Global Warming? Phooey!

Photo of Free Stinker.
By Free Stinker
November 20, 2007 - 00:06 ET

Global Warming? Phooey! // Updated May-21 '08 //

Hat-tip to Noel Sheppard, botg, NL207, dscott, Kristen Byrnes, GlobalWarmingHoax, xfast, Gary Hall, Lame Cherry, and PopularTech

 

If you are a believer in Global Warming, you should realize that Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. Multiply that by the 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually that Humans can claim responsibility for, and you get a huge 0.2856% of global wrming that is human related. Got that? Even if we ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998, worse case is that humans only are responsible for 0.3%

Zero point three percent. PAY ATTENTION LIBERALS!

Meanwhile, other planets and satellites are heating up too.

Hello! No humans on these other planets or satellites!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE LIST

 

Films & TV

  1. Film: Global Warming Swindle - New Link
  2. Film: Doomday Called Off - Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V
  3. TV: Exposed: Climate of Fear - Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part IV
  4. Film: Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - Link
  5. Film: Penn and Teller Bullshxt! - Environmental Hysteria

Global Warming - R.I.P.

  1. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
  2. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Courier Mail - High price for load of hot air
  3. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: OISM - 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever
  4. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Business and Media Institute - 77 Skeptical Scientists
  5. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Hudson Institute - Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

There seems to be a problem with their data and premises

  1. Warm is good!: Breitbart - Oldest DNA ever recovered shows warmer planet: report
  2. CO2: falsly accused? - Energy Tribune - Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap?
  3. Oops! Data collection "issues": Pittsburg Tribune-Review - Helping along global warming
  4. Data used is only from only 1979?: MSNBC - Winter Arctic sea ice near record low
  5. Where's the Beef?: New Zealand Herald - Chirs de Freitas: Evidence must prevail
  6. Satelite Data shows cooling: Frontier Center for Public Policy - Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist On the real danger for Canada, global cooling
  7. Only 30 Glaciers are monitored? world glacier monitoring service - glacier mass balance data 2003/2004 and 2004/2005

Glaciers - They just keep growing, and growing . . .

  1. Icecap.us - Southern Hemisphere Ice Cover Remains Well Above Normal
  2. Antarctic Ice Growing (USA Today)
  3. Mount Shasta Glacier are Growing: CBS13 - Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow
  4. Hubbard Glacier is Growing: USGS - Hubbard Glacier, Alaska
  5. Glacier growing in Karakoram Range: JAXA - Glaciers in the Eastern Karakoram Range


PopularTech's Glacier Links:

  1. Greenland - Deep Freeze in Western Greenland (2008) (Sermitsiaq, Greenland)

  2. Greenland - ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (ESA - European Space Agency)

  3. Greenland - Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (Science Daily)

  4. Greenland - Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)

  5. Greenland - Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather (The New York Times)

  6. Greenland - Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes (Science Daily)

  7. Greenland - Greenland Temperatures Coldest in 60 Years (The Heartland Institute)

  8. Greenland - Is Greenland really melting? (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

  9. Greenland - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)

  10. Greenland - Letter to the Editor: Greenland Ice Gain Since World War II (The Heartland Institute)

  11. Greenland - Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation (American Geophysical Union)

  12. Greenland - Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing (CO2 Science)

  13. Greenland - The Cold Truth about Greenland (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

  14. Greenland - Dramatic Ice loss in the Greenland seas in 1817 (A History of the Royal Society Archive)

  15. Greenland - Current Melting of Greenland's Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event (Science Daily)

  16. Greenland - Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (Science Daily)

  17. Greenland - Magma may be melting Greenland Ice (MSNBC)

  18. Arctic - Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
  19. Arctic - Arctic Atmosphere Very Clean This Year (2007) (Science Daily)
  20. Arctic - Arctic Ocean Circulation Does An About-Face (Science Daily)
  21. Arctic - Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace (The Daily Green)
  22. Arctic - Dirty Snow May Warm Arctic As Much As Greenhouse Gases (Science Daily)
  23. Arctic - North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability (Science Daily)
  24. Arctic - Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History (NewsBusters)
  25. Arctic - Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (Science)
  26. Arctic - Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)

PopularTech's Article List

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20717, 2005)
- Albert Arking

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, 2006)
- Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins

Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2003)
- Edward Hanna, John Cappelen

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Evidence
for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction
of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L17718, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, No. 23, PAGES 3195–3198, 1995)
- Judith Lean, Juerg Beer, Raymond Bradley

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.273, 01/1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variable
solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in
the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183–186, 2001)
- Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

Estimation
and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of
Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L06211, 2004)

- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris

 

 

Dissent (h/t PopularTech) Quicklist

  1. Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)
  2. Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  3. Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  4. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
  5. 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  6. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC)
  7. Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source)
  8. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA)
  9. Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source)
  10. Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)
  11. Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA)
  12. Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA)
  13. The warmest year in the United States was 1934. (NASA)

Covering-up and Intimidation? (just from the left)

  1. It's not Global Warming! It's Agitprop: Financial Times - Global warming: truth or propaganda?
  2. Cover-up? Not!: The Washington Times - Climate Scientist sees cover-up
  3. Intimidation of Global Warming disenters: American Policy Center - The Global Warming Inquisition and the Suppression of "Skeptic" Heresy
  4. Intimidation of Global Warming disenters: Opinion Journal - Climate of Fear
  5. Who is censoring whom?: Reuters - Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard
  6. Outright Threats: Canada Free Press - Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist

Plenty of Dissent & opposition

  1. A list of Skeptical Scientists
  2. More Dissent: Financial Times - Models trump measurements
  3. Scrutiny. It can be annoying: Chicago Sun-Times - Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
  4. Less polution equals more sunlight: Nature - Clear skies end global dimming
  5. Dissent: The Washington Times - Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent
  6. Global Warming Debunking: Kristen Byrnes - Ponder The Maunder
  7. Global Warming Debunking: The Timaru Herald - Global warming debunked
  8. Global Warming Dissent: U.S. Sentate - Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
  9. Global Warming Dissent: The Wasington Post - The Tempest
  10. Global Warming Dissent: Newsmax - Here we go again: It's not global warming
  11. Global Warming Dissent: Newsmax - The Myth of Greenhouse Gases
  12. Dissenting Book - Global Warming and Other Eco Myths
  13. Global Warming Dissent: AP (at Myway) - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
  14. Global Warming Dissent: NewsWeek(at MSNBC) - Why So Gloomy?
  15. Global Warming Dissent: U.S. Senate - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming
  16. Global Warming Dissent: The Huntsville Times - Scientist: Warming not caused by humans
  17. Global Warming Dissent: UPI - Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
  18. It's not us! It's the %#@! Ocean!: Daily Telegraph - Ocean currents to blame for warming: expert
  19. Global Warming is Cyclical!: Science Daily - Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

Now THIS is dissent! Financial Post series by Lawrence Solomon

  1. Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
  2. Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
  3. The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
  4. Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
  5. The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
  6. The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
  7. Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
  8. The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
  9. Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
  10. Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
  11. End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
  12. Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
  13. Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
  14. The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
  15. Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
  16. Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
  17. Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
  18. Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
  19. Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
  20. Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
  21. The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
  22. Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
  23. Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
  24. Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
  25. They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
  26. NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
  27. Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII
  28. Open mind sees climate clearly

How come other planets are warming up? (It's All Rove's Fault!)

  1. Mars is warming up too!: CNN - Study: Red Planet Heating Up
  2. Mars is still warming up: National Geographic - Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
  3. So is Pluto: MIT - Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
  4. And so is Triton: MIT - MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

Is it just me, or are we getting colder?

  1. NEW! CNN At least 300 motorists stranded in snow north of Los Angeles
  2. Ah ha! Still getting colder: Daily Telegraph - The deceit behind global warming
  3. Arctic Ice: Capitalism Magazine - The Amazing Disappearing
  4. Antarctica Temps: Capitalism Magazine - Antarctica Is Cooling?
  5. 1st Snow in 26 Years: Bloomberg - Johannesburg Gets 4 Inches of Snow, First Since 1981 (Update1)
  6. Snow in Argentina?: BBC - Buenos Aires sees rare snowfall
  7. Darn Solar Activity!: CO2 Science - Did Increasing Solar Activity Drive 20th-Century Global Warming?
  8. More questions? I thought the debate was over?: RPPI - National Academy of Sciences Raises More Climate Questions
  9. Still more questions?: World Climate Report - Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
  10. The sun is doing it!: Duke University - Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report
  11. The sun is still doing it!: AGU - Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
  12. The sun continues doing it!: AGU - Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming
  13. The debate is over. GW lost!: Heartland Institute - Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate
  14. It's getting colder!: NOAA - April Temperatures
  15. We're going to Freeze?: MSNBC - Remember Global Cooling?
  16. Snow is melting in Africa: Reuters - Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming
  17. Snow still melting in Africa: American Scientist - The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
  18. Global Cooling: AP (at Myway) - Cold Snap Postpones Spring Festivities
  19. Global Cooling: Anchorage Daily News - Frozen bay turns otters into easy prey

  20. 1895 - Prospects of another Glacial Period (PDF) (The New York Times)

  21. 1912 - Sees Glacia Era Coming; Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age (The New York Times)
  22. 1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post)
  23. 1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine)
  24. 1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times)
  25. 1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times)
  26. 1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek)
  27. 1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book)
  28. 1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book)
  29. Cold Yet? (The Washington Times)
  30. Fire and Ice (Business and Media Institute)
‹ Sarah Palin Fact of The Day A philosophy on taxation ›

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hey Professor!

November 20, 2007 - 00:23 ET by Free Stinker

Her Professor, for your edification, see all of the above . . .

Perhaps the Professor has

November 20, 2007 - 03:08 ET by NL207

Perhaps the Professor has the stones to debate here.  I don't have the time to entertain him personally, but with Stinker's help, we can get it done....

Anybody recall rhayes?  This phony Professor Truth has made a number of posts and used several expressions that are very reminiscent of rhayes, hasn't he?  Throaty he's not.  Throatwobbler made much briefer posts.  The long treatises, that was rhayes.

I'm ready to rumble, NL 207

November 21, 2007 - 02:11 ET by professor truth

Perhaps the Professor has the stones to debate here. I don't have the
time to entertain him personally, but with Stinker's help, we can get
it done....

anytime you're ready. I'm not going to let you get away with your denialist nonsense.

I don't need anyone's help

November 21, 2007 - 02:51 ET by NL207

I don't need anyone's help to deal with the likes of you.  You're just another MiG with a smoking tailpipe.

Thegreat GW Swindle film

November 21, 2007 - 02:44 ET by professor truth

denialists you've been swindled by this one too:

http://www.realclima...

How does it feel to be ripped to shred debatewise by a lowly, stupid inner city science teacher. Well you can always go to realclimate and state your denialist drivel.

the deniers part II

November 21, 2007 - 02:52 ET by professor truth

Yes, global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to
mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that
the science is settled, and the global warning debate is over, Tol
thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to
respond.

comment: although the above quote is from Sir Nicholas, hedoesn't see the warming as a critical problem. Fair enough. Another example from your site that says nothing about AGW. I will keep looking, however, for evidence SUPPORTING you denialists. Pretty pathetic that even on your own website, I have yet to find credible denialist evidence.

I see you are answering

November 21, 2007 - 03:02 ET by NL207

I see you are answering your own posts.  Do you often lose these arguments?

nice hearing from you, NL207

November 21, 2007 - 03:13 ET by professor truth

I see you are answering your own posts. Do you often lose these arguments?

not when debating denialists like you ! And what credentials of science do you bring to the debate arena?

More than yours.  That

November 21, 2007 - 03:18 ET by NL207

More than yours.  That should be obvious, even to you by now.

You still haven't proven to me you know anything at all.  I've asked you several direct science questions that any sophmore physics major could answer.  You've evaded tham all as far as I can see.  I want to know how much you actually understand vs. how much of this political pablum you've swallowed.

let's see what you know about science

November 21, 2007 - 03:34 ET by professor truth

Here's a super simple question, any scientist should answer: describe Newton's three laws of motion. I normally believe someone who says they are a scientist but you doubted me so I now question you,

Conservation of

November 21, 2007 - 03:53 ET by NL207

Conservation of momentum. [inertia]

f=ma.

Conservation of energy.

well, NL207

November 21, 2007 - 12:17 ET by professor truth

you answered 2 out of three. Newton's 3rd law is action-reactio:for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. You appear to have some knowledge of basic science. Now, I assume you are a AGW skeptic who could be swayed depending on the evidence. I was a skeptic in the early 90's, having read and accepted some denialist arguments. I am now convinced that AGW is both a fact and a serious danger. To be honest, I started noticing the blooming of flowers in February, something I had never observed. We had, in 2004(or 2005) unbelievable downpours that were unprecedented as far as I can remember. Southern California also has serious drought. In 93, we had major fires in Southern California as well as this year. I also remember some freezing days in the 80's which I never experienced when the 90's came along. This year, for the first time I could ever remember, there were some brush fires in February. These are all anecdotal. We went to Catalina island last year. One local told me their water temperature was a record high, mid 70s.

Now, in Australia, record drought is presently occurring. I talked to an oil worker who had worked in Wyoming. He said the winters are the mildest ever. Put together increased sea temperatures, rising oceans(caused by volume expansion from heating?), all anecdotal and none of this alone means anything. Now, I go to realclimate and cannot find a single skeptic who can present an argument to these scientists that holds up. Conclusion: every rational person realizes the Earth is heating up. The debates center around whether or not it's primarily humans or/and ojther factors. Anyway, that's how I arrived at the view of AGW being real. How dangerous still remains to be seen, kind of like terrorism.

Ignoramus.  Equal and

November 21, 2007 - 19:25 ET by NL207

Ignoramus.  Equal and opposite reaction IS conservation of mechanuical energy. That is the whole point.  A net force cannot be applied to any object without a corresponding amout of energy or force being provided from some other or collection of other object(s).  I'm just too lazy to spell all that out.  And they let you teach high school physics?

You haven't been paying attention to my argument.  That's why I've been mopping the floor with you.  Please show me where I have claimed the Earth was cooling over the last century or the last 30 years.  The only cooling trend observed in the data over the last century is seen in the interval 1940-1975. 

Man isn't the dominant term in the warming equation.  This is something you aren't getting.  There will be warming regardless of what man does.  And more to the point, there will at some date in the near geologic future, be catastrophic global cooling, which man will not be able to prevent either.   Study the recent paleoclimate record.  Do you really think these recurrent ice ages have ended?  I don't see any reason yet to believe the last of them is over.  Do you believe there won't be a significant VEI level 7 or 8 event in the future?  Man won't be able to stop that either!  We should adapt.  This business of trying to control is doomed from the start.

Why don't you invite Gavin Schmidt to come over here and teach us mean, evil deniers a lesson?  I don't think he will do nearly as well as you suppose.  The water here turned out to be way over your head.  He's only a Phd Mathematician.  He has nothing in the way of academic credentials over some of the posters here.

the term ignoramus belongs to you NL207

November 22, 2007 - 13:41 ET by professor truth

Here's is why you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

A bomb at rest has ZERO kinetic energy. After it explodes, there is a dramatic amount of kinetic energy. In physics books like Resnick and Halliday, mechanical energy is synonymous with kinetic energyand is NOT CONSERVED in this case. The conservation of energy principle refers to ALL the energy within a system(both potential and kinetic) so the total energy of the bomb is conserved . Action-reaction is another way to describe conservation of MOMENTUM. For any applied force within a system(not external)

there's an equal and opposite force. The total momentum of a system is found by adding each component of that system's momentum(p is a vector so the addition is using vectors).

You may be a floor mopper but leave me out of your delusions.

If I implied or stated any claims that were false, I apologize. You are factually wrong to not attribute the majority of warming to human activity and you can go read the IPCC technical summary for details(74 pages on a computer). As for Gavin Schnidt, he's far too smart to debate a group of ignorant clowns on a two bit website, Why don't you challengfe Tiger Woods to a head to head competition in golf at Pebble Beach?? Or challenge Randy Moss to try and catch a pass with you defending against him?? Gavin doesn't bother with little leaguers like the 'scientists' at this site.

I believe you've been thoroughly spanked. As for YOUR understanding of physics, go to any textbook and you will find that Newton's 3 laws and conservation of energy are in SEPARATE chapters. i am not a physics major , but have taught high school physics. One of my students returned from his graduate school program in engineering to thank me. he was an excellent student and would have succeeded even if you had been his teacher but I never take credit for a student's accomplishments or failures. I think of myself more like a coach. For you to disparage my teaching simply shows your ignorance, having never personally observed me in the classroom.

A bomb at rest has ZERO

November 22, 2007 - 13:49 ET by botg

A bomb at rest has ZERO kinetic energy. After it explodes, there is a dramatic amount of kinetic energy.

More precisely a bomb at rest has pt potential energy as it explodes it releases ke kinetic energy.  The scattered atoms and molecules retain pt-ke potential energy (E=mc2)

Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde.  the EYE

Professor

November 22, 2007 - 02:58 ET by Gary Hall

Interesting these observations. Off and on over the years, I drive by this same house on a corner here in West Los Angeles, near where I get my haircut, and have stopped to pick up a handful of these beautiful maple shapped leaves that have brilliant deep red color in them. A few are a bit orange and a couple here and there are yellow. We've found them a wonderful addition, spread out over the table cloth for Thanksgiving dinner.

Today, it crossed my mind at the last minute, and in that ultimate desire to impress my wife with the little things in life, I swung by that way again. Almost instantly, I thought, "darn, I'll bet that this year all the leaves will all be gone, with all of this "warming" and later winter they say we are having.

You just have to picture my delight to find out that this must have been the perfect day to show up - once again. Like clockwork.

Perhaps I should wait a few thousand years for a comparison.

Gary, go hike in the Santa Monicas

November 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by professor truth

and visit them daily. Observe the time of month when you observe the first blooming of flowers. In the past, I would hike in GP two or three times a week. This year was a severe lack of flowers. We've had drought conditions for a few years, the intense rains of 2004 not withstanding. Now, the temperatures have been generally mild over this same time, no unusual heat waves over the last few years in LA.

So people would say this is proof of no global warming. But in other parts around the world, i hear of record droughts in the southeast and Australia, unprecedented wildfires in Greece, unprecedented loss of arctic ice. There are lots of factors affecting climate, so a reasonable way to get a handle on all these variables is to build climate models and test those models. Some models have been more successful than others. If the model successfully predicts trends, that's NO guarantee that it is correct, but it does give a measure of confidence in future predictablility. Models are a critical part of science which allows science to add to it's accumulated knowledge. Hansen has a climate model that has successfully tracked global temperatures for almost 20 years, yet denialists CRITICIZE and DISCREDIT this SUCCESSFUL model, claiming it couldn't successfully predict climate changes in the past.

The known parameters affecting past global climate changes are not all known, so obviously a model that can't input correct parameters will give incorrect results. Hansen's model has succeeded when the known parameters are inputted, and that's all that matters.

Prof, even when everything

November 26, 2007 - 10:54 ET by bassndude

Prof, even when everything is perfect and right with the earth, someplace is in drought, somewhere it is flooding, crops fail somewhere every year. Somewhere a glacier melts, one grows. All you have is an average of the globla temps for the last 30 years or so. Nobody anywhere has consistent and accurate measurements of temps or atmospheric content for the last 100 years over the whole of the earth. All you have is an average for the last 30 years, at best. And your telling me that local trends point to global conditions. Thats pure crap. Your models your so proud of also point to cooling when the temp station data is used and not some made up numbers pluged in. Schmidt did that on his model. Used bogus numbers because the station data did not show warming. So he changed them so his model would show warming. How scientific is that? And dont tell me he dident, either. He admited he dident use the station data, and he "guessed" at the data he did use.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Gary

November 22, 2007 - 14:10 ET by botg

it is probaly a liquidamber watch out for the 'spikey balls'

Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde.  the EYE

so what credentials do you have other than hubris and ignorance

November 21, 2007 - 11:13 ET by professor truth

Do you have any training in science at all?

Considerably more than you.

November 25, 2007 - 17:43 ET by NL207

Considerably more than you.

NL207, not if you are equating Conservation of energy

November 26, 2007 - 10:42 ET by professor truth

to Newton's 3rd law, a complete blunder and misstatement. No body who is an engineer or physical scientist would have stated such an ignorant and incorrect comment. So, my question is, do you have any science credentials at all, in medicine or the life sciences perhaps?

Speaking of the number 3 (sort of) -- Repost

November 26, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Free Stinker

 

Simple math for the Prof

  1. Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source)
  2. Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)

If we take the high 8.4% and against the fact that humans are responsible for 3.4% of this . . .

We effect a grand total of 0.3% (rounded) of "Global Warming". Assuming it is happeneing (a BIG assumption), we still only effect zero point three percent. Please explain to me how that translates into the 1 deg celsius rise we expect to see. How much to we contribute? 0.003 degrees cesius by my math.

Yeah that's worth spending trillions of dollars on.

Prof, from an engineering

November 26, 2007 - 11:00 ET by bassndude

Prof, from an engineering stand point, your statement is incorrect. Forces always occur in pairs. That said, an object has stored energy untill acted on by an outside force. At that point the stored energy is released. That is how we arrive at the diffrence between stress and strain.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

So it is inner city kids

November 21, 2007 - 03:01 ET by NL207

So it is inner city kids whose minds you are polluting with your unscientific trash?  You are a deplorable waste of taxpayer's money.

I've asked you several direct questions about the science behind all this and so far, I have not seen a single answer.  I'll ask yet again.  How does heat transfer work.  The simple answer for laymen is sufficient.  How does heat energy move around in three-space?  This is an entirely relevant question to this topic.   You can even slink back over to realclimate and ask them to tell you.  This is standard textbook stuff.  if you can't answer this, you aren't fit to teach.  Maybe this is why your kids all flunk their exams?

You DO realize Gavin Schmidt is not the only Phd. in the world, do you not?  He hasn't fared too well in public debate lately either.  ;)

How does heat transfer work.

November 21, 2007 - 03:20 ET by professor truth

I've answered this question twice but maybe It didn't post. 1)conduction or direct contact. when you touch a hot object, heat is transferred by direct contact to your skin. 2) convection(transfer by a fluid like water or air). When you heat a pan of water the warmer water rise andmixes with colder water. Heat is transferred from the warm to the cold water. 3) radiation(transfer with electromagnetic waves). The sun warms us by infra red radiation traveling through empty space. The warmth of a campfire comes from the infrared radiation produced by burning. If you say I'm wrong, you better also tell Resnick and Halliday, the primary 1st year physics book used by many universities.

Excellent. Now, which of

November 21, 2007 - 03:38 ET by NL207

Excellent.

Now, which of these three is at work in earth's atmosphere?

 

convection primarily

November 21, 2007 - 11:18 ET by professor truth

convection, driven by differential heating by the sun between the poles and the equator

"Proffesor"

November 21, 2007 - 05:26 ET by RESTLESS 1

You have yet to you refute Any of my links, and they are up to date and peer reviewed. I don't have one sheepskin hanging from my walls, but I do have common sense. Tell me, is there more pollution now than in decades past? Has not the burning of fossil fuels become cleaner? Then tell me, how is it that man is to blame now for warming, considering it stopped in 1998. I may be stupid, but explain to me how a 1 degree C increase in 100 years, only .6 of which is attributed to man, and nearing the threshold of CO2 the atmosphere can hold is catastrophic. And no more Realclimate links. You, as a "professor" explain to me, right here. Show me what you know.

here is a cut n paste from YOUR first link:

November 21, 2007 - 12:26 ET by professor truth

Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all
over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes.

 

20th Century Fox

The public no longer knows what to believe -- and is getting bored of the subject.

But most researchers do believe that a shift in global climate caused
by human activity is already occurring, and that it will accelerate in
the future and become even more apparent. This was YOUR 1st post. Note it says a quarter of climate researchers question human activity as being responsible. That means THREE QUARTERS ACCEPT HUMAN ACTIVITY OR DIDN'T DENY IT. Your link(der speigel)

From what I can tell, most

November 21, 2007 - 15:23 ET by RESTLESS 1

From what I can tell, most are neutral. They don't support you argument, they didn't deny it or argue for it. That proves that the science isn't settled at all.

restless

November 21, 2007 - 16:17 ET by professor truth

Using your own reference, the article stated only 25% of climate researchers believed humans were not influencing the climate. Don't try to project your views into the given statement. The truth is 75% are either noncommitted , or believe humans are affecting the climate. Nonetheless, the website you seem to loathe, realclimate, consists of highly regarded climate scientists. Schmidt has over 50 peer reviewed papers and M Mann whose hockey stick graph has been dishonestly smeared by non climate scientists whose own criticisms of that hockey stick have been discredited, mann has over a HUNDRED published papers.

It's beyond me to see the hubris of non scientists or scientists in other fields arrogantly proclaim that professional scientists who have highly acclaimed careers have unreliable or discredited climate models, PARTICULARLY when those models like that of James Hansen, highly respected scientist, have accurately tracked temperature changes for over twenty years.

 

"Professor"

November 22, 2007 - 03:51 ET by RESTLESS 1

"The truth is 75% are either noncommitted , or believe humans are affecting the climate."

Precisely my F'in point. The majority of the 75% left over ARE NON COMMITTED. You are the one who keeps claiming consensus. 25% against is a high number in this realm. You have to be kidding me if you seriously reject that number. Just say, for the sake of argument, that the entire 75% agree that humans are causing the warming, which is not the case, but whatever, 1/4 is a high number for dissent. Real scientists would not discount this a high a number so easily.

Restless, you are wrong

November 22, 2007 - 14:13 ET by professor truth

The truth is 75% are either noncommitted , or believe humans are affecting the climate. Nobody can assume the 5 uncommitted to the %

that think humans are affecting the climate. I don't know when this poll was done, but the IPCC TECHNICAL summary states with 95% certainty(you can go read the IPCC technical summary, 74 computer pages long) that human activity accounts for the greatest amount of

radiative forcing, while solar activity is a small fraction of that. It's all in the summary, explanations, uncertainties. Different aspects of climate change have different amounts of uncertainties . The IPCC is a consensus of scientists. Obviously, due to uncertainties, cause effect relationships are assigned probabilities of likelihood. It would be like saying, how many Americans believe the WTC attacks on sept 11th based on all available evidence and then assigning a probability to the likelihood that this war criminal was behind the attack(I don't believe this, Bush is just too incompetent for such a plan).

Who is deciding what amount

November 23, 2007 - 01:12 ET by RESTLESS 1

Who is deciding what amount of forcing gets attributed to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but if the figures for the different forcing factors are wrong, then wouldn't that make the entire computer model wrong? The last link I provided, in chapter 5, spoke of the differences between the computer models and observational data. The bone of contention was the values atrributed to different forcing factors. The IPCC can claim all it wants that human forcing is playing the major role in warming, but until all questions about the computer models are addressed, I will not believe them.

Btw, on these 2 threads, there has been a lot of back and forth over the science of AGW, but what about the COST, in the form of carbon credits, new taxes, high fees. The cost is astronomical. You won't convince me that this is not a wealth redistribution plan. And why is it that so much wealth is being redistributed into algore's accounts?

There are multiple lines of evidence for AGW

November 23, 2007 - 13:27 ET by professor truth

I was referencing YOUR link so now you seem to want to discredit your own link because it SUPPORTS AGW. Computer models are only but one way to conclude the existence of AGW. Isotope studies of c12 to c13 ratios also support AGW since carbon from fossil fuels

lowers the total % of C13 in the atmosphere(there is a higher % of carbon13 isotope in the atmosphere vs plants, so burning plants lowers the carbon 13% by diluting it with more C12). The IPCC reports look at the sources of atmospheric gases and their radiative forcing power, pretty well established physics. Methane is much more powerful than CO2 (60+times more powerful) per molecule but the concentration of CO2 overwhelms methane, and overall, CO2 is a much stronger forcing. All forcings given by the IPCC technical summary come from published science data so if you doubt their conclusions, then you doubt all science and everything must be questioned with similiar skepticism.

Not sure where you are

November 23, 2007 - 21:14 ET by RESTLESS 1

Not sure where you are getting link supports AGW from. It seems pretty neutral to me. The report basically concludes that until discrepancies between the computer models and observational data can be recociled, that the ability of computer models to predict future weather patterns and the human role in those patterns, remains in doubt.

the reference is the IPCC technical summary

November 23, 2007 - 23:36 ET by professor truth

I'll try to link you to the technical summary:http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

You need to download the technical summary from this link.

debunking the global cooling claim

November 21, 2007 - 03:10 ET by professor truth

This link to realclimate thoroughly debunks all the global cooling disinformation prese4nted here. remember denialists, magazines and phony movies are no replacement for PEER REVIEWED science:

Perhaps some of you are upset that I use realclimate.org. My anwer is that none of you have any courage to go there and state your denialist beliefs, probably a wise idea on our part. For me, going to realclimate is the easy way to debunk all your silly denialism. Imagine the New England Patriots being criticized by a winless doljphins for constantly throwing touchdowns to Randy Moss. Debating you clowns is like Tom Brady throwing touchdowns to Moss after the defender has slipped and fallen. Admit it deniers, your evidence and arguments are as bogus as creationism.(well, maybe not THAT pathetic)

http://www.realclima...

 

"Proffesor"

November 21, 2007 - 04:59 ET by RESTLESS 1

AGAIN with "realclimate". Cut it out. Can you link just once to something other than a U.N mouthpiece?

An example of rational denialist discourse

November 21, 2007 - 16:22 ET by professor truth

AGAIN with "realclimate". Cut it out. Can you link just once to something other than a U.N mouthpiece?

Why? Realclimate is an independent grup of highly respected climate scientists whose purpose is to inform the public accurately of climate science by debunking the claims of denialists. Why don't the denialists try and discredit realclimate?? Some have tried, no denialist has succeeded that I've read. Why don't you deniers take your dogma to them??? Deep down, you guys know your position is bogus, so you stick to debating little guys like me. Trying to debate true major leagers would expose your arguments for the foolishnes they are.