Joe Bastardi Pulls a Charlie Sheen on Fox News, Pushing “Utter Nonsense” on Climate Science | ThinkProgress
Those who watched Fox News over the weekend were treated to a brief but ambitious science lesson on “Why CO2 Can’t Cause Warming”:Ice-Free Arctic Claims Are Sheer Stupidity | Real Science
Oh boy. Let’s take these one at a time.
There is a huge mass of thick (3-5 metre) ice up against the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland coasts. There is no indication that these are significantly declining or threatened.New Rasmussen Poll Sends Al Gore Into Meltdown - Forbes
It is time for people to stop being idiots about this.
A new Rasmussen poll shows the American public trusts the objectivity and credibility of impassioned global warming “scientists” about as much as used car salesmen, and boy is Al Gore ticked. If Michele Bachmann is Newsweek‘s Queen of Rage, Al Gore must be America’s potty-mouthed King of Bizarre Temper Tantrums.
...
While the sinking credibility of activist scientists is primarily due to documented scientific misconduct, it can’t help that the public face of global warming alarmism is an increasingly bizarre, tantrumatic potty-mouth who habitually lectures down to the American people like they are morally inferior beings.
I am not a big cheerleader for the “Sky Is Falling” global warming campaign, but I can’t help but offer the following advice: You really need to get yourselves a new spokesperson.
Posts
6 comments:
The PDO changes, sunspot activity is down from the max around 2000. The Earths temps level out and co2 continues to rise. To the folks at climate progress.. if co2 is causing the temperature rise, why is it the temperatures have leveled off while co2 continues to rise, and the other 2 forcing mechanisms have changed. Where are the trapping hot spots at 400mb? Where is the positive feedback? Why is the temperature not in any of the IPCC ranges issued 20 years ago? Even Phil Jones admitted there has been no warming, so how can co2 be the cause? Where is the heat.. The ocean bottom, a cave somewhere? And how is it the satellites say it fine after the PDO switched to warm, but cant find it now?
By The way, I didnt see Joe Rohm or any of my other accusers in my thermodynamic classes at Penn State where I earned a degree in the University's prime, graduating 2/3 rds of the worlds meteorologists at the time. . To my friends at climate progress, media matters, etc, its a simple test.. If the earths temps fall back to where they were in the 70s by 2030, because of the changes in the oceanic cycles, which have been warm since the start of the satellite era, then what we are seeing now will be proven, co2 has nothing to do with it. If temps rise, in the face of the major drivers that have turned around ( oceanic, solar) as measured by OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE ONLY HAD SINCE THE 70S) then co2 has something, if not almost everything to do with it. HERE IS THE PROBLEM. There is no answer you will admit to being wrong. I will at least admit I am wrong if my simple test doesn't do what i say. Mine involves logic, reason, and basic laws of science, and as I said before, I did not see any of my critics in any meteorology or atmospheric chemistry class.
So that is my challenge. Temps have leveled off, co2 is continuing to rise. If you cant admit you are wrong about that, let us all know what we have to see for you to admit you are wrong.
I suspect we wont get an answer, since everything that happens, even if it cools, will be an answer they will claim they were right about
And by the way, Quit lying about me. I am all for any and all energy use that will make our world cleaner and energy cheaper. I am all for energy independence. I could care less where it comes from, because you still have to know if its going to be cold or warm, and how much you need to use. Windfarms for instance are a meteorologists dream since not only do they need to know the result of the weather, but the actual weather, so its a first and second derivative. The same with the solar ideas. Personally , I like the idea of on site wind and solar sufficiency, empowering your own home to reduce cost, but to me this is a forecast. Obviously for you its something completely different, and because it is, it is you, not me, that doesn't take the facts into account.
The PDO changes, sunspot activity is down from the max around 2000. The Earths temps level out and co2 continues to rise. To the folks at climate progress.. if co2 is causing the temperature rise, why is it the temperatures have leveled off while co2 continues to rise, and the other 2 forcing mechanisms have changed. Where are the trapping hot spots at 400mb? Where is the positive feedback? Why is the temperature not in any of the IPCC ranges issued 20 years ago? Even Phil Jones admitted there has been no warming, so how can co2 be the cause? Where is the heat.. The ocean bottom, a cave somewhere? And how is it the satellites saw it fine after the PDO switched to warm, for 20 years but cant find it now?
By The way, I didnt see Joe Rohm or any of my other accusers in my thermodynamic classes at Penn State where I earned METEOROLOGY degree in the University's prime, graduating 2/3 rds of the worlds meteorologists at the time. To my friends at climate progress, media matters, etc, its a simple test.. If the earths temps fall back to where they were in the 70s by 2030, because of the changes in the oceanic cycles, which have been warm since the start of the satellite era, then what we are seeing now will be proven, co2 has nothing to do with it. If temps rise, in the face of the major drivers that have turned around ( oceanic, solar) as measured by OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE ONLY HAD SINCE THE 70S) then co2 has something, if not almost everything to do with it. HERE IS THE PROBLEM. There is no answer you will admit to being wrong. I will at least admit I am wrong if my simple test doesn't do what i say. Mine involves logic, reason, and basic laws of science, and as I said before, I did not see any of my critics in any meteorology or atmospheric chemistry class.
So that is my challenge. Temps have leveled off, co2 is continuing to rise. If you cant admit you are wrong about that, let us all know what we have to see for you to admit you are wrong.
I suspect we wont get an answer, since everything that happens, even if it cools, will be an answer they will claim they were right about
And by the way, Quit lying about me. I am all for any and all energy use that will make our world cleaner and energy cheaper. I am all for energy independence. I could care less where it comes from, because you still have to know if its going to be cold or warm, and how much you need to use. Windfarms for instance are a meteorologists dream since not only do they need to know the result of the weather, but the actual weather, so its a first and second derivative. The same with the solar ideas. Personally , I like the idea of on site wind and solar sufficiency, empowering your own home to reduce cost, but to me this is a forecast. Obviously for you its something completely different, and because it is, it is you, not me, that doesn't take the facts into account.
The fact that Joe Bastardi has to respond to an unsigned hatchet job post here, at Tom Nelson's blog, speaks volumes about the guttersnipe Romm.
I see that Think Progress has been blessed with a new infusion of cash. Ain't it incredible how liberal propaganda platforms always turn up with a new hairdo and make up following a gov economic stimulus package?
The thing to understand about TP, which becomes clear on a single read, their commentary is akin to a visit at the zoo monkey cage. Lot's of poop flinging.
The dilemma is should you respond to each turd, knowing that you put ourselves within range of the next salvo by doing so?
At any rate, you'll never get a hearing or chance to respond to critics at Climate Progress. Romm won't even link to an outside post to support his own. It's all half truths and lies, neatly cellophaned off from the outside world, only linked within the company.
First half truth, they bring out a guy named Chameides, describing him as Duke University scientist.
William Chameides is the Dean of Environmentalism at Duke University. He's a paid believer who predicts drought/flood hot/cold, and teaches the dire urgency of steering public policy.
And why wouldn't he when it's steered directly into his bank book?
Here's a tote board of his associates, bragging of the government grant money they siphon.
You think he's ever going to "discover" that global warming isn't happening?
Fat chance.
from a thread on WUWT;
Jae said;
“And, of course, another way of rationalizing the “missing heat” (and the greater radiation to space shown by Spencer) is the absence of an “atmospheric greenhouse effect.””
I believe that the problem is not the ”absence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect” but rather a misunderstanding of the results of this effect.
Yes indeed some IR radiation leaving the surface of the Earth is absorbed and remitted backwards towards the surface.
However due to the speeds at which this “heat” travels as IR radiation it only changes the response time of the gases to changes in the energy source (i.e. sunrise and sunset).
Let’s follow a “day in the life of a global warming photon”;
1) A visible photon arrives at the surface, some of it is reflected
2) The photon is absorbed and ceases to exist
3) The surface warms by an amount equal to the energy in the photon
4) The surface then emits an IR photon (which travels at the speed of light)
5) The surface cools by an amount equal to the energy released
6) The IR photon MAY be absorbed by a “GHG” and ceases to exist
7) The “GHG” warms by an amount equal to the energy in the photon
8) The “GHG” emits something less than 50% back towards the surface (fixed by the geometry of a sphere)
9) The “GHG” cools by an amount equal to the energy released
10) The photon travels to the surface (at the speed of light)
11) Return to step 2 and repeat steps 2-10 ad-infinitium
It seems clear that after just a few “bounces” as backradiation the energy in the photon is dissipated. If the photon is unfortunate enough to be absorbed by a “GHG” ten times it results in a remaining amount of energy < 0.5^10 = 0.00097 = 0.097 % of the original energy arriving from the Sun.
So the “missing heat” is actually alternating between residing in the “GHG” as heat and residing in the IR photon as electromagnetic radiation. However it quickly dissipates after it arrives from the Sun. At the speed of light the IR photon travels to the top of the atmosphere in at most a few milliseconds. And the absorptions / emissions take place in less than a microsecond.
So the “missing heat” is actually there, but since it moves so fast it cannot cause a “higher equilibrium” temperature to exist. If the heat moved through the system in something more like 12-24 hours then it might actually result in some of yesterday’s heat being leftover this morning which would result in a “higher equilibrium” temperature going forward. Kind of like if you banked your campfire properly last night you can start today’s campfire quickly with yesterdays coals.
Yes, I know that a photon is the smallest single unit of optical radiation and ½ of a photon makes no sense, but the logic reads more clearly this way. If this concerns you please feel free to do a find-replace and change photon with 1 microjoule (or BTU or calorie, etc. etc.)
Cheers, Kevin.
Now for the turds.
Bill Chameides claims that " It would be impossible to explain the temperatures of Mars and Venus, as well as the Earth, without invoking [the greenhouse -PT] effect."
This guy [read here] found it rather easy to explain the temperatures of Mars and Venus without invoking the greenhouse effect.
Excerpt: "From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.
This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER
Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus."
Bill Chameides claims "Isotopic data show that the annual increase in CO2 is mostly traceable to burning of fossil fuel.”
I read a recent post at JoNova that said different.
Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels, not humans.
Excerpt;
"
Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University, over the last two years has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios [the isotopic data - PT] and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Suspiciously, when satellites record atmospheric CO2 levels around the globe they find that the sources don’t appear to be concentrated in the places we’d expect — industry or population concentrations like western Europe, the Ohio Valley, or China. Instead the sources appear to be in places like the Amazon Basin, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa — not so much the places with large human emissions of CO2!
Instead the way to unravel the puzzle is to look at the one long recording we have (at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, going back to 1959) and graph the changes in CO2 and in C13 from year to year. Some years from January to January there may be a rise of 0 ppmv (ie no change), some years up to 3 ppmv. If those changes were due to man-made CO2 then we should see more of those rapid increases in recent times as man-made emissions increased faster.
What Salby found though, was nothing like what was expected.
The largest increases year-to-year occurred when the world warmed fastest due to El Nino conditions. The smallest increases correlated with volcanoes which pump dust up into the atmosphere and keep the world cooler for a while. In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time-scale, and according to Salby, man-made emissions have little effect."
You can read the rest there.
Pay particular attention to the Tom Quirk section. It has a fascinating story of trace isotope markers used to track CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere, where 95% of man made CO2 emissions come from, to the Southern Hemisphere [takes several years].
Post a Comment