Comments on: Cold Hard Facts and the ‘Big-Boned Climate’ Theory

By: Jim Baker

Jim Baker — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:05:55 +0000

So, Alston. Why the rant against the religious guy? He had a point. Many atheists profess to be non-idealogue, but turn out to be believers in something just as idealogical as religion, such as Environmentalism. I apologize to you for saying most when it is only most in my experience.
By the way, this funny guy thanks you for the defense of the “oil industry scientists”, because I am one of those guys. In past posts, I have told peaceful David this, and I think he has been waiting to launch that diatribe in my direction for some time now. I can take it. While I am not funded by the “industry” to espouse my dis-belief in an unproven global warming theory, that is what I have usually done on my own time. Since I am almost to retirement age, I could not care less what the “industry” would want me to say.

By: Boris

Boris — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:16:21 +0000

You really can’t have it both ways though. You guys insist on factoring El Nino, la Nina activity as part of the man-made contribution to warming (through the argument that man made global warming is causing more El Ninos). Either, this is a source of natural global temperature variation or it is not, and the AGW crowd should have acknowledged the correct answer to this question long before now.

First, it isn’t proved that AGW will cause more El Ninos. All ENSO does is move energy from the oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa. When you account for ENSO, you get about the same amount of warming since the 1970s (El Nino accounts for about 0.06 deg, but it’s a difficult analysis and I don’t put much stock in that number). But if the earth warms, it makes sense that the warming would manifest itself, in part, through ENSO.

By: Boris

Boris — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:07:00 +0000

jerryofva

La Nina disappeared by the end of last December and Hansen’s friends realclimate.org site predicted a warmer then normal winter. Their prediction was way off. La Nina had little to do with the last three cold winters.

There are some dead giveaways here. First, RC did not make such a prediction to my knowledge (link or it’s BS). Second, why are you talking about “winters” in a discussion of global warming? Do you mean NH winters? Your comments make no sense in a global context.

James Hansen was heavily involved in the development of these models and was in the forefront of predicting a new imminent man-made ice age during the 1970s.

Again, link to Hansen’s predictions of a new imminent man made ice age. Do you think you can just make shit up and no one will call you on it?

CO2 levels in the Cretaceous were much higher then they are today and will be in 100 years. Why was there no run away global warming back then?

No one is predicting runaway global warming. By the way, average sea surface temperatures were about 17 deg C higher in the Cretaceous than today.

By: Sandy Cash

Sandy Cash — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:08:47 +0000

I wrote an article about Nir Shaviv’s theory in the Israeli news magazine, The Jerusalem Report back in 2003… still available in the archives.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10030209.html

The fact is, this stuff will stay “news” because it’s too complicated to fit into the average Reuters headline, and most people don’t have the energy to read things that challenge the way they already think!

By: Mike Blackadder

Mike Blackadder — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:56:41 +0000

Boris #65: “Since we can explain the recent weather (la nina) I wonder who is really suffering from delusions.”

You really can’t have it both ways though. You guys insist on factoring El Nino, la Nina activity as part of the man-made contribution to warming (through the argument that man made global warming is causing more El Ninos). Either, this is a source of natural global temperature variation or it is not, and the AGW crowd should have acknowledged the correct answer to this question long before now.

By: Mike Blackadder

Mike Blackadder — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:48:53 +0000

“The ace in the hole for global warming alarmists of every shape and size is that the Earth has warmed (by under one degree Fahrenheit) during the 20th century and solar irradiance does not seem to adequately account for the temperature increase.”

Not quite. Also essential to the argument is the proof that this warming is unprecedented on similar time scales. Remember, that’s why Jesus told me that it was the hockey stick shaft, not the blade that was important. Ooh, wise Jesus.

By: Mike Blackadder

Mike Blackadder — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:39:56 +0000

David S, from the point of view of scientific inquiry it’s a pretty ridiculous argument to claim that recent cold temperatures support the AGW hypothesis. I know that some climatologists make this argument, but whether or not you realize or care this is the type of attribute that renders AGW theory non-scientific. Science that does not ask questions is by definition not science. More specifically, any assertion whose credibility can not be influenced by actual observation is not scientific. The types of assertions that can not be influenced by observation, no matter how important, have no more credibility than religious belief. And normally us civilized folk are not so bold as to condemn others as fools based on their religious convictions.

That aside, I’m just as skeptical of this solar stuff but think it is instructive to compare the credibility of one theory against the other.

BTW, does anyone have a link that summarizes the IPCC accepted calculation of solar effect on 20th century warming? Perhaps Boris has the answer? I’m curious about how they factor feedbacks into natural vs man-made contributions to warming.

By: ked5

ked5 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:47:48 +0000

Here’s NASA’s latest egg on their face.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/11/solar-cycle-24-has-ended-according-to-nasa/

Have a good laugh. How can they declare SC24 OVER, when we had a (pathetic as it was) SC23 spot, LAST WEEK?

By: AThinkingPerson

AThinkingPerson — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:00:20 +0000

David S…. You are truly wet behind the ears and dewy eyed aren’t you? I’m starting to feel guilty every time I point out the flaws in your arguments. Business is on board not because they “see the writing on the wall.” Again, you have this vision of everyone being so altruistic. Business is in business to make money. Not hard to grasp I’d think. The current government is beholden to big business (again, see how the union argument is bleeding into this one????) against the interests of the common good. This can easily be seen in the current administration. President Obama flew on AirForce 1 to give a 5 minute speech on sustainable new forms of energy in front of solar panels in Colorado. Remember that trip? Now, how much fossil fuel did he burn to fly to Colorado to give a 5 minute speech in front of 5 solar panels and then immediately fly back to Washington? Why did he do it? Hmmm……. Sounds fishy to me, does it to you? How about the unions? Why would Obama and Biden be beholden to the unions and promise passage of the card check act? Could it possibly be because the unions were one of the Democrats biggest contributors? Hmm…. starting to see a trend here. Throwing the coal industry under the bus to pay homage to 5 solar panels (and therefore pacifying the liberal left that elected him) and throwing the American worker under the bus to add to the union coffers (and therefore guaranteeing big political contributions in the future). Politics can sure be an ugly business David. You’d be wise to look at who’s paying for all of the global warming hysterics. I’m guessing you’d be quite surprised.

By: G Alston

G Alston — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:35:20 +0000

#73 — Yes, indeed, and there is not much scholarship of note. Unless you count the “industry sponsored” science.

Let’s take your contention at face value. Here we have energy companies who employ the brightest of the bright, as in ivy league people with near-genius IQ. Supposedly, the best these guys can come up with is a plan to use up all the resources, have the common man hate you enough to bomb corporate offices, have the government leaning on them to the point of nationalizing them for the good of the country, AND in the process of this, use up every possible resource as fast as possible.

Yeah, that’s certainly a plan that the brightest of the bright would come up with. As if. But that’s what you’re accusing them of. You’re going for the full monty imbecile prize by the circuitous route.