Wednesday, December 12, 2007
All Global Warming, All the Time
His first point is that, with a finer resolution of measurements, CO2 increases in the atmosphere FOLLOW warming, by an average of 800 years, so Gore's most impressive chart in An Inconvenient Truth, showing congruence of CO2 and temperature, puts the cart in front of the horse.
Second, the temperature modeling by computers, relied on by the IPCC, predict a bloom of heat in the tropic troposphere up to 10 kilometers, but real observation shows no such pattern. Not even close.
Finally, what went wrong with the model is the very reasonable assumption it contained that greater heat would evaporate more water into the atmosphere and cause both low and high altitude clouds, the later of which would further trap heat and warm the Earth, creating a positive feedback which would accelerate the heating. Good assumption, but not true. What scientists have actually observed is less high altitude clouds with warming, so a negative feedback mechanism... Hmmmm.
As I have argued, the only reliable temperature records are satellite measurements, which only go back to 1979. What they show is little to no warming in the Southern Hemisphere and some warming in the Northern hemisphere but none since 2001, and, in fact, temperatures have cooled in the top half of the world since then.
These very recent scientific documents may not be an empire striking back but they are a hit, a palpable hit on the Warmie dogma. Rather than attack the authors, let's see the true believers take each point and show how it is wrong, just as Evans shows how the Global Warming Hysteria industry got it wrong.
I think I hear the crickets warming up their legs.
Labels: Global Warming Hoax
I fail to see why those of you who do not accept the postulate that mankind influences climate are so adamant in resisting efforts to ameliorate what affects there are. Smog sucks. Wheather it warms the planet or not, it badly influences resperatory health. any efforts to reduce particulates that succeed do a good thing. Our national dependence on imported oil sucks. New technologies that reduce our need to assuage tyrants are not only beneficial geopolitacally, if we do the inventing, they lead to new jobs and exports. It matters not that they may be invented for misguided reasons. New technologies are coming. Let's embrace them. Some will help towards energy independence. Some will help avoid water wars. Some will help poor nations leapfrog over a Dickensean London atmosphere. Color me slow. I just don't get it.
it's a pretty simple concept.......you don't subscribe penicillin for a headache, without knowing what causes the headache. That's a pretty obtuse approach for a fix, when a fix may not be needed at all. Sometimes, our bodies have headaches, as part of the nature of our bodies. The headache may or may not be influenced by outside mitigating factors, like, second hand smoke, a stuffy room, loud rap music.....or it could just be a plain old headache,no matter, pennicillin is not the fix, especially when not even prescribed by a doctor.
So, for OwlGore to profess, with such certainty, that Man is causing the tempereture change, is A) condescending towards God Almighty, creator of the earth and B) akin to a snake oil salesman, saying that cutting CO2 emissions, will, "stop the headache " if you will.
Mark, you're right, I think, but there is a socialist or at least anti-capitalist political component which should not be underestimated.
Other than that, it's people that want the USA to have diminished power, plain and simple.
Either stop self medicating or start taking your medication.
Did you catch the piece in the Rocky Mountain News today about polar ice and Greenland glacier melt?
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
have you read the latest on glacier growth ?
What problem do you have with my analogy ? I'm all for getting off of middle eastern oil dependence, but how do you know definitively, that man is the root cause for climate change on earth ? What role did man play in emerging from the last ice age ?
So, no matter what, Tony, I guess penicillin is the cure for all headaches eh ?
I wonder if Evans is " off his meds "...?
I think you have missed my meaning. My thinking is: if trying to cure a headache somehow lead to the discovery of penicillin, the world would benefit.
The headache is dependancy on oil.....in my book. I believe that if we found the miracle alternative enrgy source tomorrow, that was of minimal pollution, there would be, in time, a movement against that new source. It's not about bettering thye environment, it's about power, and knocking the USA down a few.
If this were not the case, then the Kyoto would have been even handed, rather than just a shift of who is allowed to pollute more, so to speak.
It wasn';t the penicillin remark, it was the anticapitalist component remark. As it has been pointed out, if you consider the challenges posed by the threat, whether real or imagined, here are some of the benefits: pushing for increased fuel efficiency for cars: Yes putting a man of the moon was expensaive but somehow I think that 40 mph is w/in our grasp if we just tell Detroit to do it. Tax credits for energy efficiency in home use, new or retrofitted.
It is good policy to work toward greater efficiencies in energy use. I confess that over the past few months I have concluded that the free market is not always the most effective way to bring about change. Remember leisure suits? It was good that they went out of fashion but bad that they were ever invented. They were garish and uncomfortable. But if you put hem in Sears and say: "This is fashionable and the norm and they're cheap," they will sell as they did.
The free market is sometimes like a guy sitting at a bar having several too many drinks. It feels good right then, but wait until the morning. The subprime mortgage meltdown is like that guy deciding to drive home and giving a ride to some mother patrons, then getting in a multicar accident.
Sometimes the market needs a push. The fuel standard plans that are currently being suggested are laughable b/c they are unenforceable.
I can understand the debate regarding ma's impat on climate change w/ respect to co2 emissions. That man has changed the climate in certain area is not debatable. Look at Greece. During the bronze, teh inhabiatnts cut down all the trees to make charcoal to make bronze w/ ruinous results to the landscape.
The sae thing is ccurring in Brazilian rain forests as I write this.
I am not sold that the melt in Greenland and the Arctic Ocean is some natuarlly occurring variant rather than evidence of warming.
The basic question is: What's worse?
Being an hysteric like Al Gore? Or being a member of the Flat Earth Society by denying that the earth or important parts of it are indeed becoming warmer and attempting to plan for the consequences.
Isn't the sub prime melt down a result specifically tied to GuBMINT intervention ? Those people should never have received the loans to begin with, per gubmint inclusion mandate.
regarding being a "denier "...that is a totalitarian tactic. I am saying that warming maybe occurring, such as the headache....but for not knowing the cause, how in the world can one definitively say what is going to change it....especailly with more and more evidence pointing to a natural occurrence. Again, it's quite condescending towards mother Nature........and we all know, it's not Nice to fool Mother Nature....or even try.
Oil is needed....that's the reality. This isn't the bronze age.