To "silo" and tell us how Roy Spencer is any different from Michael Mann
or any of the AGW alarmists?To "airnaut" read the studies.
The scientists themselves don't fully understand the process, they only
know that once dry wells have refilled with oil and are productive again.
@Noodlekaboodle, let's not confuse carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide.
What a difference one atom makes...
Twin LightsLouisville, KYMy mistake. I addressed my comments
to Mike Richards. I should have said Redshirt. My apologies.3:17 p.m. May
16, 2013======== No problem, happens all the time.BTW - We didn't even START to get RedShirt to explain his fossil
fuel denialism, and explain to all us Scientifically ignorant college educated
folks how fossil fuel itself is a hoax and a farce, and that the earth is
actually [secretly] creating oil FASTER than we could possible ever burn it.
@redshirt I'll make this simple. There is one
"scientist" that has become the sweetheart of the climate science
deniers. His name is Roy Spencer. He wrote the flawed study that you cling to
as doctrine. The same study that was published in ONE peer reviewed journal.
Not a climate science journal, but the 'Remote Sensing Journal'. That
should say something itself, but any further research by you would show how
soundly Spencer's study has been gutted.I'll conclude my
last post with this. The study was so flawed that the editor of the
'Remote Sensing Journal' resigned his position for having posted it.
See below:"In other words, the problem I see with the paper by
Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later
unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially
ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed
in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally
flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought
me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief..." Wolfgang Wagner
Tyler D and Pops,I recall doctors and PHDs who worked for the
Tobacco Institute telling us (well past when the science was going against them)
that there was no positive link between lung cancer and smoking and that any
correlation was not the same as causation.Right.Check
the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. They appear to have some pretty
good data.Remember, for something as large as the planet, trends
will be in decades rather than months or even a year.
"If you think CO2 is a toxin, check out E.R. treatment for hyperventilation:
breathing with head in paper bag to increase CO2 concentration!"Well
Dr. Greer, if you think C02 isn't a toxin why don't you go to your
garage, leave the doors closed and run the car for an hour. Oh wait, that would
@Pops – “I have yet to see any credible scientist provide proof that
AGW is real.”Have you truly engaged in an honest inquiry (and
have you read Dr. Brin’s essay)? My understanding is there is more to the
theory than simply a constant and linear rise in temperature.Also,
how do you define proof? Are you looking for the same type of proof required to
demonstrate that 1+1=2? If so, you won’t find it, and by the way that
would be a standard of proof that no science can meet. As I said,
the preponderance of evidence appears to be quite high, and I think the CO2
issue says more about what we still have to learn (and refine in the models)
that it does about the basic hypothesis.But I will admit, in the end
AGW could turn out to be false and if it does (the gloating we will see on the
Right notwithstanding) I will be as happy as anyone…
To "silo" and you still refuse to read the articles and look at their
reference material.Why do you want to remain in ignorance?Since you refuse to go to the source without it being listed here. Read
"On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in
Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" as it appeared in the Remote Sensing
Journal. The study states "It is concluded that atmospheric feedback
diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, dueprimarily
to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback
in satellite radiative budget observations."In other words, the
climate models don't know how to handle the sun correctly in their
@Tyler:I have yet to see any credible scientist provide proof that
AGW is real. Nobody has correlated atmospheric CO2 with global temperature,
apparently because there is not a detectable correlation. A climate factor that
weak is not worth getting worked up about.
For any who are interested, David Brin’s article “Climate Skeptics
v. Climate Deniers” is quite good. It will be quite clear after reading it
who is a skeptic and who is a denier (Hint: I can count on one hand the number
of honest skeptics on the DN forum – it would take the hands of many to
count all the deniers).And for those who keep retreading the same
apparently “knock-out” arguments proving AGW is a hoax, do you
really think the thousands of scientists studying this have not already thought
of (and in most cases thoroughly accounted for or refuted) your “brilliant
insight(s)?”While the climate models may not be perfect and
learning will continue, I have yet to hear a significant number of credible
scientists suggest that the evidence for AGW has declined in any way that would
seriously call into question the hypothesis.
@redshirt "All you are doing is showing that the climate change alarmists
not only refuse to accept information..."Actually, what I am
doing is pointing out how your credibility is shot because you're not
interested in relaying facts...just exaggerations. You falsely
attributed a study to NASA, either by deception or by ignorance.You
falsely attributed a study to Forbes, either by deception or by ignorance.@redshirt "What is the difference between a well researched opinion
piece and a research paper anyway?"If you felt the opinion piece
and paper were so well researched, why did you choose to falsely attribute them
to NASA and Forbes, rather than the actual authors.As I said
previously, you found a single resource that supported your opinions,
embellished it, and proclaimed it the truth. Thank goodness you and real
scientific method will never meet.
To "silo" did you even notice or look at the link to the original study?
What is the difference between a well researched opinion piece and a research
paper anyway? If a person is able to provide sources and evidence, why
shouldn't it be a legitimate source of information?I do notice
that you cannot refute the actual data and information, you continue to attack
the source of the data.All you are doing is showing that the climate
change alarmists not only refuse to accept information that disproves manmade
climate change, but that you will attack any source that goes against your
orthodoxy.Once you read the NASA study, and the research presented,
come back so we can discuss this further.
@Allisdair,The planet has, in fact, "greened" as a result of
higher atmospheric CO2. Crop yields are up. We can feed more people as a
result.The real heart of the issue is that it simply isn't
possible to correlate atmospheric CO2 to global temperature, to storms, to
droughts, or to anything else. I would guess that 100% of climate researchers
believe that atmospheric CO2 has some impact on the climate. The question is
whether the impact is significant or trivial. Because it can't be
mathematically correlated to anything measurable, then it most likely isn't
significant. It certainly isn't worth reordering the economic structure of
the entire world "just in case". Science is about measurement and
verification, not the kind of alarmism we've seen over the last 30 years.
Climate science was corrupted when it crossed into the political domain and
started attracting Big Money and proponents of Big Government.At 400
ppm, there really isn't much more that CO2 can theoretically do because of
the diminishing effect it has. And we're at the peak of the most recent
temperature cycle. It's over, even if there are stragglers who won't
@Mountanman“Photosynthesis people! If we didn't have adequate
supplies of C02 in the atmosphere, there would be no life on planet earth! In
fact, the rate of photosynthesis increases commensurately with higher
concentrations of C02 which is a good thing because it allows more food
production!”It is misleading to not say that Photosynthesis
also depends on water being available and I am certain that you have read about
the droughts occurring around the world. Climate change is causing rain
patterns to change. It would be interesting to know the age of the
regular contributors to these verbose matches. I am concerned that I leave
Heavenly Father’s Earth without regardlessly polluting it. At 60 the
projected climate change over the next 30 years will not cause me much harm 8
inches of sea level change, 0.5 degrees increase in temp. However we were given
a world to care for as, Will Allen Dromgoole penned in “The Bridge
Builder” What will your legacy be?So let’s get off our
political bandstands and look at the science not the hype of the commentators.
@RedshirtFirst you cite an opinion piece in Forbes as the basis for
your argument. You follow that by citing an opinion piece on a blog in support
of your argument. In both cases, the opinion pieces reference a debunked paper
by none other than Roy Spencer, one of the few climate science deniers out of
literally thousands of climate scientists. You couldn't cherry pick data
any more selectively if you tried.Beyond that, you use the claim
"..findings that Forbes reports." This is a lie. Forbes performed no
study, produced no findings, nor reported on anything...they published an
opinion editorial. To claim Forbes supports your argument is dishonest. As stated in my first post, you claimed "NASA even found a HUGE hole
in the climate change models". This is also a lie. NASA simply published
data. Roy Spencer consumed a boundary set of that data and published a study
about that boundary set, arguing there was a hole in the model. The scientific
community has since gutted his study. You are free to believe what
you wish, but when you exaggerate, and misrepresent opinions as facts, expect to
get called on it.
@silo - anybody who has compared the output of the climate models with empirical
data knows that the models don't match reality.@Blue - it is
cherry picking to ignore two previous periods in the last 150 years with the
same rate and duration of warming. It is cherry picking to ignore the fact that
the Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than it is today. It is cherry
picking to pretend the Little Ice Age didn't happen. It is cherry picking
to ignore the work of Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Roy Spencer,
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., Dr. Judith Curry, and many other prominent climate
researchers who disagree with the assertion of catastrophic human-caused
warming.(I made an error in my previous comment - the most recent
increase in temperature, spanning about 20 years through the 1980s and 1990s, is
equal in rate and duration to two previous increases in the past 150 years, for
a total of three warming episodes. This is consistent with the approximately 60
year cycle that has been observed in the climate - two full cycles plus one
additional half cycle.)
The IPPC panel says the gw rate of increase, flat-lined. This does not say it
has not been warming it indicates the models that show CO2 increases would
increase the rate of warming are not showing this. The statement also says it
takes 30 t0 40 years to be indicative of climate change up or down. Meaning a
warm decade does not make climate change. This information did not originate in
denial websites. It comes from reading supporting websites. Note that
from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year –
which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year,
as reported by the University of Colorado. Sea levels have been rising for the
last 20,000 years.But get down to real issues, on a planet with
fluctuating climates between cold and hot, Just tell us where the correct
temperature is supposed to be locked in, and why? And if you ignore, Darwin,
Evolution, survival of the fittest, and adaptation, or the millions of extinct
species, then you are in denial of the reality of the earth.
To "silo" actually I did read it, and they summarize the findings quite
nicely. The findings that Forbes reports on are the same thing that the
Climatologists have been saying causes problems with their models. The
climatologists have said that they cannot account for all of the energy coming
into and leaving the atmosphere. If you don't like the Forbes article,
read "Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming
Models" at DailyTech. They were kind enough to include a link to the
original article for you to read and understand that the climate models that
your ilk believes in are wrong.To "Blue" any data used
before 1978 should be used with skepticism. It has only been since 1978 that we
have had capabilities to get global measurements. Prior to that we had
thermometers placed at very uneven intervals around the globe, with nothing at
the poles and few in places like Africa or South America, giving us an
incomplete picture. However, if you look at what the satellite data is showing,
the researchers say that we are still 1960 years away from having enough data to
know what is natural and what is manmade.
The 2000s were .2F warmer globally than the 1990s. The Earth is warming. The
reason for the flat line the past 15 years is because it cherrypicks 1998 as the
starting value (strongest El Nino in half a century, El Ninos tend to be warmer
than average) and ends with La Ninas 4 of the past 5 years (La Ninas tend to be
cooler than average). Natural cycles still exist and one would have expected,
based on ENSO and solar cycles that the trend the last 15 years would actually
have been downward, so the fact that it's basically flat the past 15 years
is actually not surprising. The fact that the 15 warmest years in the modern
record are the most recent 15 years, despite that including years with solar
minima AND a La Nina (both negative natural influences) suggests that things are
not cooling down.
My mistake. I addressed my comments to Mike Richards. I should have said
Redshirt. My apologies.
"Even the IPPC (sic) says gw increase flatlined for the past twenty
years..."The claim that there's been no warming in the last
20 years is mendacious cherry-picking and blatant, intentional misrepresentation
of data. Here's a fact that you can't cherry-pick for
climate change denial: Of the warmest 14 years recorded since global temperature
data have been gathered, 12 of those years have been since 2000. And try this -
Google "warmest decade" and see what you find.Yes, the
relationship between CO2 and temperature is complex, but the idea that there has
been no cause-effect relationship between rapidly escalating levels of
atmospheric CO2 and greenhouse warming is beyond ludicrous. Pay
attention to the actual science journals instead of denialist websites, OK?
@Redshirt - "NASA even found a HUGE hole in the climate change
models."Your credibility is now less than zero. It's not
enough that you cite a Forbes Op/Ed as your support, but you cite an op/ed
written by a lawyer from the Heartland Institute and then embellish that further
by claiming that 'NASA..found a HUGE hole'. That claim is patently
untrue.Either you didn't read the article you cited and the
study it was based upon, or you read them and intentionally resorted to
hyperbole to make some point. Either way, you are dishonest in your tactics,
and other readers deserve to know that.
Earth is warming, and far faster than any time in human history. (But not earth
history) The Sun isn't the source, that is a bit myopic considering this
has not ever been ruled out). Human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 through
combustion of fossil fuels is directly traceable as the cause of this warming(no
it is not, current increased levels of CO2 have not translated to the same in
global warming). This is in fact settled science,(far from settled. Prior to
the fifties scientists were saying such changes were not possible, by the
seventies they were coming around to the possibility of faster changes, and now
we are finding the models of the 2000's were wrong, by actual observations.
Even the IPPC says gw increase flatlined for the past twenty years, yet CO2
poured into the atmosphere has increased each year).
Mike Richards,Please read the articles you cite. I couldn’t
find the one on Saturn. Here are quotes from the rest:Triton:
“The large Neptunian satellite Triton is a geologically active body that
apparently undergoes complex seasonal changes in its 165 year journey around the
sun. Because it is the vehicle for the seasonal transport of volatiles,
Triton's atmosphere is expected to undergo large changes in temperature and
pressure on a time scale of decades.”Pluto: “we know the
sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.
Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and
its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both
factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes”Mars:
“a wind-whipped, dusty surface has a measurable effect on the amount of
sunlight that is reflected by the planet. The results of this research show that
an increase in darkened surface areas may account for a one degree Fahrenheit
rise in the surface air temperature of the planet.”
@Blue ("Earth is warming, and far faster than any time in human
history.")The earth is not, in fact, warming faster than any
time in human history. It hasn't experienced statistically significant
warming for almost 20 years. The rapid warming prior to the current peak was
essentially the same rate and duration that has occurred twice in the last 150
years - it was not unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination.Despite the huge amounts of time, money, and effort spent trying to link
warming to atmospheric CO2, nobody has yet successfully established a
correlation in the empirical data. The only reasonable conclusion is that the
influence of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is too small to worry about.
To "Blue" says NASA and other astronomical observers.Here
are the names of some articles from NASA and MIT. "A Gloomy
Mars Warms Up" states that "a slight change in the planet’s
surface luster has caused its temperature to rise." What is causing the
change? Are our probes polluting the martian atmosphere?"Jupiter's Three Red Spots" there we find that
"Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large
scale climate change""Pluto's White, Dark-Orange and
Charcoal-Black Terrain Captured by NASA's Hubble""Pluto
is undergoing global warming, researchers find" from MIT"Triton Blushes: A Clue to Global Warming?" NASA scientists
don't have any explanation for why Triton is warming.Are you
saying that you know more than NASA and MIT researchers?To
"Hemlock" those who claim that CO2 is the driver for climate change are
just like those who used a consensus to determine that the earth was flat and at
the center of the universe.
Anyone denying the retreat of glaciers, rising ocean levels, warmer oceans
leading to erratic and severe weather, changing migration patterns of animals
due to warming and record high atmospheric C02 is not dealing with reality. One
can debate the anthropogenic contribution or the response of nature, but not the
current effect. Just as those who vilify immunizations are doomed to suffer
communicable diseases and endanger the rest of the community, those who refuse
to recognize climate change are following the same course.
"or you could look at Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and the moon Triton. Those
bodies are experiencing global warming too."Says who?Solar output is actually down slightly. Changes in observed "climate"
on other planets has to also take into consideration these planets'
elliptical orbits (in the case of Mars and Pluto, wildly more elliptical) and
the difficulty of making observations of global average temperatures on these
worlds.Earth is warming, and far faster than any time in human
history. The Sun isn't the source. Human-caused increases in atmospheric
CO2 through combustion of fossil fuels is directly traceable as the cause of
this warming. Despite what your AM radio bloviators are telling you, this is in
fact settled science.
CO2 must be over 20,000 ppm for most people to be affected by those levels.
Irony Guy that's 50 times what it is today. Generally to be lethal it
needs to be 50,000 ppm or greater. A room only filled with CO2 would be at
1,000,000 ppm. Current levels of CO2 are at .04 of one percent of our
atmosphere. That's like 400 dollars out of 1,000,000 million dollars.Your home levels on any day may be as high as 1,000 to 1,500 ppm
indoors.Excessive oxygen in the body is also toxic, and treated by
the introduction of higher levels of CO2.The good doctor's
patients might want to take into account his level of scientific understanding
which appears to be greater than the level of your understanding. Notice in
arguments against Dr. Greer facts simply disappear.
Re: Redshirt"How is it possible for CO2 generated on Earth to
warm those bodies too, unless CO2 is not the driver?"So now
there's only one agent cause for stomach aches, fevers, and inflammation?
Someone needs to take a basic science course again, or you know, think before
writing. I don't know what sources have fed the doctor the
false information he's received about those who are concerned about climate
change. I do know I will never seek his services and will be sure my family and
friends avoid him as well. Clearly, his scientific understanding is suspect.
To "embarrassed Utahn!" or you could look at Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and
the moon Triton. Those bodies are experiencing global warming too. How is it
possible for CO2 generated on Earth to warm those bodies too, unless CO2 is not
the driver?Better yet, give us a climate model that is accurate.
NASA even found a HUGE hole in the climate change models. Read "New NASA
Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" in Forbes. Why trust the
output of a faulty model? Would you drive a car or fly in an airplane that that
modeled incorrectly and had huge flaws? Why trust faulty climate models?
Despite Dr. Greer's assertion, excessive carbon dioxide is indeed toxic, as
is any other substance in excess (e.g., water is good for you unless it's
in your lungs). A room containing only CO2 would be somewhat hazardous to your
health. The good doctor's patients might want to take into account his
level of scientific understanding.
CO2 isn't a toxin. No one said it was, at least anyone who knows anything
about climate change.
I would expect more compelling arguments and fewer straw men and red herrings
from a trained professional.First of all, no one is arguing that
atmospheric CO2 in current concentrations is directly toxic to humans. Surely,
in his medical studies, Dr. Greer encountered the adage, "Dose makes the
poison." A slightly elevated CO2 concentration in a paper bag for a few
minutes can, as he notes, be salutary. But would he say the same thing about
breathing 100% CO2? Of course not.As Mountanman correctly observes,
CO2 is required for photosynthesis and plant growth, although some undesirable
species like poison ivy seem to show a greater response to increased CO2 than
other species. It may be a mixed blessing.Dr. Greer may want to
brush up on his carbonate chemistry. The same chemical response that lowers pH
in the bloodstream from breathing in a bag (due to increased dissolved CO2 in
the blood >> H2CO3) is occurring globally in the oceans from increased
atmospheric CO2 (the globe is essentially in a huge bag receiving the
exhalations of industrial respiration, i.e. combustion). That acidification is
deleterious to coral reefs and other sea life. You might even say it's
Photosynthesis people! If we didn't have adequate supplies of C02 in the
atmosphere, there would be no life on planet earth! In fact, the rate of
photosynthesis increases commensurately with higher concentrations of C02 which
is a good thing because it allows more food production!
Dr. Greer, I can't believe you'd make such a silly argument.Tell me, doctor, would you similarly prescribe drowning as a treatment for
Whether CO2 is a toxin is irrelevant to its effect on the environment of course.
Or..... you could look at the conditions on Venus where greenhouse gases shroud
the planet and create surface temperatures that are in the hundreds and could
never support life. I'll trust the 97%.
Well said, Mr. Greer. Mother Nature knows how to throw twists into the false
sciences of man, doesn't she. And when she does, they have nothing to stand
on and their lies are exposed. Don't give into this GW agenda. It's
not about nature but rather about money and control of resources, and
ultimately, control of mankind.