Skip to comments.Global Warming as Faith
Posted on 08/06/2013 1:10:17 AM PDT by neverdem
Global warming is a scientific theory, but is mostly about faith. Faith plays a bigger role in science than we care to admit. Allegedly well-meaning intellectuals of the 1930s believed in and defended Stalin's Russia in the face of massive and accessible evidence that "scientific" communism had given birth to a terroristic, totalitarian state. Today's believers in global warming, like the intellectuals in the 1930s, fiercely defend their wacky faith in the face of massive and contrary evidence. They are vested in a theory that is precious to them. Their scientific studies pick and choose from an evidence buffet.
When an ideology is precious, the believers become aggressively hostile toward infidels...
A wonderful example of ideological conformity and half-baked science is the Atmospheric Sciences department of Texas A & M University. The Atmospheric Sciences department is considered to be among the best in the world. All tenured and tenure track faculty, except one assistant professor, have subscribed to what amounts to an IPCC loyalty oath or a confession of faith. This is what was published on their website followed by the names of 23 faculty members:
We, the faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
One of those beliefs is far crazier than the other.
The fact that cAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) cannot be falsified just means that it must be true!
Global warming is so bad that it’s actually broken the scientific method!
We didn’t listen!
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
I really object to calling "global warming" a theory. Evolution, gravity, relativity--those are all theories. They are all supported by massive amounts of data. However, I do not see much evidence or data to back up the claim that carbon dioxide has a disproportionate effect on climate. I see speculations--e.g. "Sea levels expected to rise between 1 and 3 meters"--but no hard evidence that adding carbon dioxide to a gas mix has any more of an effect on its ability to retain heat than adding water vapor. To be correct, one would have to call anthropogenic global warming a hypothesis, which is scientificese for "educated guess." I am still waiting to see this hypothesis undergo experimental controlled tests.
“Global warming is a scientific theory,” as Witchcraft is a scientific theory.
Evidence, facts, data... we don't need no stinken facts, data or evidence.
Let's hope that a drastic cooling takes place so as to hasten the demise of this sinister and destructive movement.
He may get his wish. My layman's viewpoint is that I have been seeing lots of aticles about unusual cool/cold weather lately, reduced sun spot activity, increased cloud cover, too wet here and there - all consistent with what I think to be the beginning of a perhaps significant period of global cooling.
Stock up on food, fuel and parkas!
When I was working on my PhD dissertation, I did a simple little computer model.
What I learned is that the model was not as simple as I had thought, even though it was nothing more than straightforward engineering mechanics.
I had to adjust the model until it gave results consistent with the simple little mechanical tests that I was conducting.
Climate computer models are far more complex, and so far, have not been very good at making oredictions.
Garbage in, politics out.
They can’t even control themselves.
There are no data whatsoever which verify the speculation of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Always keep in mind that since computer models can be made to say anything the programmer wants them to say, they do not constitute evidence.
We are still far inside natural temperature change, the Middle Age Warming Period proves this and it was why Mann and the climate forgers had to abolish it from existence. There was an agricultural colony living in Greenland from about 900 to 1100 AD, and their graves have been found in what is now six feet of permafrost. Those colonists could not have survived for 200 years unless the Earth was a lot warmer. They were growing food! The Earth was naturally a lot warmer! (Warm is better than cold for human survival.)
Subsequently when the climate forgers were caught trying to fudge the MAWP out of existence, they then created a theory that the MAWP did exist but it was localized and not global. This was disproved as the effects of the MAWP were found in Antarctica as well.
Freeman Dyson of Princeton, played around with their models, and he said, I am paraphrasing, they suck and if you back fill the CO2 data from WWII they don’t prove spit! There is no predictive value to them.
The climate forgers have no clue about the effect of CO2, they don’t even understand the effect of water vapor, i.e. clouds. Roy Spencer is now saying vast amounts of heat are leaving the atmosphere and the warmists never accounted for that phenomena in their models. This exercise requires decades of study, if not centuries. The software, computers and sensors have yet to be designed, and the engineers, designers and scientists have yet to be born to create an interplanetary climate model that accurately predicts our global temperatures.
The Climate Forgers predictions are being proved wrong. The sky is not falling, and people are not dying, they are in fact living too long, for the green extremists.
Yet one thing is for sure, they want to raise your taxes, make it more expensive to live, force you to have fewer children, and redistribute your wealth - all to save the planet. How convenient!
“Let’s hope that a drastic cooling takes place so as to hasten the demise of this sinister and destructive movement.”
Actually I’m hoping that won’t happen even though I think it very well may. A “DRASTIC” cooling REALLY WOULD create huge problems. It would increase the demand for energy enormously. Crop yields would fall and life in general would be more difficult. Many areas in the North would have to be abandoned, increasing crowding in other areas.
By the way, I live in Eastern South Carolina near a town that has at times been reported as the hot spot in the nation in the past and so far this is the coolest summer I can recall in my 69 years. We just broke the record for rainfall in July that was set in 1959, this after a drought of something like twenty years. The climate does seem to be changing but I don’t think it is warming.
“Gloab warming as faith...”
Amen. (Close the churches and temples, re-open them and install images of Gaia.)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
He HATES with a fervor and a passion both GWB and the GOP. And he claims, the Democrats. We're friends because we share military experience as officers, and we share a love for shooting and motorcycles. But he has told me repeatedly that when MY generation dies off the world will be a much happier place. That assertion would of course include his dad as well.
He claims to be an agnostic but that lie is for his dad (my friend) because he's pretty emphatic in his aversion to Christ in emails to me. He will be a brilliant litigator, no doubt. He He doesn't just "shoot me down," he riddles me on a regular basis. Any evidence I present (like articles from FR) he ridicules as junk science and neoconservative trash.
So what I need are links to REAL science sites that debunk global warming. Can anybody help me educate this kid with information from a non conservative or unbiased site that represents science that he will respect as being "valid"? If anything that comes from me could be.
Start here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
First of all, my background is in biochemistry and molecular biology (Ph.D.). So, while I know the language of science, everything I say against anthropogenic global warming is based on my general physics knowledge and ability to think scientifically, not experimental evidence.
You can look up Dr. Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/). He is a climatologist who is quite knowledgeable on the subject of global climate. Importantly, he has this to say: Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work. (Found on his website, tab Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?) His point is one that I have been hammering for quite some time: the scientific community simply has not done enough research to understand all of the factors driving climate, much less to start assigning blame to human activity. Furthermore, global warming and cooling cycles are a feature of earth, which has existed for far longer than humanity.
Another factor that global warmists seem unaware of is that carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for life. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been dropping throughout the earth's history; some scientists have predicted that life on earth will go extinct sometime within the next 100 million to billion years from the disappearance of CO2. The decrease of CO2 is mentioned in a ScienceDaily article: the pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has dropped some 2,000-fold over the past 3.5 billion years. Therefore, any attempts to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere in fact move the time of extinction closer.
Finally, you should point out to your friend's son that, while there is a plethora of alarmist articles about this or that disaster resulting from "global warming", not a single one of those alarmist predictions ever states a mechanism or any experimental/observational evidence. Any time you read something along the lines of "Another study on the effects of global warming predicts that...", you can pretty much discount anything that follows. Those are not studies; they are modeling exercises, and modeling is truly a GIGO activity.
Invite your friend's son to engage with us right here. I doubt he will, but if he does address his global warming questions to me directly, I will do my best to answer them.
A lot of the rising generation would gladly feed everybody over 65 into the Soylent Greet grinder.
Quite to the contrary, Water in the atmosphere has enormously more effect that CO2.
This is THE ESSENSE of the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Enormous amounts of energy (principally translational and vibrational) are carried from the surface into the atmosphere by fast moving free or loosely associated water molecules.
Collisions between water molecules and the majority nitrogen and oxygen molecules transfer the energy to the greater atmosphere. As the energy level of the water molecules diminishes, the probability that water molecules will reaggregate increases. This leads to condensation and has the effect of transferring that 539 calories per gram to the rest of the atmosphere.
Now for the Kicker!
Carbon dioxide does NOT form aggregates. It is not lighter than air and thus does not rise quickly. There is no phase change when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide carries less than half the heat per molecule compared to water.
One gram of Carbon Dioxide heated at the surface by incident sunlight carries (2 * 539 = 1078) 1078 times less energy into the atmosphere than one gram of water.
Carbon dioxide represents 0.0387 % of the atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere represents 1% to 4% or 25 to 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide.
Combining the two statements above, Water is (25 * 1078 = 27,175) to (100 * 1078 = 108,700) times more responsible for greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately Ex, as a professional geologist I am miffed that the Geological Society of America has bought the AGWT hook, line and sinker - inspite of the fact that the numbers have been repeatedly cooked (so much for the integrity of the scientific review process) and the fact that it is known that the geologic record shows cyclical periods of heating (gonna blame dinosaur farts?) and cooling. As one who’s done predictive computer modeling and looked at the models ‘predicting’ global warming all I can say is bunk. These models doen’t even get the historical data correct, let alone validated to even begin to look into the future. Without a validated model of historical data - one that doesn’t cook the books - predictive modeling results are bogus.
You might take a look at this (Is Global Warming A Sin?):
The late Mr. Cockburn was about as militant hard-left as you could get, but was rational on this topic.
You might also pursue the writings of Dr. Martin Hertzberg, mentioned in the Cockburn article.
Clearly a creed, not science.
Thanks for the ping!
That’s a very interesting explanation of the greenhouse effect, and it makes a lot more sense than other explanations I have seen.
I have often questioned what it is about CO2 that supposedly gives it such a disproportionate ability to increase total atmospheric heat (energy) content. No one has ever been able to explain it, even those who are rabid advocates of the AGW hypothesis.
One explanation that I have seen is that CO2 has an unusually broad fluorescence band in the IR range. However, that does not make sense as a mechanism for retaining energy, since fluorescent absorption and emission happen almost instantaneously. Someone told me that during the nanoseconds between absorption and emission, the CO2 molecule can shed that energy by bumping another molecule. In that case, the atmosphere would have to be of a certain density for that mechanism to have any effect. Without that critical density, the shedding of energy by fluorescent emission would be the primary way the CO2 loses the energy gain of fluorescent absorption.
Your description of the greenhouse effect makes far more sense. The energy change of phase transition of water accounts for a lot of energy—and, of course, CO2 under normal atmospheric conditions only undergoes one phase transition at a very low temperature, lower than that encountered almost anywhere on earth. So CO2 cannot store energy, while water does.
I could go on and on about my frustration with life scientists who have swallowed the AGW line. I have many things I could say about it, but I will restrict myself to one story. I went to an American Society of Microbiology meeting, and listened to a woman talk about the problems of food poisoning. She explained that the incidence of food poisoning seems to be increasing and described various factors which she thought responsible. For instance, foods grown all over the world are shipped thousands of miles, creating multiple opportunities for contamination, starting with the fields where foods are grown, to the point of distribution. There are many areas where microbial growth control could be improved. Okay, those are good points. Then she added that the increased bacterial content of foods results from global warming. Um... excuse me? Is there a shred of evidence for that, or did she throw that in there because mentioning global warming looks good to the funding agencies? Things like that just make me want to yell.