Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX

Back on 3/24 I rediscovered(hat tip Freeper Libwhacker) a very overlooked series of articles written by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post that sought to show how there was no "consensus" on global warming. Mr. Solomon didn't have to dig up illuminati believing bloggers, corporate shills or political pundits to do it. He just found some of the most respected scientists in their respective fields of study. I will be posting the remaining 11 articles over the next few days. Mr. Solomon has just written a book based on the series called The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**and those who are too fearful to do so. Freepmail me with a request to join my "the deniers"/global warming ping list if you'd like. Here is the series:

The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX

The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? -- Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age -- Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly -- Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks -- Part XXX

In the eye of the storm of global warming -- Part XXXI
From chaos, coherence -- Part XXXII
The aerosol man -- Part XXXIII
The Hot Trend is cool yachts -- Part XXXIV
You still need your parka in Antarctica -- Part XXXV
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save -- Part XXXVI
Why melting of ice sheets 'is impossible' -- Part XXXVII
Climate change by Jupiter -- Part XXXVIII

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

I simply can not for the life of me understand how the alarmists have managed to dupe the real world in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

This article speaking about CO2 actuality instead of hypothetical, model-driven, estimates is seemingly impossible to refute. It is not the only basis for contrary opinion. Yet, the alarmists propaganda effort seems now to be a juggernaut that will require a 3-4F drop in temperatures over the next two decades in order to reverse public perceptions.

"As an American oak tree, I'd like to add my honest two cents to the mix. I like CO₂. That's what I eat, OK? That's what all my friends and cousins eat too. We can't get enough of the stuff. That's like saying for humans, there's too much food in the world. Don't go on some greenhouse gas witch hunt on my account. Not in my name. Sincerely, Oak Tree."

I simply can not for the life of me understand how the alarmists have managed to dupe the real world in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

It's a similar mechanism to how Socialists have managed to dupe populations into thinking the socialism is workable in the real world in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

It hinges on the self interest of the parties involved

If "Global Warming" is real, then that translates into lots of research grants into its study, and lots of research grants into how to reduce it. It translates into vastly increased government power (in order to regulate it), thus increasing the power of government officials. It translates into vastly increased power of the UN, which is why UN bureaucrats are so much for it. It gives news reporters something to talk about on slow news days.

Lots of people benefit from the idea of it being a problem

“Lots of people benefit from the idea of it being a problem”

You left out one key player. Big Business. There is a lot of money to be made by business selling snake oil that will heal our supposed global warming malady.

> And here I was thinking this was a thread on Victorias Secret supermodels and their measurements <

Or,

Trump’s Models’ Measurements:

Statistics for Miss USA Contestants

“As an American oak tree, I’d like to add my honest two cents to the mix. I like CO2. That’s what I eat, OK? That’s what all my friends and cousins eat too. We can’t get enough of the stuff.

Hey Oak Tree. I’m breathing as fast as I can to make more CO2 for you. When you get nice and big I make you into some nice furniture for my house. I appreciate that you are growing faster with these higher CO2 levels, of course that pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere at a higher rate.

“...if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass.”

I don’t understand this part. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere longer, shouldn’t there be more of the stuff there?

“I don’t understand this part. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere longer, shouldn’t there be more of the stuff there?”

I had trouble with that statement as well. My guess is that if CO2 DID indeed have a 50-200 year lifetime, then based on estimates of output to date, there would have to be a lot more of it out there in the atomosphere than there is. This ties into the articles coverage of the IPCC scientists and those that buy into the theory that there has to be some undiscovered CO2 sink pits out there to account for the missing CO2.

Ahh, here is the explaination:
“Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time — otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn’t be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans’ near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.”

In otherwords, CO2s mass(density) affects its ability to be absorbed by the oceans and the facts just don’t fit with their theories.

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.