Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/08/2010 3:59:15 PM PST by Coleus
Christie should be able to identify which departments at the university to de-fund.
The inventory comes from fossil fuel consumption, cement making and (to a smaller extent) forest clearing data. Those give a fairly precise figure for the amount of CO2 produced each year. Next those are compared to the natural increase for each year (the caveat being that the natural increase fluctuates with the NH growing season, so year to year growth has to be used).
It turns out that manmade CO2 is about double the rise observed in the atmosphere. That means nature is absorbing 1/2 of the "extra" which also means that there is and will be no such thing as a positive feedback from CO2 to warming to more CO2. It is all negative and will probably get more negative. Water vapor is another story, but it's a story about weather and has not been shown to produce large positive feedbacks.
These climate models are FUBAR, and a scientist with any integrity would divulge this up front. What they are left with is "we have no idea what the climate will be like ten years from now" - but it is likely to be much the same as it is now - yawn! As it was 50 years ago by my limited experience.
One of those three protesting climate scientists, Alan Robock, is getting NOAA grants. Don’t stop his gravy train!!!
I did not delve into the other two scientests
Can someone run a search on their political giving...
In 2008, the Farmers Almanac stated that the earth had entered a global cooling period that would probably last decades. The journal based its prediction on sunspot cycles. Said contributing meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”
(Joseph D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant meteorologist and co-founder of The Weather Channel. He was chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
Florida Farmers Assess Freeze Damage
Hey Alan...let's see your record of real life predictions...computer modeling doesn't count.
Yeah, they shoulda picked a warmer day...
My preference in those cases is the political argument. Use the swimming pool and show us shrinking our economy when we take out a few cups of water (CO2 is proportional to economic activity). Now show China dumping gallons in (they are building two coal based power plants a week). The science is hopelessly politicized since the government has bought the research results they want (that calls for more government control). So at this point politics should be the preferred mode of argument.
GW from CO2 and increased CO2 is a pretty well-tested theory. The simplest models are just a small slice of atmosphere and the radiation is calculated and more is trapped as more CO2 is added. The models you are talking about are global circulation models that are too coarse (in both time and space) to properly model weather. So they are fed parameters instead of figuring out the weather. But the weather will change with warming (see Eschenbach's writings). Also the models don't consider external influences on weather, like the Russian heat wave caused by blocking which can be caused by our current low solar ultraviolet levels or other solar/celestial factors (the link is imprecise but real and there is no link from CO2 to blocking).
So the models can easily be jiggered (by the parameters) to match whatever temperature series they want, both backwards and forwards. It is simple GIGO.
In other words, their computer models are the computational equivalent of an unreplicable experiment. The cold-fusion duo, Pons and Fleischmann, got hoofed out of the scientific pale because their results couldn't be replicated.
Is it I, or is there some sort of double standard here? Why is it that two guys who promised to help solve the energy crisis got the old-fashioned heave-ho, while a tight-knit citation circle of doomsayers get the new-fashioned coddle for substantially the same lacuna?
thanks for the heads up.
The climate changes everyday and has since the beginning of time and will continue to do so regardless of what a bunch of scientists want. >>>
that’s the way God made the world but the progressive humanists in academia and part of the global warming agenda don’t want to hear of this...
[Snort...] Actually, Cape May is lovely - a true holder of the motto "The Garden State". Elizabeth? Well...
Earth worship, the new state religion.
South Jersey is a nice and the parts in the NW and Sussex County are nice. NJ need a neutron bomb. Some of the people who have lived their for a long time and pay taxes are nice but the state is filled with loads of liberal and illegal alien mutants. Still - by electing Christie there is hope. NY is hopeless.
Best tomatoes any where.
” “I’ve heard over 100 different arguments about why we shouldn’t accept global warming. They’re all fallacious and I’d be happy to point out the errors in any of them,” said Rutgers professor Alan Robock, a meteorologist.”
Then post em on the Internet Robock. You are a liar “professor.” Point out the errors in any of them.
Let's see if this is right:
Weight of the atmosphere: 5 x 10^15 metric tons
CO2 emitted in 2007: 2.93 x 10^7 metric tons
So the 2007 CO2 added 1 part in 1.6 x 10^8 to the atmosphere.
An Olympic sized swimming pool contains at least 2.5 x 10^6 liters of water.
There are about 20 drops in a milliliter or 20000 in a liter, so there are 5 x 10^10 drops in an Olympic sized pool.
So as far as relative mass is concerned, the CO2 addition in one year is more like 300 drops from an eyedropper in an OSSP, or about 15 ml or 1 Tablespoon of water in an Olympic sized pool
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.