OR-1: Climate change is just too science-y for Rob Cornilles
Carla Axtman
On the extravagant Fantasy Island inhabited by so many GOPers and teabaggers these days, we're not allowed to discuss real science. We're supposed to rely on the equivalent of TV weather forecasters to write-off global climate change. (With all due respect to Dave Salesky, my favorite weatherman, who once told me that its not generally a TV weatherperson's field of expertise to understand global climate change).
Never mind that 97% of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
Guess that's just a little to science-y for Republican Rob Cornilles, who is running for Congress in the 1st district against David Wu.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:27 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Hey Rob: What if you are WRONG?
2:36 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Very interesting look at the climate change issue for a geological perspective here
2:49 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
A bit more info: 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
Mr. Cornilles might want to bone up.
3:10 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
I am no scientist and don't pretend to be one, but I think it is safe to say that it IS happening and man plays a role in it.
What to do about it, one the other hand, is not so clear. Until we de-politicize the issue, I doubt anything will be done. Of course, according to my link above, the Earth might not care one way or the other.
4:40 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
As long as there's a bunch of money to be made (and lost) on this, I am skeptical that it will be de-politicized.
It's an unfortunate reality.
4:06 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
Of course the earth doesn't care. The atmosphere will always change and humans can't stop it or help it. If it makes you feel good to walk in the rain instead of driving, that's great. However, a true greenie would want to drive and give plants the CO2 they all love.
-Dave Percy
4:19 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
Of course the Earth doesn't care. The atmosphere will always change at all time scales. Humans can't stop it or help it. If you would rather walk in the rain than drive, that's cool. However a true greenie would rather drive and give plants the CO2 they all love.
2:50 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Anyone have any relevant polling on this race? Last I saw was polling form back in July.
3:04 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Here's the current data from 538.com: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/house/oregon/1 I like the numbers, but still plan on canvassing and phoning for David Wu. We cannot take anything for granted this time.
3:18 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Sorry to say the race has tightened considerably from the Sept 538.com forecast Glen references above. Wu will be at the WashCo Dems office at 12250 SW Broadway in Beaverton on Saturday from 10-1:00 to greet the canvassers going out for him and Kitz. Please join us!
9:59 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Is that the office next to Ringos?
10:06 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Yes, the office next to Ringos. Join us there to work for Wu, Kitz and the rest of the Coordinated Campaign
11:06 p.m.
Oct 12, '10
Some things never change. Not surprising your "favorite" TV weatherman has no degree in atmospheric science, Carla, to offer his "opinion" about climate. You are as ignorant about the subject as ever. Even after I tried to straighten you out, you continue with the drivel that anyone who does or did TV weather is "unqualified" to opine about climate. What BS. Climate science borrows heavily from atmospheric science, which I am degreed in, and atmospheric science borrows almost exclusively from physics, so when a physics professor great like Harold Lewis from the University of California resigns from the American Physical Society and sends them a butt searing letter of resignation calling the CO2 global warming "hypothesis" the worst pseudo scientific fraud in history, you should take note.( See www.wattupwiththat.com ) Again I will state as I have to you before that this entire hypothesis is exactly as Lewis describes it, bunk BS that is being attempted to be used as a wealth transfer tax to enrich the special interests who benefit from the creation of these frivolous green sector jobs, that anyone footing the bill for gets nothing for except having to be taxed and fleeced for this nonsense that produces and accomplishes nothing. I can only hope that since you aren't bright enough to question and look at the real evidence of this farce that the "common good" of society does it for you by sweeping these convoluted idiots in power out of office come November 2nd and restore this country to some form of rational semblance.
Chuck Wiese Meteorologist Atmospheric Science Ex Tv Meteorologist More Than Qualified To Speak About Climate
5:38 a.m.
Oct 13, '10
Chuck,
Since you've been presenting yourself as an expert on this issue the last couple of years, it's fair to ask what you've published about climate change.
It's also fair to ask if you receive funding from fossil-fuel interests.
So?
11:25 a.m.
Oct 13, '10
Mike, don't lay that crap on me. I haven't published anything on "climate" because even if I did want to publish, this government doesn't fund anyone whose opinion is neutral or skeptical about CO2 and temperature. This is precisely the complaint of emeritus professor of physics, Harold Lewis, who resigned from the APS with a searing letter of damnation to the whole society for their corrupted practices of engaging in the pseudo science of AGW regarding CO2 and temperature. He openly accuses them of taking money to produce frivolous results for self centered enrichment! And further, "publishing" something is not a requirement to understand what is happening or the results of "peer reviewed" work. I have seen absolutely atrocious papers published that have bastardized the physical equations of atmospheric science and inapropriately used them to make false statements about the earth's temperature. Try the one by Allen and Sherwood that used the thermal wind equations to falsely claim mid tropospheric wind flows in the TROPICS were a real sign the earth is getting warmer. The founding work done in atmospheric radiation concerning CO2, clouds and water vapor was done and published years ago and is at odds with what is being said about this today. Problem is, no scientific refutations have ever been offered to this founding work, but ideas incorrectly supplanted concerning this have been loaded into frivolous climate models, which cannot predict the future as claimed, and have already failed. Where does this leave the "scientific community" that you refer to? Let me see....oh yes, global warming is real, it is happening and if you just give us another 100 billion of taxpayer funds, we will prove it someday. In the meantime, please just pass cap and trade so our funding can become permanent. What a bunch of self serving, convoluted crap!!
5:14 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
First off, I didn't call you "Chucky". My name's not "Mike". Just because you appear on Lars "I don't have any manners" Larson's show, don't assume that bad manners will get you ahead in life.
Second, the Return key. Learn how to use it--it will make your writings much easier to read. I'm assuming that you actually want people to read what you write.
Third, apparently I struck a nerve with the fact that you are unpublished. So, you're saying that receiving government money is the only way to get published? Whatever happened to private initiative?
Fourth, you didn't answer my question about receiving money from fossil fuel interests. Since you consider those who receive money from the government biased, it's fair that you disclose any sources of your own income that might bias your views.
6:58 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Iv'e already explained to you, Michael, about publishing. Within the frame of scientists who have made gross errors in work that have, it makes little difference in this area of study and doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.
It's a nice diversion that is made by people like you to try and discredit someone elses opinion that doesn't agree with yours. How about sticking to the real issue, Michael, which is to prove carbon dioxide has and is causing the earth's temperature to rise. Got any "published" papers you could show proving that? Or are they the usual wastefull drivel that says 60% sure,70% or some other ridiculous statement that makes the "science settled", according to you and these creep politicians promoting the rot? How about some measurements of the CO2 radiation well that can affirmitively calculate a rising temperature according to model sensitivity? Hmm? There isn't any is there?
You bet there is not because in the real atmosphere, it isn't there!
7:17 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
"It's a nice diversion that is made by people like you to try and discredit someone elses opinion that doesn't agree with yours."
Exactly what you're doing, Chuck. You attack government funding, yet refuse to divulge whether you receive funding from those with a financial interest in continuing to carbon dioxide and other substances into the atmosphere.
I actually haven't commented on the science, I've commented on your demeanor and tactics.
Again, please answer this simple question: How much funding have you received from fossil fuel interests?
7:39 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
None. Zero.
5:15 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Oh, and it's odd that you see peer review as a negative.
5:44 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
No, I don't see it as a negative totally, but it has severe problems at present because it has been corrupted by people like Michael Mann who hijacked it and summarily rejected any opinions that didn't agree with his about Co2 and warming. He also mixed tree ring data with only part of the thermometer temperature record that gave him the nice result he got with his phony hockey stick temperature graph. That is either practicing sheer fraud or demonstrating glaring incompetence.
The Allen and Sherwood paper passed review, yet had it been submitted as problem coursework in dynamic meteorology, it would have had to have been graded totally wrong and a failed test to a student submitting it as the concept of solving and using any parameter of the thermal wind equations in a barotropic atmosphere that are impossible and dead wrong in that setting.
Peer reviewe is only as good as the honesty of the scientists that sit on a committee are willing to make it. The Climategate e-mails are proof of a corrupted process that is protecting the special interests that want any work to reflect temperatures are still warming. And the "investigations" by academic committees that overlooked this were a complete whitewashing void of asking any questions needed to correctly probe and get to the bottom the the e-mail discrepancies and behavior of this group. Definately the foxes explaining to the public how the chickens have all neen disapearing.
Go to wattsupwiththat.com and read Willis Eisenbach's response to the ridiculous claims made by Michael Mann on his explanations for how he had been cleared of any "wrong doing" from climategate.
"climate science" has severely damaged the reputation and integrity of science in general from these frauds and incompetents reaching for money as the new truth rather than facts. The crapper is overdue for a flushing, and Mann,Hansen, et all need to go down the bowl for a fresh start.
11:08 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
Chuck Wiese, James Hansen gives the account, in his book, "Storms Of My Grandchildren", about how his research LOST federal funding back in the '80s due to his emphasis on anthropogenically caused climate change.
And the main evidence is not climate models- it is evidence garnered from ice cores in the polar caps and from taking samples of deep-sea beds. This shows the Earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gas accumulation.
The human factor of the addition of greenhouse gases completely swamps and overwhelms all other climate forcings, including changes in solar radiance and the cycle of change in the tilt and orbit of the Earth.
Chuck Wiese, Read Dr. James Hansen's book!
9:31 a.m.
Oct 13, '10
Chuck:
Unfortunately for you, I'm not stupid. And while I'm sure you consider yourself an expert, the people that actually do the work in this science (y'know, the guys who actually do peer reviewed science on it) are the individuals whose opinion rightly holds weight.
Each time you post here with your "corrections", you reinforce my resolve to continue to write about how fluffy and silly your opinion really is on this. Your arrogant and borderline nasty responses are not especially helpful to your case, btw.
11:09 a.m.
Oct 13, '10
That's it Carla, ignore reality in favor of frivolus assertion. Who are the people that are doing the "work" in climate science? What degrees do they hold? Jane Lubchenco from Oregon State University is a Ph.D. in Zoology who is frequently quoted as a "climate expert" in this group. Mark Abbott, Dean of the COAS at Oregon State University, a Ph.D. in "Ecology". I don't even know what that entitles you to do, the major wasn't there when I was at OSU, but it sure as hell is vacant of atmospheric science and meteorology, critical majors for understanding climate. Bob Doppelt, from U of O is NOT a physical scientist, he is a SOCIAL science major, but touted as an "expert" just because Kulongoski assigned him a position in the "climate initiative leadership board". Michael Mann is NOT a scientist that knows ANYTHING about the atmosphere. His Ph.D. is in Geology, yet he falsely calls himself a professor of meteorology.James Hansen is a Ph.D. in astronomy, again, not related to atmospheric science. So who are the experts you are talking about, their names and credentials? More important, where is the proof they offer that a 15 micron absorber of infrared radiation can control or change the earth's climate? Any papers you can steer me to with the smoking gun? A "consensus" of opinion by a lot of people not trained in atmospheric science proves nothing and that's not how science works, yet that is the house of cards your ilk stands on to make your baseless and factless claims. BTW, I never said you were stupid. I said you were ignorant of facts, which is true. There is a difference, and if you want to make a good inmpression just deliver on my requests above, answer my questions directly and maybe we will get somewhere.
12:18 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Sure, Chuck. All those scientists who actually do peer reviewed climate science--I shouldn't listen to them. I should listen to the guy who tries to predict the weather. LOL
Thanks for the giggle. :)
5:21 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Good, Carla, I see you didn't and won't answer any of my specific questions because they damage your arguments and reduce them to a pile of rubble.
So yes, thank YOU for the chuckle! Left wing pseudo science looney arguments are always good for a laugh:D.
3:45 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
The reality is that average global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than in all of the geologic record and data that we have. The reality is, that that actual scientist who do peer reviewed climate science have shown that global warming is actually occurring. So continue to prove Carla's point, that a hack fool who claims to be a weatherman knows more about climate science than than 97% of the scientists who do actual the climate science studies.
5:17 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Mitchell: BS! Temperatures are rising according to who? Even your pals at the CRU like Phil Jones now have been forced to admit there has been no statistically significant warming of global temperatures since 1998, which remains the warmest year in the satellite record that has been kept since 1979. The NOAA satellite sensors have now been found to be degraded and unreliable just like the surface temperature measurements have become from that agency as meteorologist Anthony Watts audited the US stations after conversion to ASOS and found that over 50% of them no longer meet NOAA observing and placement standards.But take the fake processing alogorithms out of many of the US rural stations and you'll finfd the ten year temperature trend has actually declined. So it is just pretentious and false to claim this is the warmest year on record.
Go to www.wattsupwiththat.com for fun if you have the guts and read Willis Eisenbach's analysis of the Australian temperature record. What he found there is another massively fraudulent processinmg algorithm that was used to cause a false warming trend to emerge from the data that simply doesn't exist. We are now calling that "Kiwigate". You know, like that fraudulent and totally discredited piece of trash called the "hockey stick" temperature graph thta was created by Michael Mann from Penn State who falsely calls himself an atmospheric scientist.
And who are you? I google your name but the only thing that comes up is a guy that is fine tuned to left wing politics with no scientific credentials. In other words, a political hack who throws out a bunch of nonsense that you just did here that is easily refutable with the public information that is available concerning the global temperature record.
5:41 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Hey..something both you and Rob Cornilles can actually read from real global climate change scientists (and not weathermen)!
Yay science!
Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs: Scientists from two leading climate research centers publish 'best evidence yet' of rising long-term global temperatures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures-2010-record
EPA: Is our planet warming?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6
Climate research centers where actual climate scientists do peer reviewed science-type stuff!
Maybe you could get them to listen to you, Chuck. After looking at all that real, depressing science all day, I'm willing to bet they could use the laugh.
5:57 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
They are the laugh of the year, Carla, and they know they are lying about the temperatures. John O'Sullivan exposes this well with the latest revelations from what is now called "satellitegate" where NOAA has been letting SAT16 orbit with known degraded sensors that even had the temperatures of the Graet Lakes reading out a value of over 700 degF. See my posts above for why the surface record is no longer reliable. The statements here and above are facts, Carla, not frovolous assertions like you make. The posts and data are available at wattsupwiththat.com.
With nuts like Carol Browner running the EPA, she is the last person I would trust for anything. NOAA is being politicized by Calamity Jane Lubchenco, who with her ZOE degree is not the least bit qualified to head the agency. There has been no statistically significant warming of the earth since 2000, Carla, get over it. That observation, along with rising CO2 concentrations,(10% since 1992) yet recent new RECORD MINIMUM TEMPERATURES in the Yukon and Alaska September 28th WITHOUT snow cover is proof that CO2's infrared radiation is having no effect to climate sensitivity as claimed by these nuts. The CO2 global warming movement is a hoax, fraud and lie, being pepetrated to enrich academia, government bureaucracies and politicians who can never be satiated enough by spending more and more of other peoples money.
6:19 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
LOL
"The climate is not warming"
(shown actual data showing climate warming)
"The data doesn't show warming since 1998"
(shown actual data showing this year the warmest on record)
"They are publishing false data, it's all a conspiracy"
(rolls eyes)
6:41 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
All wrong, Mitchell, and ignorant of the facts. See my post above.
(rolls eyes)
11:18 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
Not all wrong and not ignoring anything.
6:22 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Who am I? Well I am not hack weatherman claiming that the global climate data is falsified by NOAA and the rest of the climate scientist actually studying the issue.
6:44 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
You are a political hack who doesn't understand atmospheric science, meteorology, climate or anything else related. You are programmed to go off on and attack anyone who dare questions and proves this psudo science of being the fraud that it is.
9:53 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Or...just question frauds. :) Which he's doing to you quite nicely.
11:22 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
So 97% of the worlds climate scientists are publishing "pseudo science" and the data is fabricated by NOAA in a grand conspiracy. Gotcha.
6:27 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
For those who want to actually see the chart data.
More data including this year (so far).
6:38 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Yep, just like I told Carla and you. No statistically significant warming since the year 2000. Look more closely at the time scale on the bottom. Scaling can give an impression to the eyes that the past warming is still going on. Not true! And your second reference sure is funny! Just a few months ago they were saying 2010 was the warmest year on record. Now it's tied with 1998? No! Wrong! the MSU satellite record still has 1998 as the warmest year, and as I have already explained, the surface theromoeter records are corrupted. That is something degreed meteorologists know plenty about, especially me, who holds a weather instrumentation patent. Nice try, but your claims again, taken out of time frame and context.
11:45 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
Why not go back to claiming the NOAA is fabricating the data?
BTW, your claim that it hasn't shown "statistically significant warming since the year 2000" is nonsense. Look at the line from 2000 onward.
If you were arguing that the human causes of global climate change are not likely, your argument wouldn't be flat out full of crap, and would at least enter the realm of legitimate debate albeit still wrong.
Claiming that no warming is occurring is simply nonsense. The data is there, no matter how much you claim that it is all fabricated data and lies by NOAA and pretty much the entirety of climate scientists on earth.
12:11 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
No. It is not nonsense. The linear regression line of temperature in the last ten years is not statistically significant and does not have a positive slope within the margin of error. Go take some statistics because you can't infer squat based upon looking at your temperature graph you present, and even rabid warmer. Phil Jones from the CRU admits this.
8:56 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Saying that 97% of the scientists that write about climate change believe it is primarily man-made is like saying 97% of the people that write for progressive magazines are progressive. This study doesn't hold any credibility.
9:52 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
LOL Ed. That's quite a circle you talked yourself into.
10:05 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Right, Carla, right. Care to elaborate like you don't when you're cornered?
10:35 p.m.
Oct 13, '10
Oh c'mon Chuck. Seriously? People that are experts in their field..that undergo rigorous scientific scrutiny can't possibly be credible because...Ed makes a completely senseless analogy?
You actually need elaboration for this?
C'mon man...at least try to give something to work with.
11:47 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
If nothing else, it is kind of humorous that you are talking about someone being "corned" in "circular" logic.
9:22 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
I see it both ways.
I fail to see how our industrialized world, along with automobiles, haven't had negative impacts on our environment. I do believe man is partly responsible, but not to the degree proclaimed by many global warming fanatics.
This topic is like discussing the existence of God. As if all of us are ever going to agree! What we should do, instead, is find common ground and work on ways to make our country more energy efficient, less dependent on fossil fuels, and stimulate innovation in renewable and clean energy.
Scaring people that the sky is falling doesn't do any good, and denying that there's a problem isn't the answer either. Maybe instead of arguing who's right or wrong, the discussion could focus on actual problem solving. Even if global warming is 100% false, how can one argue that reducing our impact on the environment is a bad thing?
10:04 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
It's a poor analogy to characterize this discussion as "discussing the existence of God", IMO. There is demonstrable, long-term scientific evidence that has been rigorously reviewed when it comes to global climate change.
An appropriate analogy would be like have a discussion about the denial of gravity.
12:21 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Unfortunately, Jason, that's not how science works. You don't infer in science that because you can't see or measure something that you theoretically calculate that it must be present in the form of your hypothesis and be operating in the manner in which you believe, especially when there aer many variables operating in the earth atmospheric system that affect temperature. The radiation from CO2 does not and is not behaving in the manner in which it was projected to by climate modeling. That much we know, which is a severe blow to the entire hypothesis concocted by James Hansen, who is not an atmospheric scientist. So the modeling has not only failed and global temperatures not following it, but the formulations in the modeling are at odds with the founding work done in atmospheric radiation, thus model sensitivity to CO2 is far out of the range of reality. If the modeling is already proven wrong, what "faith" do you put in the continued obsesssion with academics who refuse to acknowledge this? At this point, we have religion, not objective science.
9:26 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
There's really no way of convincing these folks about the science. If they were credible climatologists, they'd be looking at long-term trends instead of being obsessed with single point, year-by-year data (which of course don't show what they claim they show). But they aren't looking at trends or models or projections - they're people who look out the window when it's dark and think the sun may never come back. "The sun has been away since 8 pm! Hours!"
Ask yourself: should we act to dramatically increase our energy independence and clean energy, creating American jobs and increasing our economic stability? Or should we continue to subject our economy to oil price shocks and our environment to the damages of fossil fuels?
12:26 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Evan: If these things you're talking about in conservation don't create a government regulation or tax upon my activities, I'm all for conservation. I practice that all the time. But I'm not ammenable to letting government regulate and tax carbon under a provenly wrong assumption that increasing CO2 in the quantities possible from human emissions ( approximately a doubing to 560ppmv ) causes global temperatures to rise, and especially under the fraudulent and outrageous pretenses brought forth by liars like James Hansen and Al Gore who claim we are headed for a climate catastrophe or earth apocolypse.
12:58 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
And Evan, since people like me don't understand "science" according to you because we focus on the short term, then where might I ask we start to look at global temperatures and draw a linear regression line of change? Depending on where you start the graph, you can get many different slopes of temperature change, even negative ones. If we go back long enough in time,a few million years, the earth is still cooling from the last major warm cycle then deduced from the ice core data. So where do we start, and what positive regression line proves that CO2 is causing the temperature to rise? People like you only focus on the recent warm period that started in 1977 and recently terminated around 2000. But there were other warm periods more significant than that that occured without human input of CO2.So is the earth warming or cooling? Depends on where you start and stop the graph in time. Your analogy is silly. You need some course work to undersatand what you are talking about.
11:21 a.m.
Oct 14, '10
All should read Dr. James Hansen's book, "Storms of My Grandchildren "- the climate-change deniers especially need to read it, but even we who tend to trust the majority of scientific opinion can gain a good understanding of the processes involved in climate change by reading his book.
And Dr. Hansen is a fierce opponent of cap-and-trade and he'll tell you exactly why it won't work and will tell you exactly what we need to do (fee-and-dividend and quickly phase out use of coal and tar sands and oil shale).
Dr. Hansen will be at Knight Law building, U of O, this Saturday at 3 PM. I'm taking the Greyhound bus to Eugene so as to travel in the fuel-efficient method (don't own a car, anyway).
12:30 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Sorry, I would never pay for such a convoluted and bastardized presentation of science from Hansen, and if someone bought me his book, I would find it makes good toilet paper.
12:33 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Why would anyone need to go further than www.wattupwiththat.com for the trustworthy research on climate change? Who dat that whattup?
12:44 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
In Science, May 2010 the following scientists say that climate change is real: P. H. GLEICK,* R. M. ADAMS, R. M. AMASINO, E. ANDERS, D. J. ANDERSON, W. W. ANDERSON, L. E. ANSELIN, M. K. ARROYO, B. ASFAW, F. J. AYALA, A. BAX, A. J. BEBBINGTON, G. BELL, M. V. L. BENNETT, J. L. BENNETZEN, M. R. BERENBAUM, O. B. BERLIN, P. J. BJORKMAN, E. BLACKBURN, J. E. BLAMONT, M. R. BOTCHAN, J. S. BOYER, E. A. BOYLE, D. BRANTON, S. P. BRIGGS, W. R. BRIGGS, W. J. BRILL, R. J. BRITTEN, W. S. BROECKER, J. H. BROWN, P. O. BROWN, A. T. BRUNGER, J. CAIRNS JR., D. E. CANFIELD, S. R. CARPENTER, J. C. CARRINGTON, A. R. CASHMORE, J. C. CASTILLA, A. CAZENAVE, F. S. CHAPIN III, A. J. CIECHANOVER, D. E. CLAPHAM, W. C. CLARK, R. N. CLAYTON, M. D. COE, E. M. CONWELL, E. B. COWLING, R. M COWLING, C. S. COX, R. B. CROTEAU, D. M. CROTHERS, P. J. CRUTZEN, G. C. DAILY, G. B. DALRYMPLE, J. L. DANGL, S. A. DARST, D. R. DAVIES, M. B. DAVIS, P. V. DE CAMILLI, C. DEAN, R. S. DEFRIES, J. DEISENHOFER, D. P. DELMER, E. F. DELONG, D. J. DEROSIER, T. O. DIENER, R. DIRZO, J. E. DIXON, M. J. DONOGHUE, R. F. DOOLITTLE, T. DUNNE, P. R. EHRLICH, S. N. EISENSTADT, T. EISNER, K. A. EMANUEL, S. W. ENGLANDER, W. G. ERNST, P. G. FALKOWSKI, G. FEHER, J. A. FEREJOHN, A. FERSHT, E. H. FISCHER, R. FISCHER, K. V. FLANNERY, J. FRANK, P. A. FREY, I. FRIDOVICH, C. FRIEDEN, D. J. FUTUYMA, W. R. GARDNER, C. J. R. GARRETT, W. GILBERT, R. B. GOLDBERG, W. H. GOODENOUGH, C. S. GOODMAN, M. GOODMAN, P. GREENGARD, S. HAKE, G. HAMMEL, S. HANSON, S. C. HARRISON, S. R. HART, D. L. HARTL, R. HASELKORN, K. HAWKES, J. M. HAYES, B. HILLE, T. HÖKFELT, J. S. HOUSE, M. HOUT, D. M. HUNTEN, I. A. IZQUIERDO, A. T. JAGENDORF, D. H. JANZEN, R. JEANLOZ, C. S. JENCKS, W. A. JURY, H. R. KABACK, T. KAILATH, P. KAY, S. A. KAY, D. KENNEDY, A. KERR, R. C. KESSLER, G. S. KHUSH, S. W. KIEFFER, P. V. KIRCH, K. KIRK, M. G. KIVELSON, J. P. KLINMAN, A. KLUG, L. KNOPOFF, H. KORNBERG, J. E. KUTZBACH, J. C. LAGARIAS, K. LAMBECK, A. LANDY, C. H. LANGMUIR, B. A. LARKINS, X. T. LE PICHON, R. E. LENSKI, E. B. LEOPOLD, S. A. LEVIN, M. LEVITT, G. E. LIKENS, J. LIPPINCOTT-SCHWARTZ, L. LORAND, C. O. LOVEJOY, M. LYNCH, A. L. MABOGUNJE, T. F. MALONE, S. MANABE, J. MARCUS, D. S. MASSEY, J. C. MCWILLIAMS, E. MEDINA, H. J. MELOSH, D. J. MELTZER, C. D. MICHENER, E. L. MILES, H. A. MOONEY, P. B. MOORE, F. M. M. MOREL, E. S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON, B. MOSS, W. H. MUNK, N. MYERS, G. B. NAIR, J. NATHANS, E. W. NESTER, R. A. NICOLL, R. P. NOVICK, J. F. O’CONNELL, P. E. OLSEN, N. D. OPDYKE, G. F. OSTER, E. OSTROM, N. R. PACE, R. T. PAINE, R. D. PALMITER, J. PEDLOSKY, G. A. PETSKO, G. H. PETTENGILL, S. G. PHILANDER, D. R. PIPERNO, T. D. POLLARD, P. B. PRICE JR., P. A. REICHARD, B. F. RESKIN, R. E. RICKLEFS, R. L. RIVEST, J. D. ROBERTS, A. K. ROMNEY, etc...
1:08 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
How many of them can affirmatively prove CO2 and humans have anything to do with the recently terminated warming, dear?
Answer: NONE!
BTW, I can give a big list of scientists that disagree with the ones you post here, too. Infact 33,000 signed the anti warming petition, 9.000 had Ph.D.'s in the physical sciences. And unlike yours, my list consists of a lot of professors of emeritus status who are not sucking up government grants and busy keeping university heads happy.
But this is largely stupid, too, because it is not how science works. "Consensus" proves nothing. Just look at history, where a single scientist like Einstein turned classical physics on it ear. And in the case of "climate science" its even worse because the believers are at odds with the founding work done in atmospheric radiation that was formulated under the new Planck/Einstein era years ago but never offered any refutation to it.
Your post comes up intellectually vacant!
1:34 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
You know, they are all members of the US National Academy of Science. I do not know what they can or cannot prove or whether their proof is adequate because I am a lawyer, not a scientist. They are scientists who presumably know how science works and have concluded that climate change is real. It is my inclination to believe they know what they are talking about.
I have looked at Art Robinson's and the 33K signatures and many were vets, pediatricians, and general Phds. Why would there be any credibility there? This whole line about it all being negated because of government grants is mighty Robinson like and Robinson has made himself a tool of political right. The whole subject has been coopted by politics, and not remained in science.
What I am not is a "dear." Please be courteous when on this blog.
3:59 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Well the ones you cite are no different. Why should anyone believe them? They can't get funding to do climate research if the purpose doesn't act in a prosecutorial way towards CO2. That is not objective science. That is being an advocate to a cause.
4:36 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Actually, no, these people have true bona fides. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences
“The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine." As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Academies, which also includes: • National Academy of Engineering (NAE) • Institute of Medicine (IOM) • National Research Council (NRC) The group holds a congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code.
The current members annually elect new members for life. Election to membership is one of the highest honors (however, not as high as a Nobel Prize) that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Nearly 200 members have won a Nobel Prize...
In May 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents from Michael E. Mann, who was formerly an assistant professor there from 1999-2005. Mann, who currently works at Penn State, is a climate change researcher, and Cuccinelli alleges that Mann may have defrauded Virginia taxpayers in the course of his environmental research. Climate change skeptics have challenged Mann's work, but a Penn State investigation cleared Mann of charges that he falsified or suppressed data. In response, 255 Academy members signed a letter that was published in Science magazine on May 7, 2010, decrying "political assaults" against climate change scientists.”
5:26 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Theresa, you're a political hack if you believe that nonsense. Not one question that ever probed and would attempt to discover the discrepancies and actions of Mann and his colleagues was EVER asked. This was the worst case of the foxes explaining how chickens disapeared in guarding the chicken coup ever displayed. Willis Eisenbach has a nice rebuttle to the frivolous article printed in the Washington Post by Michael Mann who boasts of his being cleared by Penn State administrators. Sure he was. If they ever admitted Mann had or does produce bogus science, they'd have to give up the multi million dollar government funding that is fueling this fraud, in addition to sending one of their own off to prison.
Had lawyers asked the questions and subpoened the documents necessary, the outcome would have been entirely different.Cuccilini is not done with them yet. See wattupwiththat.com where Eisenbach retorts Mann's nonsense.
Displaying names of people at NAS that believe CO2 causes climate change does not prove anything, and the groups scientists are no more credible than many who post on blogs like Anthony Watt's website, infact, less so, because NAS types are using flawed methods and making unphysical claims that cannot be proven within the frame of physics that proves they are correct about their claimed sensitivity of CO2 to temperature. It really boils down to that. Billions wasted on this and not an ounce of proof that has ever been offered that proves any of these clowns correct, infact the impericle evidence now shows they are wrong.
6:07 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Like I said, I am a lawyer, not a dear and not a political hack. I conclude that birds of a feather flock together and I don't fly with Cuccinelli.
7:22 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Well your statements kind of say ya are!
12:47 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Chuck Wiese, You present a completely closed mind (but open rectum) to the most respeceted climatologist.
So you know more than Hansen, eh? A bold and foolhardy claim.
1:15 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Hansen is a astonomer, not atmospheric scientist. His calculations and modeling are wrong. That is fact. He is also apparently a religious zealot of sorts who goes out publicly with his climate nuttiness and gets himself arrested, ( twice so far ) protesting his radical and unsubstatiated views on climate,and hanging out with radicals like Tre Arrow, who is now in federal prison for comitting violent environmental crimes.
Hansen is not a respected scientist. In my opinion, shared by many, he is a liar and manipulator of real cliamte data to hide truth and support his emnbarrassing drivel about CO2 and temperature to those of us who understand atmospheric science.
12:48 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
respected
12:55 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Chuck, Before the industrial revolution, CO-2 PPM on Earth was 280 PPM. Now it's almost 400 PPM. And Hansen will demonstrate that eras in the distant past that had CO-2 PPM at under 1,000 had vastly different climates than the one in which civilization has grown up for the last 8,000 years.
So, if humans didn't do it, how's that the CO-2 has risen 120 PPM in the time of the industrial revolution and continues to rise by about 2 PPM per year? And will increase its rate of rising if all the fossil fuels are utilized?
1:26 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Not the point. The task at hand is to prove there is this relationship between CO2 and temperature, as claimed by the nuts Hansen, Jones,Schmidt,Mann, Ladbury,et.al. That has not been done and climate modeling is a failure in its projections of Co2 and temperature. The correlation ( r^2 valiese) between Co2 and temperature were and are embarrassingly low on earth from the start. And with the founding work, there was never any reason to start up this business about CO2 affecting earth temperature. The hypothesis has failed, so the aamounts of atmospheric CO2 up to doubling cannot be expected to have a measurable impact. If Hansen would have studied atmospheric science before starting his wild and stupid assertions about Co2 and temperature we would be miles ahead in understanding climate rather than stuck on stupid with people being scared by his rampant frothing at the mouth and psychoblather that he has been spewing for 22 years.
1:14 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
The climate forcing that has caused the fluctuations between glaciation and inter-glacial periods over the past 400K is the changeability of the tilt of the Earth- as the Earth moves from most-tilted back towards most-upright position (the direction we're headed), the planet begins to cool and processes are set in motion that eventually lead to ice sheets a mile thick on top on Manhattan Island.
This is why, back in the '70s, some scientists were forecasting a new ice age.
But there is no chance of that happening, as the climate forcing already "on the table" as a result of the 120 PPm added CO-2 from the Industrial Revolution completely swamps the power of the forcing that would cause an ice age, by about a 2 to 1 ratio.
So, one might say- "This is good- we've emissioned ourselves out of mile thick ice sheets on Manhattan!"--- yes, but the problem is that continued business as usual means we're going too much in the warming direction.
All said to demonstrate that what humanity has done in just the time of fossil fuel use is twice as strong as the impetus that caused past ice ages.
1:29 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Your statements are unprovable blather from which you can give no physical calculation to demonstrate. It is preposterous to make any claim that a 15 micron absorber of infrared radiation has any such power to alter climate as you claim. Show the calculations and the work done to conclude this. You can't because it doesn't exist.
1:19 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
And Hansen gives the calculation for changes in atmospheric radiation- the very gradual increase in the brightness of the sun- it is a small fraction of effect of increase in greenhouse gases.
1:23 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Hansen is not a respected scientist? He hangs out with Tre Arrow? Tre Arrow is in prison?
Really?
1:32 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
I said he hangs out with the likes of people like Arrow. He has been arrested twice for engaging in climate protesting.
2:29 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Oh noes. That must mean he is a bad scientist. Hansen is best known for his work with radiative transfer models and attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. This naturally led to the same computer modeling being used to understand the Earth's atmosphere. These have been used to study the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on the climate. This has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate through the development and use of global climate models.
Trying to insinuate he is just an astronomer and thus not a leading expert in the field of climate modeling vis-é-vis the effects of gas compositions in climate modeling is almost comical.
But I guess that is what we should expect from a global-warming denier and conspiracy theorist.
3:26 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
His modeling is an abject failure. His projections way off. Just look at model projection of temperature as he called it under 3 scenarios when he started thsi in 19988. Even the one that assumed all carbon emissions stop completely in the year 2000 are WAY OFF and much warmer in projecting where global temperature would be. He had absolutely no business claiming he or anyone has the knowledge or skill to run such a model and make fool proof statements about the future temperature of the aerth that far out. It is mathematically impossible to capture physical process in time like he claims. He is a liar and charlotan.
3:54 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Typo. His modeling started in 1988.
1:26 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Hansen has an M.S. in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Physics.
1:31 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
The correlations on Earth for temperature and and CO-2 track each other almost perfectly, from evidence gained from polar ice cores.
1:36 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Yeah, but you forgot to mention that atmospheric CO2 concentartion lags the temperature change by approximately 800 years, something that fraud Al Gore forgot to mention as well. In other words, Co2 FOLLOWS temperature, it does not lead it. So there is no cause effect between Co2 and temperature. The correlation there is very poor and not worth considering.
2:35 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Thanks for actually invoking evidence for a positive feedback that further increases global warming by an extra 15 to 78%.
3:43 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Mitchell, not impressive at all. I notice that in the paper these two clowns write that every equation that references temperature and CO2 is from an UNPHYSICAL assumption, and tries to use concentration and temperature as the relationship without showing ANY relationship in physics to the "derived" sensitivity and how the gas really behaves in the presence of water vapor and cloud. This stuff is stuck on stupid and should be very embarrassing to to "advanced" academic types that stoop to such a level to sell the nonsense.
If what these clowns are saying was true, then global temperatures should still be rising and albeit rapidly, correct?
Why isn't the earth still warming? CO2 has increased 10% since 1992, and last September 28th, many new low temperature records were assaulted in the Yukon and Alaska. Eilsen AFB near Fairbanks dropped to +3 DegF, setting an ALL TIME NEW LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD FOR SEPTEMBER,shattering the old record set in 1992.
How do you explain this if CO2 supposedly has the radiative power to elevate the earth to higher tempertures? Here the opposite happened and CO2 is 10% higher by volume in the atmosphere. It should be apparent to you that this CO2 warming theory is crap by now. The hypothesis is religion, not science.
5:25 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Mr. Weise, you are overstating your case. Keep in mind the Vostok data goes back 800 ky. The time lag differences is instantaneous on that time scale. No regression model would come close to differentiating between events on that time scale.
And contrary to your statement, the correlation in the actual Vostok data set is quite high. I just went and looked at my analysis of the Vostok data, and I found that the slope of the curve relating the Delta T and CO2 is 0.883±0.063 ˚C / 10 ppm CO2 at the 95% confidence level.
5:48 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Well, Jim, there are many things that affect temperature, so where is this so called sensitivity calculation getting physical and considering, ruling out and weighting other parameters? It's been stated so many times before in physics its becoming nauseating. The 15 micron band is essentially the only important one at any earthly conceivable Co2 concentration. The absorption coefficients at the wings are nowhere close to saturating the wings by doubling CO2, so if you're going to tell me you can create an accurate emission profile at those wavelengths in the troposphere with water vapor and cloud in the way, then I got a bridge to sell you in Philly. It can't be done and because of the perceived mitigating factors involving water vapor and cloud, there is no way that you could calculate a sensitivity and there is no way that it is perceivable that the small extra absorption by doubling could ever have the effects claimed in modeling. And everyone now knows how dicked up all the modeling is.
You tell me how to calculate a sensitivity to CO2 and temperature when you have to integrate absorption to TOA at the wings to begin your calculations. How do you do that? I'd like to know! The sensitivities you are using are unphysical and cannot demonstrate CO2 temperature response in the earth/atmospheric system. And that is precisely one of the many reasons cliamte models are a train wreck disaster and waste of taxpayer money.
6:07 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Sorry, Mr. Wiese (sorry about the mispelling). I don't have time to educate you.
7:20 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
What a pathetic response from someone with a Ph.D. You mean you can't tell me where I'm wrong, right Jim? Just answer the question!!
7:50 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Actually, that's a very smart answer from someone with a PhD. Its a smart man who knows futility.
You have no interest in even a basic discussion--it's just about shoving what you think you know--and there's zero credibility behind it. You appear to be the only person on this thread who doesn't understand this.
8:01 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
No, Carla, its called obsfucation and disembling. And I've noticed a lot of people in academia who I confront with science behave in the same way. When they get cornered, they claim someone else doesn't understand or they don't have time to deal with "educating" someone, and then refuse to discuss any further. I've seen and discussed Diamond's correspondance with Gordon Fulks, a physicist. He is not impressed either. A couple of months ago I confronted another scientist at PSU with some of these ideas after one of her faulty lectures and she walked away and claimed I insulted her. Wow, what a response for asking her to prove her assertions in her lecture. It just keeps getting funnier by the day... LOL.
8:03 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Get busy publishing your great arguments then. Why are you here pushing conspiracy theories to "political hacks" on a political blog?
And all you have done here is obfuscate and try and baffle with technical bullsh*t.
Go publish your claims and set the scientific community right. Chop chop!
8:09 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
I need not publish anything. Hansen and his climate charlotans need to disprove what science already established years ago. You got it backwards.
7:25 a.m.
Oct 15, '10
No, it's really not obfuscation. If you presented cogent arguments that had serious scientific chops behind them, that would be one thing. But you've reduced yourself to being downright silly.
In a few weeks, come back and read this thread. You're rude, arrogant, bullying and childish here. No serious person can possibly believe anything you're saying. Of course people in academics find you insulting...you ARE.
There's really no reason to engage you any deeper than "I'm not going to take the time to educate you..". It's a waste of time and based on what you've posted on this thread, you're incapable of getting it.
2:49 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
Well, Carla, I'm afraid that on this website and blog, being rude, arrogant and bullying relative to your perception of reality is the only way I can be.
To have someone like you think I was nice, I'd have to agree with what you say, and let you start a a blog with an insult to people like me that our knowlwedge of climate is inferior and only the arrogance and condiscention of the likes of a professor like Jim Diamond ( who never answered my question because he can't, he either doesn't know the answer or has to admit he is engaging in bogus scientific claims and responds with the statement that he doesn't argue with "amatures" to deflect from the issues ) can be trusted.
I mean everything I said on this blog. YOU started this entire thread with your insults to people like me of which you know nothing about and have no pretense of what it takes or the knowledge required to get a degree in atmospheric science, and your continued myopic drivel about what people like me don't know according to your own ignorance. Read the title of your blog!
6:10 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
If this is "the only way you can be"--then you'll continue to get nowhere.
It's your time to waste--but that's exactly what you're doing.
You and Rob Cornilles are irresponsible hacks--and your commentary on this thread has simply reaffirmed for all but those already in your choir.
Carry on.
6:57 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
Will do!
7:54 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Publish a paper and win a Nobel then. Considering almost the entirety of the climate scientists say the opposite of what you do.
But I suppose you think your time is spent better than actually publishing your findings, spewing denialist bullsh*t with "political hacks" is more useful.
LOL
8:07 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
No papers need to be published. Its the other way around.The advocates who believe CO2 can cause climate change need to successfully refute the founding work in atmospheric radiation and prove Co2 causes climate change. Nobody has done this. Instead they have supplanted the correct physics with incorrect modeling and sensitivities and have failed. The bullsh--ers are people like you and academic types who are ripping off the public not being honest about what they ahve done and are doing.
1:33 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Chuck- you're pissed off because you don't want to admit that your civilization has some dangerous side-effects.
3:52 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Well atleast your finally getting honest about why you believe this crap.You're obviously part of the humans are to blame for everything crowd and it doesn't matter to you how objective you are about stating that belief.
I like my independance and will do what is necessary in the name of science to conserve or advance human technology and conseve individual freedom. Otherwise, I want to be left alone. Mind your own business, don't stick it where it doesn't belong, don't tell me what to drive, fly or eat, and keep your grubby mitts out of my wallet. Especially when you can't be honest.
5:47 p.m.
Oct 16, '10
Then move to Somalia. Otherwise, if you FK up our world, expect some of the rest of us to have something to say about it. Or would you think it was just fine if the trash trucks started dumping their loads at your house, since that would save the rest of us money.
Sounds like a plan!
Un-freaking-believable.
8:01 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Yeah, because that is what he said. That humans are to blame... FOR EVERYTHING!
LOL
And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously (I mean beyond the fact that 97% of the climate scientists who actually study the matter disagree with conspiracy theory denialists such as yourself about the FACT the global temperatures are increasing)...?
As I said earlier, if you were to be arguing that humans were not the cause of global climate temperature increases, you might be approaching the basics of a legitimate point of debate. But claiming that all the data is fabricated and that the world's climate scientists are all in on the conspiracy... well.. you are nothing if not amusing.
8:05 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Seems the site had a glitch. That was in reply to Chuck Wiese comment of 3:52 p.m. Oct 14.
10:05 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
i won't say more after this comment. I won't argue with amateurs. But readers may notice that a certain person shifted topics when refuted. This is not the hallmark of one engaged in scientific discussion.
I will add these technical notes.
First, it is correct to say that the most probable time difference between the temperature signal and the CO2 signal in ice core data from Vostok is approximately 800 years, with temperature leading CO2. That is not the end of the story. An analysis of the phase difference between these two sets of signals in the ice core data shows that the are roughly equal probabilities that CO2 leads T (48%), and that T leads CO2 (52%); in addition, the uncertainty in the estimate of the phase difference is three times larger than the phase difference itself, indicating that there is a large probability that these two signals are simultaneous (that probability is about 70% for these data).
Second, the interpretation given to the IR spectrum of CO2 is incorrect. A casual look at the energy throughput of any commerical FTIR will reveal several absorption bands clearly visible on top of the spectrum of water vapor under ambient conditions. These include the bending mode at 670 1/cm (14.9 um), the very large band due to the asymmetric stretch at 2300-2400 1/cm (4.184 um), and overtones of the asymmetric stretch at 3600-3800 1/cm (2.74 um). I JUST RECORDED THESE DATA. These peaks are clearly visible, in spite of the large amount of water vapor.
Third, what is misleading about this argument about water vapor is, as any physical chemist would know, water vapor in the air is largely determined by temperature, not by human activity directly. It is for this reason that, while any reasonable climate model includes IR absorption and scattering by water vapor, water vapor itself is not an agent of climate change; it is a response.
I will add one additional comment for those who feel these remarks are in error. It is the same advice I gave to Dr. Fulks. If you feel that your scientific views have merit, do your research, write up your results, submit your work to a peer-reviewed journal in the discipline, and get it published. Then we can have a scientific discussion. Until then...
1:11 a.m.
Oct 15, '10
Jim: First: What the F does 48% mean? PROVE that CO2 LEADS! YOU CAN'T!
Second: 667cm-1 wavenumber absorption and the sidebands are all we are concerned about. And of course, 15 micron radiation or the 667cm-1 wavenumber is precisely what is used in atmospheric science calculations with reliability because it is SATURATED radiation in the earth atmosphere, absorbed within 100 meters from the surface. Why bring up 4.2 um absorption? You make my point here to Carla that all you know how to do is obsfucate and sidetrack. I asked you to explain to me me how you can provide an atmospheric emission profile for CO2 sideband absorption when even integrating to TOA, none of the wavenumbers involved saturate. You never answered the question, so I'm afraid you haven't even stated anything yet of value I could argue with except for academic and intellectual vacancy on your part.
Third, of course, water vapor is a function of temperature, that's what determines saturation vapor pressure, but there is no evidence that CO2 radiation acts as any positive feedback to water vapor. Evaporation and vapor pressure are solar and wind driven as was established in the founding work. Relevance to the discussion?
You seem oblivious to the fact that YOU are making NEW CLAIMS to what was established in science years ago. This needs PROOF and a REFUTATION to the founding physics, not the other way around as you have stated to Gordon Fulks. You are oblivious and ignorant as to how science works and it is pretty obvious that the reason why you won't argue with an "amateur" like me is because you can't.
I would be embarrassed to be part of Lindfield's faculty with this drivel and I note that your college invited Michael Mann to speak about climate last summer inspite of his problem of being severely discredited in the scientific community with his "hockey stick" temperature graph.
11:47 p.m.
Oct 14, '10
Follow the money! Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
7:50 p.m.
Oct 15, '10
This is exactly as I have been stating, Diane. Follow the money. And if you read the analysis of Lewis's resignation letter to the APS, we find that the American Physical Society has officers who are sitting on the Boards of banks who hold 60 billion dollars in green portfolio's. This includes IPCC chairman Pachuri. This couldn't be a better demonstration of what a conflict of interest is that is helping to bastardize and mutilate good science. We also find Lord Oxburgh on the banks Board with APS members, and Oxburgh was one of the panelists that exhonnorated Phil Jones from the CRU as having done anything wrong in destroying or losing climate data that was requested in a FOIA request by Steven McIntyre who exposed Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick temperature graph.
The APS, according to other APS members, has to strongly continue to endorse and back the NAS, of which Theresa Kohlhoff upthread claims is proof of human global warming just because they issued a policy statement just like the APS did (that Lewis and 260 other scientists questioned and demanded an independent appraisal of climate science by a panel of their members) and then use the names of their scientists who are members to claim they back the policy statement, which is not necessarily true, and certainly is not proof of anything. Insiders also are stating that the APS is required to back the opinions of the Presidential Advisory Board on science, which combined with NAS endorsements continues to allow the multibillion dollar yearly spigot of taxpayer money continue to flow relentlesly to acdemia and government agencies to prop up the pseudo science and claims of warming. It is all one big closed and highly stinking, fraudulent money circuit that is being used to push cap and trade and open a much bigger drain hole to taxpayer funding of this junk science that will enrich the special interests and elitist academics pushing the fraud but ostracize and punish the public and large with massive new taxes and regulation that society gets nothing for except to be ripped off.
See: wattsupwiththat.com for the full resignation letter of Lewis from the APS and the insider knowledge of the lies told that attempt to rebuke Lewis from the response given by APS Chair Curt Callan.