Posted on 03/15/2007 10:05:41 PM PDT by Islander7
Since water vapor is the most powerful of the greenhouse gases, I suppose having more water evaporation be a bad thing?
NASA says crap like this whenever they need funding. Then they launch their satellite for another purpose and say that the global warming part of their study is inconclusive.
"Must suck to pull stuff out of thin air for one's bread and butter."
I don't believe "thin air" was the place origin for global warming theory, but rather an unmentionable part of the human anatomy...
"I can't wait until someone actually proposes this for real..."
It might come sooner than you think; there's already tests about to take place (if they haven't already) concerning the pumping of industrial CO2 emissions into underground resevoirs (like nuclear waste, go figure!).
This makes absolutely no sense based on what they told us previously about Freons eating a hole in the ozone. I guess we better start the Freon business back up to save the earth. (Then I can have my old job back).
Time to fire these idiots or force them to debate some real scientists. Our tax $'s are being wasted by these political operatives posing as scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov
Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.
After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."
The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.
"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.
The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.
"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes see bottom of article)
The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.
The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a crisis.”
Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience
The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate "crisis" moments before the debate began.
But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of 46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official audience voting results]
[Link to full debate pdf transcript]
Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealCilmate.org.
"…I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.
‘Advantage: Climate Contrarians’
The ScientificAmerican.com’s blog also declared the global warming skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled: "Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."
"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello wrote.
The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at ScientificAmerican.com.
Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw ‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’ By the final vote, 46 percent of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."
Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as "perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."
Skeptic’s ‘Very Popular’
Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.
"Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all."
Schmidt continued, "Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science."
Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.
Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full debate pdf transcript]
Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:
"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"
"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."
"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"
"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."
Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:
"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."
"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."
"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."
"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”
“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”
Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:
"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."
"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."
"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."
# # #
Related Links:
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call For Decertification
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
The BBC video link below has real scientists not Green enviralist druids pretending to be NASA scientists:
UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle or the Gorebal Warming Scam:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
What any of these so called scientists really know about climatology could be deposited up an ant's rectum and it would roll around like a pea in a boxcar.
Any minute now I expect to hear Tattoo yelling, "Boss, the sun, the sun."
But responding to changes is probably inside our control. It likely doesn't cost much to create various aerosols at specific locations. Lasers, particle beams, saltwater spraying, nucleotide dispersion can turn invisible water vapor into visible sun shades at will.
Rain is outside our control but using technology to dam powerful rivers and create hundred mile freshwater reservoirs to manage rain is. Engineers are mostly conservatives so the day will come when conservatives profit the most from climate change and leftists will flip to being against doing anything about it. Ludditism is always on the wrong side of history.
"This makes absolutely no sense based on what they told us previously about Freons eating a hole in the ozone."
The ozone problem is not the same as the greenhouse/climate change problem. The ozone layer protects us from ultra-violet rays. Too much ultra-violet leads to more skin cancer, which I understand has become an increasing problem. A whole lot of ultra-violet can sterilize various organisms. I don't know if the complete loss of ozone would amount to that much UV. At any rate, the problems are distinct from one another.
Liquified CO2 acts as a solvent. It has proven effective in removing the stranded oil so that it too can be recovered. Here is a link to a page that discusses the technology:
Stranded Oil Recovery and American Energy Independence
Additionally, since CO2 is emitted from the oceans and from the soil itself, it can also be captured and sequestered geologically remaining trapped underground for many years. It has already been tested and proven effective in Canada. Here is a link to the concept:
CO2 Injection and Carbon Sequestration
Now I'm not agreeing that CO2 emissions are what is causing the increased temperatures but the Gore types are saying that's exclusively what is causing it. If engineers showed how the CO2 could be used to produce more oil for energy independence and at the same reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, they'd go bonkers. That's because a lot of the hype is about a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. Instead, there are many in the movement who are riding the global warming coattail for reasons of anti-capitalism and world income redistribution through that absurd carbon credits scheme.
I agree 100%. Leftism is driven by the evil force of envy. Leftists know they must cloak their evil behind something more socially acceptable such as environmental concern else they can't get what they want. They must say one thing but really mean another. They tell each other they are on the side of good and therefore the end justifies the means but really they are the fools of Satan.
The purpose of this study is to REINFORCE global warming.
Anything that comes out of GISS is.
The premise is that aerosols (man-made pollution) blocked the increase in temperatures in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and it is only now, since the 1990s have we seen the warming predicted because the air has finally cleared up.
This is just part of the global warming evidence they will use. As usual, GISS is just rewriting the historical climate record to suit their global warming purposes.
The author of the above solar irradiance study, Judith Lean, updated the study in 2004 which took away the increasing solar irradiance trend seen above.
Basically, she was intimidated into redoing her numbers to match up closer with the global warming theory. These numbers actually made it into the IPCC 2001 report and, of course, the global warming crowd did not like having such a provocative solar trend-line in the record. So, she was forced to redo it.
This is very common in global warming research. To get invited to all the great global warming parties, she had to do a new fake study. So, the newer numbers are what is quoted today. Here is link to the most recent one.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
NOAA is not the only source for irradiance data.
The Max Planck data shows clear irradiance rise as the eaerlier Lean study.
All the new solar data and historical reconstructions are more in line with the earlier studies.
Case will soon be closed, when aerosols are properly taken into account.
It's not gonna look good for the man-made CO2 crowd then.
This is what I meant before.
Though Lean,etc has reworked their data somehow (seeing how is on my 'to-do' list) to greatly smooth out their irradiance data, others like MaxPlanck, here, have resisted doing so, and indeed have added to the force of their data with the Be10 measurement publications of the last several years. For some reason, the Lean rework doesn't reflect the reality of the solar flux situation as well as the original "with background" data does.
"A detailed quantitative comparison suggests that the Sun was between 2 and 4 Wm-2 less bright during the Maunder minimum than today." (http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/results.html)
Meanwhile, from NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ACRIMIII/
"An important consideration in the solar irradiance measurement is that it must be made for a very long time. Climate models show that changes as small as 0.5 percent of full scale over a century could produce equivalents of the most extreme periods of warm or cold climate that the Earth has experienced within the period humans have lived here. In real terms, this means total irradiance data gathered over a few decades is just beginning to scratch the surface of what we can understand about the sun’s behavior and its impact on the Earth’s climate."
The 3 Wm-2 from Max Planck is 0.2% of total irradiance - one third of the difference needed to explain the 8C temperature change of the Ice Ages, according to this!
The Solar Irradiance factor can NOT simply be wished away by the global warming alarmists. I suspect strongly that there will be a considerable re-working of irradiance vs. temperature models in light of these Aerosol data, and that it will soon be announced, by some scientists who really want to get their names put down in history, that the earth is now playing catch-up after the masking of solar influence by aerosols during the 1940-1990 cooling ... as indicated by that JunkScience.com graph above.
Good stuff AFPhys.
Does Phys mean physics.
My view is the astrophysics community needs to step up and save us from the global warming hysteria. Given that astrophysics is one of the most advanced fields in terms of real understanding, data backing up theories and a true understanding of EM radiation, the field is best suited to correct the problems we have with global warming hysteria.
Not only that, but no one truly knows yet how (the extent to which) CO2 actually absorbs IR radiation from the earth's surface and then transports it back to the surface. The theory of global warming is not yet, in fact, understood from its basic premise - how much IR radiation from the surface is absorbed by CO2 and how it reflects/transports it back. These are basic physics questions that climate researchers and those that build the models to model this basic premise do not understand in the least.
The physics community does though and if you are one, time to step up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.