Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[wirebender]

I don't imagine the solar and wind industries have deeper pockets than coal or oil.

I do wonder if the reason this topic is so political in the US is because of the coal and oil money....

Even the most rabid nutter on the AGW side of the argument doesn't claim more than 50 million dollars being spent by big oil and coal on skeptics. Compare that to more than 650 billion having been funneled into climate pseudoscience supporting AGW.

Most of the money spent by big energy was very early on in the debate before they figured out that they would make money either way and in fact, make more if environmental regulations take hold. You live in europe. Check the profit margins of power companies using fossil fuels before green regulation and after. You will see that they are making more now than before the regulations. The only people being hurt are those who must pay the higher price dictated by the taxes and regulations.

By the way, wind and solar have the pockets of the government at thier disposal. They are so heavily subsidized that the wouldn't exist at all without taxpayer money at their disposal.

Being blind to the truth doesn't alter the truth in the least.

 

[code1211]

Daveman -

As I said earlier - most conservatives and most conservative parties have stated that human acitivty plays a key role in climate change.

Therefore, we can not write off climate change as being a left wing conspiracy.

Can you think of any other left wing conspiracies supported by most right wingers?

Until that point is addressed and explained, I don't see any point in going on to other points.

The point that is the absolute base of the entire discussion is the proof that the climate's prime driver is CO2.

Nobody has ever presented that proof.

You are welcome to do so.

 

[Oddball]

Daveman -

As I said earlier - most conservatives and most conservative parties have stated that human acitivty plays a key role in climate change.

Therefore, we can not write off climate change as being a left wing conspiracy.

Can you think of any other left wing conspiracies supported by most right wingers?

Until that point is addressed and explained, I don't see any point in going on to other points.

Appeal to authority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[code1211]

That is because you won't recognize the effect hundreds of billions of dollars has on people. My bet is that you had no problem equating money with the mechanizations carried out by the tobacco industry but completly miss the boat with climate science where the sheer amount of money and power at stake makes the tobacco business look like minor parking violations.
.

I don't imagine the solar and wind industries have deeper pockets than coal or oil.

I do wonder if the reason this topic is so political in the US is because of the coal and oil money....

How does the oil money affect the opinions of Great Britain and Holland?

 

[wirebender]

Appeal to authority.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

If you take away logical fallacies, the warmers will have no argument at all.

 

[IanC]

Spencer specifically states that the curved polynomial fit is for 'entertainment' purposes. it may or may not mean anything. if the sceptical side just imitates the warmers' bad manners and unfounded conclusions why should the public believe us over them?

Spencer also claims that a cool object can further warm a warmer object in opposition to the second law of thermodynamcis so one really can't take his views with anything more than a grain of salt.

back to this again?

throw a towel over your powered up stereo and see if it warms up or not. same energy in, same energy out, different equilibrium temperature between the input and the output. same with the earth, the sun's input is lost to outer space but in the transition if you make energy loss easier or harder then the equilibrium temperature of intermediary points on the path will decrease or increase. CO2 makes the atmosphere slightly less able to radiate certain IR bands to space which drives up the temperature at the most important intermediary position to us, at the surface. it really is just that simple. there is no energy created or destroyed, although some is temporarily sequestered in heat sinks.

Spencer has explained it to you, I have done my best to explain to you, and yet you continue misunderstand the concept by focusing on one small part of the question and implying that general laws for closed systems are being violated. you might as well be saying that life on earth is impossible because it defies the law of entropy.

 

[IanC]

IanC -

Your position seems to be based on the assumption that scientists either have not considered the solar question thoroughly, or are distorting their findings to downplay the solar factor.

I just don't find either point terribly credible - at least not with major universities and research units.

The idea that a good 50 - 60 research units around the world would all be secretly working together to ensure that their research produced complimentary results implies the involvement of thousands of people in dozens of countries. It would be a conspiracy far greater than anything we have ever seen - and it would occur without a single person talking to a journalist.

I tell you, if the Rector of the University of Helsinki called me tomorrow and said he'd been asked by government to put pressure on the sciences boys to produce particular research outcomes, it would be the biggest news story of the year, right around the world. And yet - it just does not happen.

“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:


My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud&#8221. Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.

Like everyone else who participated in this review, I agreed not to cite, quote or distribute the draft. The IPCC also made a further request, which reviewers were not required to agree to, that we “not discuss the contents of the FOD in public fora such as blogs.”

Given what I found—systematic fraud—it would not be moral to honor this un-agreed to request, and because my comments are about what is omitted, the fraud is easy enough to expose without quoting the draft. My entire review (4700 words) only contains a half dozen quotes, which can easily be replaced here with descriptions of the quoted material.

Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5 | Watts Up With That?


I am not saying this guy is totally correct but the IPCC certainly has a long track record of ignoring view points that are not in the 'concensus', and changing the scientists' actual wording of their reports to come into agreement with the short report.

saigon- I'm not sure if you missed my post or not. I would be interested in your opinion on the omitted variable dilemma. when variance that would be accredited to to a specific cause is omitted, then that importance is portioned out amongst the remaining variables that are being examined, falsely inflating them. the author of my link is an IPCC reviewer of AR5 so his opinions may have some substance to them dont you think?

 

[wirebender]

throw a towel over your powered up stereo and see if it warms up or not.

Conduction? Convection? The second law says what the second law says. If it meant something else, it would say something else. But hey, you believe whatever fantasy you want to believe.

 

[hortysir]

Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

If they were Florida glaciers, I'd be worried.

 

[IanC]

I just don't see any evidence at all of any systematic wrong doing or fraud.

Then it is because you have your hands clamped firmly over your eyes and are screaming LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs to be sure you don't hear any evidence either. Again, for your viewing pleasure.

These are only a few of the many many blatant examples of data tampering. Now you look at these and tell me with a straight face that you don't see any evidence of systematic wrongdoing or fraud. Note the agencies from which these examples come from and then deny systematic fraud.

it is unfortunate that many warmers just refuse to look at any evidence that the scientists involved with global warming may be performing work that would be unacceptable in practically any other field of study.

a challenge to anyone who has unshakeable faith in the consensus. google a GISS temperature graph for your location that is at least a year old. then compare it to the recent version at Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

there is a good chance that it is one of a great number of stations that has had its data history rewritten, especially in the last year.

 

[IanC]

throw a towel over your powered up stereo and see if it warms up or not.

Conduction? Convection? The second law says what the second law says. If it meant something else, it would say something else. But hey, you believe whatever fantasy you want to believe.

of course the stereo is heating itself by conduction, convection and radiation from its power source. once the towel interferes with heat loss the equilibrium is changed so that a higher temperature is needed to force the heat past the towel (heat sinks fill up until equilibrium, empty when the power is shut off). the same amount of energy is being lost but the stereo is warmer. the atmosphere and the surface react the same way when CO2 helps to close down the escape of radiation in certain IR bands.

 

[wirebender]

of course the stereo is heating itself by conduction, convection and radiation from its power source. once the towel interferes with heat loss the equilibrium is changed so that a higher temperature is needed to force the heat past the towel (heat sinks fill up until equilibrium, empty when the power is shut off). the same amount of energy is being lost but the stereo is warmer. the atmosphere and the surface react the same way when CO2 helps to close down the escape of radiation in certain IR bands.

Dream on ian. The stereo warms up because the towel blocks convection and conduction which is it primary means of bleeding off heat. CO2 blocks neither conduction nor convection which are also earth's primary means of bleeding off heat. If you are going to make an analogy, then at least try to make it applicable to the two senarios.

As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the stereo doesn't absorb even the smallest bit of energy radiating from the towell. Second law of thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You still haven't said which part of NOT POSSIBLE and WILL NOT you are not understanding. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says and I am still laughing over your contention that the second law of thermodynamics or any law of physics for that matter breaks down in an open system.

 

[IanC]

of course the stereo is heating itself by conduction, convection and radiation from its power source. once the towel interferes with heat loss the equilibrium is changed so that a higher temperature is needed to force the heat past the towel (heat sinks fill up until equilibrium, empty when the power is shut off). the same amount of energy is being lost but the stereo is warmer. the atmosphere and the surface react the same way when CO2 helps to close down the escape of radiation in certain IR bands.

Dream on ian. The stereo warms up because the towel blocks convection and conduction which is it primary means of bleeding off heat. CO2 blocks neither conduction nor convection which are also earth's primary means of bleeding off heat. If you are going to make an analogy, then at least try to make it applicable to the two senarios.

As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the stereo doesn't absorb even the smallest bit of energy radiating from the towell. Second law of thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You still haven't said which part of NOT POSSIBLE and WILL NOT you are not understanding. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says and I am still laughing over your contention that the second law of thermodynamics or any law of physics for that matter breaks down in an open system.

I cant figure out if you are really that stupid or if you just act dense so that you dont have to answer direct questions.

the stereo would warm up even if you were only blocking radiation, but certainly not as much. I never said that the towel was supply energy to heat the stereo, I said the towel disturbed the escape of heat which made the original heat source more efficient at raising the temperature of the stereo.

likewise with the earth and atmosphere. the surface is warmed by the sun but when CO2 impedes the escape of IR the equilibrium temperature goes up. convection and conduction are the main energy carriers in the lower atmosphere but radiation becomes a major player at the tops of clouds where the latent heat is released and there is much less conduction and convection because the air is less dense.

when are you going to give up on mischaracterizing Spencer or me as saying that it is the towel or the CO2 that is supplying the energy to heat things when we are saying that the heat flow is disturbed and a new equilibrium is reached where the temperature is higher with the same power source?

 

[wirebender]

the stereo would warm up even if you were only blocking radiation, but certainly not as much.

But it wouldn't absorb even the smallest fraction of a joule from the towel. To do so would violate both the second law of thermodnamics and the law of conservation of energy.

likewise with the earth and atmosphere. the surface is warmed by the sun but when CO2 impedes the escape of IR the equilibrium temperature goes up.

But that isn't the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. As to "slowing down" IR travelling at or very near the speed of light, again, you are dreaming. Your imaginings of photons bouncing around unable to escape and therefore warming the atmosphere is pure science fiction.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once more ol' Bent knows far more than all the Phd Physicists in the world. Just ask him

 

[wirebender]

Once more ol' Bent knows far more than all the Phd Physicists in the world. Just ask him

If you weren't so abysmally stupid, you might realize that what I say actually jibes with the laws of physics while those few bought and paid for pseudoscientists you claim represent something like a majority can't square their claims at all with the laws of physics.

It is unfortunate that the educational system has failed you, and so many others so miserably rocks. If I were in your shoes, I suppose I might be as bitter and desperate as you. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be reduced entirely to logical fallacies when you try and argue your position.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once more ol' Bent knows far more than all the Phd Physicists in the world. Just ask him

How are you making out on that experiment showing us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 melts glaciers, causes hurricanes and acidifies the oceans?