STUPID LEFTIST LOONY DEMOCRATS: PAY ATTENTION -- THIS IS GOVERNMENT TORTURE! WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE? WHERE ARE THE PROTEST MARCHES? IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOUR HERO, TED KENNEDY?
Is Jesse Jackson fronting for his "homeboy" criminals by disarming law-abiding citizens and leaving them to the mercy of roving violent gangs?

A personal reply to TN WALTZ: YOUR BASIC FACTS ON GLOBAL WARMING ARE NOT FACTS and I still think Al Gore is a hypocritical bozo.

In response to my previous blog entry, "Loony Liberal Leftist Global Warming Fanatics: Cow Farts & Moose Burps Endanger the Planet," TN Waltz wrote:

"Here are basic facts about global warming:

- atmospheric CO2 level (at 380 ppmv) is 35% higher than it has been over the 650K (and longer) year period preceding the 20th century when it varied between 180 and 300 ppmv.

- earth has warmed about 0.7(C) = 1.25(F) since 1976. This is Modern global warming.

- the oceans are showing signs of being saturated with the CO2 they can naturally absorb."

First, these are not facts -- they are observational findings which are subject to errors in methodology as well as any internal systemic errors.

As an observation, the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in various parts of the country are interesting -- but no conclusion can be drawn from these readings other than the CO2 level fluctuates in nature.

While there are problems with historic global terrestrial temperature measurements, you very rarely find anyone willing to discuss the current satellite temperature data which differs from those of ground based measurements and may be more accurate and global than similar terrestrial findings.

To claim this phenomenon is modern global warming is a stretch. Modern is defined as what? Yes, there is some evidence of an upward trend in temperature measurements, but who among you can state, with some degree of certainty, that this is not a naturally occurring long-term cycle with periodic regression to some unknown mean value.   

As for the saturation of oceans with CO2, one must realize that there is a relationship ,which is more or less constant, between the atmospheric CO2 and the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Due to vapor pressures, this is somewhat of a self-correcting feedback loop which varies according to local conditions.

Waltz goes on to say...

"- if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, the earth would be about 30(C) (54(F)) colder.

And, CO2 is the driver of the effect, whereas water vapor is an amplifying follower for our climate (on Venus, CO2 is pretty much the sole driver of the GHG effect). Therefore GHG effect  is very much real.

We're making it go beyond it's natural cycles seen over that last one million years, and hence we're placing the earth "off design", and from some of the fallout we're witnessing (Arctic sea ice melting out rapidly, to name a recent one), potential putting the system human being need to survive, in peril."

There is no dispute that greenhouse gases help trap heat and many observations and experiments have been used to define the phenomenon. The value for the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere is easy to calculate. Simply add the temperature coefficient derived from solar output less the amount of heat re-radiated into space from all non-black surfaces. The number, if you care, is -17 degrees Celsius or about +1.4 degree Fahrenheit.  For those so inclined, look at the work of Physicist John Tyndall in 1872.

However, depending on what studies you are following, the greatest GHG effect is linked to water vapor. The role of CO2 as a driver is highly disputed and from some studies, CO2 production seems to lag the rise in temperature by about 600 years. Again, nobody is disputing the GHG effect -- what is being disputed is the CO2 contribution. The relative GHG contributions of water vapor to those of CO2 is approximately ten-to-one, making CO2 a minor greenhouse gas. Consider the following statement carefully: if an increment in CO2 warms the earth by some measure, then the vapor pressure of water over the oceans also increases slightly. This is the variable that is so hard to quantify and which gives computerized climate simulation models their forecast variability. Which is why cloud formation, the visible manifestation of water vapor, is so vexing to climatologists... and mathematical computer models. 

The thought that we are pushing nature's cycles is ludicrous. First, nobody really knows or understands the parameters of these cycles. Second, the notion that man is placing the earth "off design" as if there were some grand scheme of things is not exactly a scientific finding. It should be filed under "philosophy" or even "wishful thinking." The local phenomenon that deals with arctic ice cycles cannot be used to provide a causal link to anything other than time, temperature, cloud cover and, possibly, barometric pressure. The thought that man could stop the arctic ice from melting is about as insane as thinking man can prevent the earth's tectonic plates from shifting.

Perhaps if all the loonies on the left jumped at a certain point, a change could be observed. Would that justify legislation to make sure that the loonies traveled to the right spot at the right time under the threat of criminal penalties and that taxation be increased to pay for the travel of those who are economically unable to afford a trip to that mythical right spot at the right time?

Now about the IPCC (formally, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) where approximately one-third of the publication's authors are working climate scientists with the remainder being mainly political functionaries.   

The IPCC uses a number of scenarios which they refer to as storylines -- and quite rightly as they are all presented together without any probability estimate of their findings being true or coming to fruition. Some of the more bizarre scenarios (known as outliers) are  the cause for some of the more wild and wooly global warming claims that are circulating in the media. Even this politically over-weighted panel recognizes that some of Al Gore's Global Warming consequences are the pure fiction of a wannabe president.

However, the greatest flaw in these scenario models is that they all assume that the change in greenhouse gases is an exponential function over that of a more modest linear change function. This is said to arise from the UN estimate of an "exponential" population growth and the assumption that these people would want to live an energy-intensive lifestyle. In 1980, the UN projected an earthly population of 15 billion lives by 2050 -- an increase of approximately 9-billion lives from today's current estimate of our population. However, recent demographic work has led to the revision of this projection to 9-billion lives or 3-billion more than exists today. This single item results in an overstatement of the projected population increase by approximately 67 percent. Or stated differently, the amount of greenhouse gases produced by this somewhat fictional energy-intensive lifestyle should be reduced by two-thirds to remain realistic. Do you see this reflected in current modeling? Of course not; as it would introduce doubt into what one assumes is a UN political calculation rather than a scientific one.

And Waltz concludes ...

"Please explore the IPCC 2007 Report and  a popular science level presentation titled "How We Know Humans Cause Global Warming" (both links below) to learn more about what's been happening to the climate. Thank you.
Links:

1. IPCC Report: http://tinyurl.com/2rxena
2. Popular science article: http://tinyurl.com/2g48hb"

Waltz ends the contribution with links to the IPCC's latest report and a Popular Science article. I like Popular Science magazine and have for many years since I read it religiously along with Popular Mechanics and Popular Electronics. However, it is not a peer-reviewed publication and the mathematical nuances and rigorous treatment of the subject matter is often lacking in favor of making the subject understandable to non-scientists. And they are only reporting the current thinking of selected scientists. The magazine does not vouch for the veracity of those quoted or the validity of their findings. Articles are meant to be informative, entertaining and to make YOU, the reader, think.

While I sincerely appreciate the time and effort Waltz has given to the subject of Global Warming and flattered that they read my blog, I am afraid my conclusions must remain the same: we just do not know enough about the earth's climatological functioning to upset the political and economic balance of the United States on a "what if" premise. More study is indicated.

What can YOU do?

View any prognostications about global warming by politicians as a "political ploy" to enhance their personal power, prestige and profits as well as to further subjugate the people to their "learned" will.

Al Gore, and those of his ilk, are modern-day snake oil salesmen. They do not even understand the science that they claim is driving their zealot-like actions. Gore's play is to promote the imposition of political carbon caps  and then personally profit on the trading of carbon offset credits much in the same manner that Enron traded in energy... with the same venal "gamesmanship" which screwed the public out of their hard-earned money.

If you are interested in reading a single book on the subject, may I recommend Patrick J. Michaels' Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media. (ISBN 1-930865-59-7). Don't be put off by the Energy Balance equation which opens the book. No formal mathematics training is required to read this knowledgeable and entertaining (at least for those with a scientific bent) work. 

For those wishing to see an excellent video on the subject, may I suggest www.Youtube.com's 8-part download of "Great Global Warming Swindle" produced by ABC Australia.  Note the number of angry attempts to dilute the name in search engines or asking you to eliminate the presentation.

For those who are prone to joining cults or suffer from a "cult" addictions, please be advised that global warming is not a religion and that you are not saving the world. Becoming a global warming fanatic will not make you better-looking, smarter, more attractive to the opposite sex (or same sex if you are so inclined) or a better person. However, it will fill-up your time with meetings, marches and promoting someone else's political agenda. 

Remember that common sense should prevail. We are not dealing with a global catastrophe or emergency as this is just the method that these power-hungry politicians use to get media attention and promote their position. In fact, the true answers to this phenomenon may never be known in your lifetime or even that of your great-great-great grandchildren. 

Since each additional scientific study increases the uncertainty of  understanding any underlying global climate science, the only rational conclusion that can be drawn at this point in time, is that more study is needed, not more legislation and taxation.

Take a scientist to lunch.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Comments