Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 05/31/2012 8:27:32 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) — The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and most of it lasts about 100 years in the air, but some of it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
But of course since the climate models they use don’t actually account for dynamic precipitation/evaporation cycles with cloud cover factored in, they simply miss that sort of thing.
It’s amazing that any scientist can look themselves in the mirror and endorse this charade.
Whoops...someone beat me to it! :0)
Another dynamic item that the models don't seem to take into account are hurricanes. As oceans get warmer, they are more able to sustain hurricanes, which are efficient mechanisms for transporting HUGE amounts of heat energy from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere.
I’ve had a thought recently about the ancient Greeks. You’re probably wondering why this isn’t a digression. Bear with me.
OK, in many ways they invented much of modern medicine and gave us the Hippocratic oath. “First do no harm.”
Around the same time they introduced the scientific method. This is one of the greatest cornerstones of Western Civilization. It’s why the western nations “won” (at least until the progressives, and other leftist strains sapped the will to live and succeed of the West and they started to eat out their own innards).
What they did lack was an equivalent to the Hippocratic oath. Thus we get scientists willing to lie and falsify data to suit outside agendas. On top of this the scientific community will not even uniformly condemn this.
We need an Aristotlean oath. “First I will not lie.” The world of science would be a lot better off for the existence of such a thing. This is not to say scientists could not speculate, but they damned well should be clear about what they actually know and don’t know. That boundary should be explicit and they should be not causing hysteria based on half baked theories unsupported by facts.
I would say that most university researchers are addicted to government grant money. Their ability to achieve tenure is, to a large extent, determined by their ability to attract grant money. Universities like grant money. The problem arrives when the grant issuers have a political agenda which is advanced by certain results, and harmed by other results, and they focus their money on people who tell them what they want to hear.
We saw this kind of thing in Global Warming, where the existence of Global Warming justified lucrative scams like carbon credit trading, gave more power to the EPA, and more power to legislators who could convince the EPA to back off from constituents who paid enough campaign money.
By a Darwinian process, the scientists who were left, were the ones who were good at giving the grant issuers the results they wanted to see.
Yeah, the AGW grant circus got completely ridiculous. It didn’t matter if you had a topic outside the realms of physics, climate, chemistry or even biology, anything was fair game. You could be an assistant prof of sociology fishing for a grant and if you mentioned AGW, you had a much easier time of tapping the money tree.
” - - - Actually, there is a correlation.”
Correlation in based on statistical INFERENCE, not Cause and Effect.
Science requires cause and effect testing.
Statistics have their place in politics, but not in the testing of an hypothesis in Science.
BTW, what was the first article that you have read on Global Warming that did NOT use Statistical Correlation or The Null Hypothesis as a “Test” of Global Warming?
BULLS EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You dah MAN!
If you want to appreciate the amount of energy a little evaporation/condensation cycle can move around check a Cat 5 hurricane or even a tornado. Of course these an infinitesimal chunk of the whole hydrological cycle.
Never say never, huh?
I knew that would get me in trouble. However, that depiction of CO2, was it on a WEATHER website?
No, it was part of a published study. I don’t know if there is a regular measurement of CO2 by satellite, but there ought to be even though, as you say, it has no effect on the weather.
That just cracks me up. Are they tagging each molecule to see where it goes?
Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says
Global Warming on Free Republic
"Who wrote this?!"
https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/borenbears
seth borenstein
@borenbears
Associated Press science writer covering astronomy, climate, disasters and everything science. Red Sox fan. Sborenstein@ap.org.
@masoninman I talked to 8 scientists for story, its also abt policy so I called Gore and Ebell ; He said no warming, i showed #s otherwise
31 May
From the Tacoma News-Tribune
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
Looking at that, I’d say it looks like we’re almost half way to where we should be...provided all other factors, known & unknown, cooperated to bring that GAT back to 17-25C.
With only one example (and I searched for more examples) it is rather hard to come to any conclusions, is it not?
Thanks! That is exactly the Cause and Effect that is required to Scientifically Test the Global Warming speculation.
Since there are only a handful of documented cases where CO2 exceeded 400 ppM, (roughly every 100 kyr), the data that you present is consistent with the idea that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has little effect on air temperature, or ever has.
What an inconvenient truth!
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.