacity of the solar wind to warm the planet. By omitting the solar wind, the Consensus underestimates the natural causes of global warming, simultaneously overestimating the anthropogenic sources by the equivalent of two ENSOs, assigning the error to carbon dioxide emissions.

Continue reading "SOLAR WIND" »
.


Posted on July 6, 2007 6:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

June 11, 2007

CO2: "WHY ME?"


ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD


Revised 3/14/10.

-

Myles Goodman at Drexel posted the following question as a comment to the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide:
You posit that CO2 does NOT accumulate in the atmosphere. How do you explain atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increasing over the last 100 years?
.

The Acquittal shows that carbon dioxide did not accumulate in the atmosphere during the paleo era of the Vostok ice cores. If it had, the fit of the complement of the solubility curve might have been improved by the addition of a constant. It was not. And because the CO2 presumably still follows the complement of the solubility curve, it should be increasing during the modern era of global warming in recovery from Earth's various ice epochs. These conclusions find support in a number of points in the IPCC reports.
.

So the answer to the post begins with supporting background on why CO2 is known not to accumulate in the atmosphere, and then goes on to other aspects of the model that global warming causes increases in CO2, which accounts for the last 100 years or so.

Continue reading "CO2: "WHY ME?"" »


Posted on June 11, 2007 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

November 9, 2006

Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2

GAVIN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Revised 3/18/10.
-
.​

Gavin A. Schmidt is a well-placed leader of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement. He is a climate modeler at NASA. While London trained as a mathematician, he was an NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in “Climate and Global Change Research”. He is an editor for the Journal of Climate. He is the principal of an authoritative blog called RealClimate.org.
As he has admitted and has been shown to be true, he usually doesn’t respond to outside criticism. E.g., re newspapers see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/. However, he deigned to answer The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. See the discussion of the Acquittal at website for CrossFit, Comment #48, 10/31/06, www.crossfit.com.
.
This is what he has to say:
“[Response: That's pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, nor the implications of the Vostok record, nor the concept of positive feedback. We've discussed each of these issues before, and I would refer you there. - gavin] {Begin rev. 6/2/10} Realclimate.org, 10/31/06, http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/ {End rev. 6/2/10}
“Dec 2004. What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
.
“22 Dec 2004. How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
“5 Jul 2006. Runaway tipping points of no return. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/Gavin Schmidt on Physics”


RSJ dissects Dr. Schmidt's reply categorically.
.


Continue reading "Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2" »


Posted on November 9, 2006 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)

October 24, 2006

CO2 ACQUITTAL

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Revised 11/16/09.
-​

ABSTRACT

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
.

 

OK you're half way there Clarise. You've presented one scientist. But according to the scientific method his methods and mathematics must be repeatable and undergo peer review. So now all you have to do is show me where the peer reviews are and where there are other scientists that agree with him.

Otherwise I think what you've really got there is one of the most famous global warming deniers who has already been discredited.

But I could be wrong. For starters what Scientific Journal were these papers published in?

 

Typical liberal reply.

 

Indeed, this is the case. Though there is one striking difference and that is that faith in a certain theory of science does not seem to have the built in humility that usually accompanies faith of any kind; thus it reaches a new level of fanaticism. While a person of faith will usually admit that they do base their belief on faith, on choosing one religious theory over another; a person of scientific faith who chooses one scientific theory over another will not admit to any subjectivity, but will instead claim absolute truth without faith and paint everyone on the opposing side as corrupt and complicit liars. I find it at once ironic that the so called "secularist" should be the most fanatical in his or her world view, but also strangely predictable.

It is good to find a fellow turtilian.

 

See this just shows how you progressives work it is an all or nothing with you morons. You are open to opionions as long as they agree with you, well sorry that is not going to work anymore. And you see that with the problems you progressives are having trying to get people to believe in this crap when we all know it is the cycle of the earth.

george soros does fund plenty of crap that includes global warming shit.

And I have often said with the amount of people that believe or disbelieve, the scientists should get together (both sides) then work up how they should investigate this then precede to gather information.

Or are you progressives even against doing that??

But I know I for one and many others are sick and tired of you fuck heads saying this is it and there is no discussion on the matter. So then the minority governs the majority and that is not how it is to work.


I remember years ago (with this global warming shit) people started looking into where and how they were getting their temp readings, one had the sensor within 3 feet of a condensing unit there was one that was getting some heat from the pavement. See all the numbers are faked. They proved that with the un (useless nations) climate change ass wipes when they REFUSED to release the basic readings and formula's of how they got their numbers.

LINK::: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5722-as-conference-begins-climate-data-scandal-grows


So yea like I am (and many others) are really going to believe in this scam to separate us from OUR money.

 

Mike Mann et. al. (colleages at IPCC, Anglia, U. Penn. and elsewhere) actively conspired to stifle contrarian rebuttals in peer reviewed journals. The evidence is overwhelming, and that was when any pretensions to the scientific method were abandoned.

Stumbler is asking for corroboration to Glassman's thesis that the sun warms the earth. (What a world-shaking revelation!) Ample corroboration is out there. Let him find it. In fact it is beside the point, and I refuse to be sidetracked by squabbling over the validity of the AGW hypothesis.

The main point, the only point relevant to me, is that the U.N. and seditious Democratic congressmen/congresswomen are conspiring to tax the American public, to cripple domestic industry, and to set technological progress back by decades, and yet, even if they were 100% correct, and if the AGW hypothesis were fully validated, and mankind were responsible for the preponderance of global warming, they have no idea how to utilize the revenues to fix it, and can't tell us how long it will take, and can't tell us how much it will cost. Therefore, these so-called "remedies" are purely punitive.

It is not science. It is politics of the worst kind. It is fundraising, plain and simple. And the saddest part of it is that it destroys the credibility of the U.S. National Academy of Science, which has been forced under duress to endorse it, and thereby undermines scientific endeavor generally.

If this malicious subversion of science were an isolated case, I would just chalk it up as misguided idiocy. But look at how the Obama administration is negotiating the sale of strategic military secrets to the Russian Federation; and how we nearly allowed China to "acquire" tool and die sets for the Abrams M1 battle tank with the GM restructuring (before Republican senators cried foul); and how the Alaskan pipeline might have to be shut down by next spring, because it is underutilized and oil companies are abandoning exploratory drilling, due to the necessity of upwards of thirty five permits just to drill on land that they already own; and how we have abandoned manned space flight by mothballing the Space Shuttle with no reusable orbtial vehicle to replace it.

The AGW fiasco is not an isolated case. Nor is it part of some master plan, to return the United States to the dark ages. I don't give the admirable black boy that much credit. This is not an aspect of some evil plot. It is just the flailing, random, error-prone, misguided policy of a complete and utter IDIOT.

And guest what, ladies and germs? We've got him until 2016. Because Romney will beat him when hell freezes over, and no one better than Romney is coming up to bat.

I live near the coast. I guess I'll have to sit tight and watch the oceans rise. Don't worry about me, though. I've got my rubbers on standby.

 

Got some linkage for those stories?

Fuck the oil companies. "US" companies drilling makes no difference whatsoever to what we pay in the US in any event. It doesn't work that way.

As far as space travel, its a crying shame, but nobody wants to pay for it nowadays.

 

Yep. There was a big story on this in the Wall St. Journal in 2010, when the IPCC report was being blasted for including the testimony of "scientific experts" who were actually marketing staff for the World Wildlife Federation. It was awhile back, and I do not recall specifics, but I do recall that the longitudinal study on which IPCC warming data were based included more than 400 detectors in the 49 contiguous United States. Inspectors found detectors within twenty feet of air conditioning outflow vents; detectors in the vicinity of 55 gallon drums that were used to burn garbage; detectors that had been broken for years but had somehow been submitting data consistently. In California, there were two detectors twenty miles apart. One detector reported that California was cooling, and the other detector reported that California was warming.

All funny stuff. Hilarious stuff.

But here's the punchline: the most prestigious scientific/engineering society in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences, has been strong-armed into endorsing the IPCC report and exonerating all the fraud. How, you ask? Simple. The N.A.S. would not last a year without federal funding.