Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[flacaltenn]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by mountains of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I had no idea the Washington Post used to be a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Where do you think data for climate science came from in the 1900s? It came from ship logs and random explorer reports for the poles..

 

[ClosedCaption]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by mountains of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I had no idea the Washington Post used to be a peer reviewed scientific journal.

------------------------------------------------

There are probably no more than a thousand people on the planet with the expertise to opine on global warming (now climate change to cover any contingency).

None of them are likely on this board, but about 960 of which likely have some financial interest in there being a problem of some sort....else they have nothing to fix, and no Federal money with which to fix it. How are regular people ever to believe them. Any lawyer can hire an expert to testify under oath, for a fee, to what he needs said.

What was the financial benefit in 1922 again? Do you have anything like proof or is innuendo your entire foundation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not really. The mean free path of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is about ~25 m. So you'd need a lab set up >> 25 meters in length.

Oh nose! 25 meters! That's impossibly large!! No human can build anything great than 25m in length! Thanks God we have someone as knowledgeable as you to show us the error of our ways!

All this time we're wondering "Where's the Lab work?" And you come and demolish our silly questions by pointing out the physical impossibility of creating a tank greater than 25m in length.

25 meters!

Do you have a 50 meter long lab? I don't. So I'm afraid you can't do the experiment. I'm not even sure it would be possible to recreate the right boundary conditions in a lab. The Earth's atmosphere extends finitely upwards, gradually losing density, until it gets to zero. Somewhere in the upper atmosphere the air becomes thin enough it is transparent to IR radiation, and it is at this altitude that IR is effectively radiated into space. Adding Co2 extends the depth which is optically thick to IR radiation, extending the altitude at which IR is radiated into space. As this altitude increases, the effective T of the radiation goes down - so the total energy loss rate is less. I'm not sure how you'd replicate this in a lab.

We would also need to replicate the thermodynamic conditions of the upper atmosphere, where the absorption cross section is slightly different. Water vapour and CO2 have very similar bands - but the upper atmosphere is dry - so you'd need a completely dry chamber, too.

I don't have an infrared spectrometer, either. But I can read, so I know what the absorption cross section of CO2 looks like.

Sounds like a mix of backpedaling, hedging and hemming and hawing. See what happens when you pretend to be so smart and insult my intelligence?

The Warmers collected $2.6 B from the US government last year to do "research" How come you can't squeeze one lab experiment out of $2.6 Billion?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level..

Well if what matters most is the Co2 LEVEL then see this graph:

Co2 is by far the highest its been in the entire ice core history. All due to man-made emissions. This trend isn't stopping any time soon! It takes about 100,000 years for Co2 levels to rise about 100 ppm from their minimums to their maximums - and at what is already a natural peak in Co2 (see graph above), we've added over 100 ppm in barely more than 100 years. 100,000 years vs. 100 years.

So an additional 100PPM of CO2 can drive Earth climate, but it's impossible to replicate this in a lab.

Hmmmkay

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level..

Well if what matters most is the Co2 LEVEL then see this graph:

Co2 is by far the highest its been in the entire ice core history. All due to man-made emissions. This trend isn't stopping any time soon! It takes about 100,000 years for Co2 levels to rise about 100 ppm from their minimums to their maximums - and at what is already a natural peak in Co2 (see graph above), we've added over 100 ppm in barely more than 100 years. 100,000 years vs. 100 years.

That's odd, if CO2 worked as you allege, how come the temperature COLLAPSED from 350,000 to 300,000 years ago?

Hmmm?

We added 120PPM of CO2 and the Temperature dropped like an Obama promise.

What happened?

hmmmm?

 

[Ernie S.]

We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level..

Well if what matters most is the Co2 LEVEL then see this graph:

Co2 is by far the highest its been in the entire ice core history. All due to man-made emissions. This trend isn't stopping any time soon! It takes about 100,000 years for Co2 levels to rise about 100 ppm from their minimums to their maximums - and at what is already a natural peak in Co2 (see graph above), we've added over 100 ppm in barely more than 100 years. 100,000 years vs. 100 years.

So an additional 100PPM of CO2 can drive Earth climate, but it's impossible to replicate this in a lab.

Hmmmkay

Why take a chance with actual science when you can design a "computer model" that will support your claim?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

K

Oh - but wait - it looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Anything that looks like a hockey stick can't be true, everyone knows that - its common sense!

It looks like a hockey stick BECAUSE the temporal resolution of GLOBAL study using all those different proxies essentially has no RESOLUTION to identify 50 year events. If you look at the INDIVIDUAL proxy studies you will find ample evidence of MWPeriod peaks far exceeding our common era 40 yr spike.. MANY of them. Same during the Roman Warm period.. And in SOME of these studies, they just tacked on the modern age readings for the press release version to finish the magic hockey stick trick..

It looks like a hockey stick because Mann et al massaged data to make it LOOK like a hockey stick.

From link above:

Mann, Bradley, and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a 1998 (MBH98) “peer-reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, especially the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) – the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained,

He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes… He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.

Here is the corrected graph:

OMG M&M have been entirely debunked. This is literally the 50 or 60th time I'd mentioned this here. The graph above is false.

pg 2312 beginning of last paragraph on page "It should be noted that...." An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

They used the wrong data set and didn't understand the methodology. This isn't at all surprising, considering McIntrye works in the mining industry and for conservative think tanks ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Stephen McIntyre and McKitrick is an economist.

Its funny how most of the denialists don't even have doctorates in a physical science.

 

[bedowin62]

go cry somewhere left-wing idiot; it must suck knowing the whole left-wing agenda is falling apart.
sooner or later people will get tired of thier money going to "studies" that fund people simply trying to advance an agenda. then Mr Soros will have to use more of his own money

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It looks like a hockey stick BECAUSE the temporal resolution of GLOBAL study using all those different proxies essentially has no RESOLUTION to identify 50 year events. If you look at the INDIVIDUAL proxy studies you will find ample evidence of MWPeriod peaks far exceeding our common era 40 yr spike.. MANY of them. Same during the Roman Warm period.. And in SOME of these studies, they just tacked on the modern age readings for the press release version to finish the magic hockey stick trick..

It looks like a hockey stick because Mann et al massaged data to make it LOOK like a hockey stick.

From link above:

Mann, Bradley, and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a 1998 (MBH98) “peer-reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, especially the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) – the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained,

He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes… He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.

Here is the corrected graph:

OMG M&M have been entirely debunked. This is literally the 50 or 60th time I'd mentioned this here.

pg 2312 beginning of last paragraph on page "It should be noted that...." An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

They used the wrong data set and didn't understand the methodology. This isn't at all surprising, considering McIntrye works in the mining industry and for conservative think tanks ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Stephen McIntyre and McKitrick is an economist.

"There's 2 type of people in the AGWCult, those getting paid and those getting played. Guess which is OohPahLumpah"

 

[Misty]

"Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been."

Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural Sources

No one has PROVEN otherwise.

 

[MACAULAY]

I had no idea the Washington Post used to be a peer reviewed scientific journal.

------------------------------------------------

There are probably no more than a thousand people on the planet with the expertise to opine on global warming (now climate change to cover any contingency).

None of them are likely on this board, but about 960 of which likely have some financial interest in there being a problem of some sort....else they have nothing to fix, and no Federal money with which to fix it. How are regular people ever to believe them. Any lawyer can hire an expert to testify under oath, for a fee, to what he needs said.

What was the financial benefit in 1922 again? Do you have anything like proof or is innuendo your entire foundation?

------------------------------

There may have been no grants in 1922, but there were Loons. There are always Loons.

Now, there are both Grants and Loons. I see no reason to trust the combination. 1922 Loons said the Arctic ice would be gone in a few years. Al Gore (who loves Green, but not the planet, money) said a decade or so ago that they would be gone by 2013.

Scientists looking for grants and Money-Whore Loons like Al Gore do not inspire confidence. Loon Yankees moving South to escape the bitter winters is what we need to address. They have damn near ruined Florida.

 

[Kosh]

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

 

[ClosedCaption]

------------------------------------------------

There are probably no more than a thousand people on the planet with the expertise to opine on global warming (now climate change to cover any contingency).

None of them are likely on this board, but about 960 of which likely have some financial interest in there being a problem of some sort....else they have nothing to fix, and no Federal money with which to fix it. How are regular people ever to believe them. Any lawyer can hire an expert to testify under oath, for a fee, to what he needs said.

What was the financial benefit in 1922 again? Do you have anything like proof or is innuendo your entire foundation?

------------------------------

There may have been no grants in 1922, but there were Loons. There are always Loons.

Now, there are both Grants and Loons. I see no reason to trust the combination. 1922 Loons said the Arctic ice would be gone in a few years. Al Gore (who loves Green, but not the planet, money) said a decade or so ago that they would be gone by 2013.

Awesome sauce...now what do the scientist who do science say? Do you have that? Let me guess...No because you are all about finding out the truth eh...

So no benes in 1922...buh buh buh...I thought Global Warming was created to get govt grants? *Dont pay attention to the fact that the science came before the grants*

Scientists looking for grants and Money-Whore Loons like Al Gore do not inspire confidence. Loon Yankees moving South to escape the bitter winters is what we need to address. They have damn near ruined Florida.

You know who doesnt inspire confidence? You...you havent posted one thing to back up anything because all you got is inneundo, rumors and deflections.

 

[MACAULAY]

What was the financial benefit in 1922 again? Do you have anything like proof or is innuendo your entire foundation?

------------------------------

There may have been no grants in 1922, but there were Loons. There are always Loons.

Now, there are both Grants and Loons. I see no reason to trust the combination. 1922 Loons said the Arctic ice would be gone in a few years. Al Gore (who loves Green, but not the planet, money) said a decade or so ago that they would be gone by 2013.

Awesome sauce...now what do the scientist who do science say? Do you have that? Let me guess...No because you are all about finding out the truth eh...

So no benes in 1922...buh buh buh...I thought Global Warming was created to get govt grants? *Dont pay attention to the fact that the science came before the grants*

Scientists looking for grants and Money-Whore Loons like Al Gore do not inspire confidence. Loon Yankees moving South to escape the bitter winters is what we need to address. They have damn near ruined Florida.

You know who doesnt inspire confidence? You...you havent posted one thing to back up anything because all you got is inneundo, rumors and deflections.

---------------------------------------------------

Innuendo, rumors & deflections?

I simply posted a Loon view from a Loon newspaper from 92 years ago that was DEAD ASS WRONG....and you nutjobs only defense is that at least the Loons were honest, and were not bought by Federal Grants.

But, they were still wrong.

And, Loons are still saying the same thing 92 years later...only now they get money to say it.

In about 2002, Al Gore said the Northern Ice would be gone by 2013...and then he proceeded to line his pockets.

So, why is the average person to get alarmed when Loons and Money Whores like Al Gore say, once again that the Northern Ice will be gone soon.

And can you tell me why it had to be changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?

We've all noticed all our lives that the climate changes. Seems like an admission of sorts...and a desperate attempt to be Right at least sometimes.

 

[mamooth]

Obviously on conclusion you made is that if you make the asinine comparison to holocaust denier and those who question GW that makes you seem smarter.

I made no such comparison. If you want to insist on comparing yourself to a holocaust denier, that's solely your problem. I'm not going anywhere near that issue.

I do exactly what you said you do. I lived through the 70s and read all the gloom and doom books. I was concerned I was gong to get involved. Then one guy I was talking to told me "we will take care of it." And you know he was right the books were wrong. Did you know we ran out of oil 20 years ago? Did you know that the Earth can not support a population much less then what we have today? So yeah I was fooled, once. Won't happen again.

Some fine red herrings. You're not looking at data, you're just invoking excuses to ignore the data.

First of all, I have looked and looked and not once have I found out where the temperature should be, only that it should be cooler. I like it warmer.

Now you're flipflopping, saying there is warming. Make up your mind.

Second, the models are all wrong and they were based on the data so something is wrong.

First, the models were spot-on correct. Whoever told you the models were wrong lied to you, hence you should never again use them as a source. Unless you like being lied to.

Second, the models don't matter. Even if no model existed, the warming is still very obvious.

Third, CO2 lags temperature both up and down, how does that even happen if CO2 drives temperature?

The fact that CO2 lagged in the past is not relevant, because conditions in the present are very different from the past.

That's basic logic even a second-grader could grasp, yet nearly every denier simply fails at it. And because deniers are so deficient in logical ability, they're easy prey for the cult scammers.

Fourth, Al Gore is getting rich pushing his stuff. It would be one thing if he was not being altruistic but no, he is profiting big time so I question his motivation.

Gore rule invoked, whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the argument for their side. And it's always deniers who rave about Gore. He's not a scientist, so nobody on the rational side cares about him. Those who can discuss science, do. Those who can't talk about Al Gore.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To sum up:

We can replicate a black hole in a lab

We can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab

We can handle the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab

But adding 100PPM of CO2 to a container is beyond our capability

Hmmmkay?

 

[ClosedCaption]

To sum up:

We can replicate a black hole in a lab

We can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab

We can handle the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab

But adding 100PPM of CO2 to a container is beyond our capability

Hmmmkay?

What is it with you and that 100PPM of CO2? What is that supposed to prove?

BTW we cannot replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab. If we could as you say that would mean first you have to had been there to see the big bang OR trust scientists...which you dont. So

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To sum up:

We can replicate a black hole in a lab

We can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab

We can handle the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab

But adding 100PPM of CO2 to a container is beyond our capability

Hmmmkay?

You'd have to add 100 ppm to a container the size of the atmosphere.

I guess stars aren't real, either, since we can't put one in a lab.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To sum up:

We can replicate a black hole in a lab

We can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab

We can handle the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab

But adding 100PPM of CO2 to a container is beyond our capability

Hmmmkay?

What is it with you and that 100PPM of CO2? What is that supposed to prove?

BTW we cannot replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang in a lab. If we could as you say that would mean first you have to had been there to see the big bang OR trust scientists...which you dont. So

Are you sure? That's the quark epoch. I'm pretty sure we can make quarks in a lab.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It looks like a hockey stick because Mann et al massaged data to make it LOOK like a hockey stick.

From link above:



Here is the corrected graph:

OMG M&M have been entirely debunked. This is literally the 50 or 60th time I'd mentioned this here.

pg 2312 beginning of last paragraph on page "It should be noted that...." An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

They used the wrong data set and didn't understand the methodology. This isn't at all surprising, considering McIntrye works in the mining industry and for conservative think tanks ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Stephen McIntyre and McKitrick is an economist.

"There's 2 type of people in the AGWCult, those getting paid and those getting played. Guess which is OohPahLumpah"

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, do you? If you have the capability to understand what M&M did in their paper and the capability to understand the later rebuttal - then I'm fucking General Grant and I'm about to sit down with General Lee and have a cup of fucking tea.