Tuesday, July 14, 2009
In the category of news that will make no headlines, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
In other news that will not make headlines...
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007
The Long Haul
"American foreign policy must remain concerned with the geopolitical dimension and must employ its influence in Eurasia in a manner that creates a stable continental equilibrium, with the United States as the political arbiter"
The current US position is that it will not support Iran's involvement in Nabucco until Tehran "changes its policies"
and if iran is excluded, there are pathways through Georgia and from Iraq...scroll to the map
Iraq makes ambitious Nabucco offer
I have a real tough time believing that carbon has such a significant impact on our climate when it only makes up about 340 parts per million of our atmosphere (Nitrogen 780,000 parts per million, Oxygen 210,000 parts per million, Argon over 90,000 parts per million). Even if Carbon were to double to 680 parts per million it is still only .0000068 of the make-up or our atmosphere? I can't imagine that off-setting the balance that much..?
You could have a whole sub-domain on current "News That Will Not Make Headlines", given the press deference to the narrative du jour!
Here's an entertaining one: "Tom DeLay strongarms companies into supporting Congressmen who cast politically perilous votes on kneecap-and-trade." Did I say Tom Delay? Oh sorry, that was Nancy Soprano. Pelosi. It was Pelosi.
Then, there's this little piece of wonderful. The Other McCain interviews his source (Deep Cleavage) on the developing Obama fires-IG's-all-over-Washington scandal, and finds Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in the mix. It's like People magazine for conservatives!
"I have a real tough time believing that carbon has such a significant impact on our climate"
That's because you are a member of the minority of the American population that is capable of analytical thought.
One more great piece of unprintable news: Was the $786 billion stimulus a worthy price to pay in order to avoid the Employee No-Choice Act, Kneecap and Trade, Obamacare and economy killing tax increases out the wazoo? It's a good question for someone in the press to ask. but they probably never will. Karl starts the conversation anyway.
Always click the link in the blog post:
"The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”
The conclusion - because models only showed half the actual warming, they are too cautious. Climate is even more sensitive to CO2 than models predict.
Tell me how that supports doing nothing about CO2....
Brian, I interpret the comment differently than you do. I think the point they are making is that climate change models reliance upon atmospheric CO2 isn't supported by the data.
Anyway, for afternoon diversion, here is the Project Vulcan mapping of 2002 United States CO2 production by county, as overlaid on Google Earth. What do you bet Cook County (#3 source of CO2 production) got a special deal in negotiating kneecap and trade?
"Tell me how that supports doing nothing about CO2...."
As doubt grows about the quality or veracity of the science purportedly supporting global warming theory, and as evidence mounts that the mathematical models used to support the theory give false results and require many untested assumptions, the need to immediately do something drastic about CO2 diminishes so much that The Deniers become those who refuse to accept the idea that global warming theories do not amount to settled science.
Brian Schmidt wants the data to fit the thesis. When it doesn't, he concludes the thesis must therefore be 2x right.
You call this science?
Climate change is real, but I'm sceptical that man is a big contributor given the historic extremes we've seen in even the last 100,000 years. CO2 alone can't be the culprit, given past historical markers.
For all he contributed, Isaac Newton spent more time being an alchemist than being a physicist. Given the understanding of science he was handed, and the potential pecuniary incentive, you can understand why. Thus, Newton spent most of his time pursuing dead ends. True scientists admit to stumbling around in the dark -- the greatest discoveries are often serendipity.
Climate scientists haven't come up with clever controlled experiments. Tell me I'm wrong. They're just extrapolating from data points. Even then their theses don't fit the last 100,000 years of pre-industrial history. They don't even fit with the last 1,000.
This is horsehit science.
The politics are worse, because things like cap-and-trade have proven to actually increase CO2 emissions.
As comedian Ron White would say ... "You can't fix stupid." It's even worse when "stupid" have fancy degrees.
Those of us who do our homework, read about the climate models, recognize the error and grow increasingly concerned that our government is DEAD WRONG and headed for disaster...we all have a vote.
The average citizen who is bombarded by "Green Advertising", gets his/her science from the media blurbs, takes the kids to the latest eco-disaster movie on the weekend and see Al Gore win the Nobel Prize...well...he has a vote too, and it's just as good as the person who truly understands what we DONT know about climate change.
I guess it really doesn't matter WHAT the true science is or isn't, since AGW is a political concept rather than a scientific hypothesis.
If it weren't for global warming...it would be global cooling, or ozone, or the big meteor on track to hit us, or the population bomb, or solar flares...whatever hype the Illuminati comes up with to keep the rabble roused.
'Environmentalism' is the newest major religion... only in this one, there is no afterlife and the greatest thing you can do is to try to delay or prevent the 'Climate Change' eschaton. But the unwillingness to accept criticism or challenges to the orthodoxy and bias against heretics remain. And it's cleverly concealed behind a facade of 'science.'
Imagine if people said that you have to get a new, smaller hybrid car or paint roads white or not use plastic shopping bags anymore, to prevent God's wrath. You'd be laughed out of society and end up under an overpass.
But replace 'God' with 'the Climate Change' and lo! You have the basis for social engineering.
Likewise, EPA geologists and Weather Channel meteorologists can't be fired or silenced for praying to a different deity... but they can be (and have been) for not paying homage to the dangers of God's wrath/'Climate Change.'
It's all very medieval.
Hic Sto. Ego can operor nusquam alius. Amen.
Dawnfire and JRMcT - excellent points (as usual might I add).
If there was one more point I would add on to both of your sentiments is that unfortunately this very questionable science is getting in the way of far more pressing needs of mankind. Bjorn Lomborg has done an outstanding job of laying out the cost-benefit argument for the Top 23 biggest challenges to man and the potential payback for solving those issues. Needless to say, the dollars poured into Climate change are so huge and the net results are so nebulous that the return on those dollars is awful. On the list of 23 it falls way to the back of the list. Meanwhile if those same resources were directed to say something like improving the world's drinking water; a dollar invested in such a project would yeild huge returns in lives saved and illnesses averted. Even if we were to divert those same climate change dollars to environmental or conservation type of pursuits there are far better uses of those funds then trying to reduce Co2 emissions.
Sadly true, Quakercat. If saving lives (or improving them) were our goal, there would never have been a ban on DDT. That little environmental feel-good moment has cost millions of lives from malaria.
Speaking og Goals...how do we EVER KNOW when we have been sucessful at controlling "climate change"?
When the government tells us so?
When the climate stops changing?
Pretty laughable, heh?