« "Paradise Now": The Human Face of Terrorists | Main | Putting Murtha Into Perspective »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d834615a1953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Kyoto" is Falling Apart...:

Comments

The story of William M. Gray, if you know it deeply, is quite interestring and it does bring us to the point that the real direction on the environmental studies was taken during the Gore administration.
It'd be also interesting if you analyse the case of Philip Cooney; I mean, I agree that consensus is no science. But we'd also agree that modifying scientific studies in order to give us a contradictive view of the scientific community is not fair at all.

Global Warming is the perfect and inherantly infallible issue because no matter what happens regarding the climate or general weather phenomena, everything can be an indicator of Global Warming. If you get a cold streak, that's a sure sign of Global Warming, if you get a heat wave, it's Global Warming, hurricanes - Global Warming, unusually moderate weather? Global Warming. It's just perfect. Regardless we all know that Global Warming will occure the day before the day after tomorrow so live for today.

Yup... great find, David, and even as this is being discussed, yet ANOTHER scientific team has jumped FROM "global warming" onto the solar activity bandwagon that is slowly gaining strength.

Solar Activity

"Our results indicate marked influence of solar-activity variations on the earth’s climate,” the researchers reported in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

The article David has shown has so much that is important about it!

"Consensus" thinking is not only not science, it can be actively dangerous. Physical law isn't a democracy, it simply is what it is. The fact that "most scientists" see one thing and the nonconformist genius sees something entirely different does not make "most scientists" right. It doesn't make the nonconformist right, either, but science is an area where an open mind NEEDS to be a requirement to practice.

Take Pasteur, for instance. The way people look at Pasteur today, you'd think that he came up with his germ theories, they were broadcast worldwide on CNN, and after that all doctors all over the world practiced sound sterilization and contagion isolation.

The truth of the matter is that "most scientists" thought Pasteur's theory was just a new version of the Medieval "demons in the water" notion, and dismissed Pasteur's ideas. We had to wait for an entire generation of medical practitioners to die out before Pasteur's most basic technique of boiling water for drinking and sterilizing surgical instruments became commonplace prevention methods. Had it not been for the Spanish Influenza pandemic, WWI would have probably gone down as the first war in which more soldiers died from injuries (this includes mustard gas exposure as "injuries") than diseases. Further, the rapid spread of the Spanish flu even suggests some shakiness on contagion theory even that late after Pasteur, but we may never know the real truth about that one.

Anyway, the "general consensus" is a bad way to do business when you're in the business of making DISCOVERIES, not just agreeing with your peers!

Geesh... what did I do? PIFM!

Sleepy, I know! That darn Global Warming has made it cold in the winter and hot in the summer, and we don't know WHAT to expect in the spring and Fall! And I understand Climate Change is going to be even more unpredictable than that.

As with any scientific field, less than 1% of us are ever going to know enough to form an intelligent opinion from the data. We are driven to depend on the consensus of experts. But from our own fields of study we also know that experts can be childish, defensive, and pigheaded. They are just like us, after all.

There is a partial way out, however. We can usually determine who is fighting fair, and that is often a clue as to which side is thinking objectively and which side has stopped thinking.

As an aside, I think that the values of Western Civilization are in more danger than the environment. We strain at gnats and swallow camels.

This quote from the article I mentioned belongs in the above message along with the link:

"Our results indicate marked influence of solar-activity variations on the earth’s climate,” the researchers reported in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Article

AVI: LOL! Right you are :). (Yawn! Blink blink...)

The article I linked is the third study I've come across that links "global warming" to a passing increase in solar activity. Other studies concerning warming on Mars and Jupiter just sort of edge the solar activity possibility in, probably out of sheer terror that the "scientific consensus" will try to demonize their work because it doesn't go along lock, stock, and barrel with the greenhouse gasses theory. The mavericks on this are the only people I've seen who are actually doing their job of "making discoveries". The scientific consensus gang are so buy agreeing with each other they can't see what's coming up behind their massive egos.

Another group of maverick studies I've seen or heard about involves a belief that the actual relationship between the increase in greenhouse gasses and possible global warming is being looked at backwards... that it may be warming (from solar activity, for instance) that is causing the increase CO2, not the other way around.

We are, as the Chinese philosophers used to say, "... in interesting times." We don't know enough about the climate to predict next week's weather, but some people think they can predict the climate 20-30 years from now based on greenhouse gasses? We do NOT know enough about it, and we certainly don't know enough about it to risk destroying the 1st World nations with Acute Kyoto Syndrome!

Do the Kyoto enthusiasts have an explanation for the shrinking polar ice on Mars? Maybe it's all those American SUVs causing the problem.

The computer software used to 'predict and model global warming' are not even up to the task. The results are unreliable.

All those grants and frequent conferences at fine hotels in exotic places are a lot of fun though.

K Squared
There has been some flapping mouths linking Kyoto to Katrina. Robert Kennedy Jr for one I believe.

For the moment I will leave aside the Scientific Reasons why this is total nonsense and remind all
of a possibly forgotten detail of the Kyto Treaty.

BEFORE Al Gore went to Tokyo, A Bill was set before the Senate commonly called the
Byrd-Hagel Resolution

Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0

In case you missed it let me in the manner of the US Congress ask for Unanimous Consent to Revise and Extend those remarks.

Passed by the Senate

95-0

So how did this all get to be Bush's fault?


continued

" during the Gore administration."

LOL What Gore administration?????????????

I mean there has been wishful thinking there are those who wish there were one, but there was not

There was a great 2 hour show on the History Chanal last night. It was about the Mini Ice Age (Approximately 1350 AD to 1845 AD). Instead of giving you all the scientific mumbo jumbo, here are some of the historic consequences:

- Europe had a population of 60 million in the early 1300s. The Renaissance was in full bloom because Europe was prosperous.

- Europe all of a sudden suffered from severe cold and precipitation. Glaciers in the Alps moved rapidly and consumed whole villages.

- Europe was fully dependent on cereal crops. These crops failed in the wet and cold weather. It’s population declined from 60 million to 40 million.

- It took Europe another 300 years to discover the potato from South America. Turnips and potatoes replaced bread as staple foods in Europe.

- The Black Plague took root in Europe because the population was vulnerable from malnutrition and because people stayed in doors more often during the cold, damp weather.
Europe’s population declined further.

- Crop failures during the last 300 years inspired immigration to the Americas.

- The French were hold-outs and were still 100% dependent on cereal crops. A bad harvest in 1789 inspired bread riots and Marie Antoinette to remark, “let them eat cake.”

- The Irish Potato Famine of 1845 was caused by over-dependence on one type of potato that was susceptible to blight during cold, damp weather. The death of 1.5 million Irish and the immigration of another 3 million to the America and Australia was the last hurrah of the Mini Ice Age.

@Dan

Yes the Gore Administration: 11/6/2001 to approximately 1/15/2002. Best known for removing the letter "W" from all keyboards in the White House. ;-)

@ George M

11/6/2001 to approximately 1/15/2002. Best known for removing the letter "W" from all keyboards in the White House.

As a secret agent of the Bush administration? I know W was busy smoking out the Taliban at the time but he certainly would have noticed Al Gore going around vandalizing the White House. Or would he?

@Allan,

You're right Alan. 11/6/2000 to approximately 1/15/2001.

Apparently, the Bush administration has been brain-washed too:

[...]
What's Known for Certain?

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
[...]

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agengency (Emphasis added).

Uh, oh. Looks like someone pushed Alan's button again. Get ready for the storm of cut-an-paste talking points on the doom of global warming and the evil Americans that cause it. Alan, it seems we have had this discussion before. I see no point in repeating it, but I will point out that _nothing_ is known for certain, and the quotations you supply from the EPA are nothing more than the "pseudo-science by consensus" that the original post is all about. But I guess you didn't read the original post, nor those from LC or George...

Scout, then don't repeat yourself and save everybody's time. You don't have study rocket science to figure out that "nothing is known for certain" but even you should acknowledge that there are varying degrees of certainty. And yes, what about this "pseudo-science by consensus" logic? Just because most scientist agree with Heisenberg and hist uncertainty relation doesn't mean quantum physics is "pseudo-science". What kind of reasoning is that?

Anyways, it looks like I'm not the only one whose buttons are being pushed. Why get people in this blog so upset with this topic? I've yet to read a comment saying "Protecting the environment is bad and we should not do it." Are you people thinking it but not saying it? I would be surprised. But then you also seem to justify CO2 emissions by saying: "It's really not that bad." Is it the tree huggers who want to take away you're SUVs? Even if Global Warming was a "myth", there are a lot of other reasons to reduce emissions and to save energy. I just don't understand how any reasonable person would deny that. Even the CEO of Ford is running a campaign on that right now and I don't think he cares for Kyoto very much...

Maybe the reason people in this blog get so ticked, because they are sick and tired of having people from other countries behave as if the US didn't do anything for the environment.
Co2 emissions seems to be the ONLY thing the folks that are pro- Kyoto care for. There are a lot of other things that have been done in the US.Catalytic converters were the law here way before Europe ever thought about it. So was recycling. Smog Control- done eons ago in L.A and other places. Clean up of rivers etc. Lets not forget National Parks, endangered species recovery etc. Were I live we are spending a bundle to make sure some of the wild salmon species don't die out. People work on stream recoveries- voluntary- to make sure that this important animal will go on existing in our creeks and rivers. That might not be as "glorious" as the reduction of CO2 emissions,but it isn't just the reduction of CO2 gasses that make for a healthy environment, but everything- clean air, clean water, a survival of not just the human species.
Many of us just don't believe that it ought to be something crammed down our throat by folks from other countries who are way behind in their Kyoto obligations. Take care of you own business first before you lecture us on ours.

@Alan: "Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities."

Actually, that is NOT true.

All the scientists know for sure is that there has been a concurrent rise in CO2 and warming.

That MIGHT mean that greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) are A cause of global warming.

OR IT MIGHT MEAN THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING THE INCREASE OF CO2! There are several teams of scientists who are looking into it from THIS angle, and say that the warming started occurring BEFORE the CO2 increase.

If the second view is true, then the other two points you made collapse.

And please... I'm STILL waiting to hear your view about the global warming that's been tracked on Mars and Jupiter from the prior thread where we discussed it.

This may have already posted, but my PC got hung. I'm resending in case it didn't go through.

@Sock: The computer software used to 'predict and model global warming' are not even up to the task. The results are unreliable.

This is true. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a climatologist, but I HAVE been working with computers since 1966, and I know what they can do and what they can NOT do.

The problem is not merely that the software isn't reliable, the simple fact is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for a computer based global climate model to be correct. Maybe in a hundred years or so, but not now.

For those people who look at the results of those global climate models and say, "Gee, whiz!", you MUST understand something very important.

Computers, no matter how complicated they are, can do ONLY two things: They can store information and add ones and zeros. And I can remember when they couldn't even do that much... when even room-sized mainframes did not have the system space to store data. Everything that they appear do is a variation of the "store and add" functions. Even transmitting data across phone lines and satellite connections is a variation of "store and add".

Now, the solar system models that NASA uses to plot planetary locations works brilliantly. It works so well... and HAS worked since the '60s... that they were able to launch the Voyagers on precisely the right courses to intercept certain planets decades down the line.

But there is a logical reason why NASA's solar system models work: The fact is that the human race has been watching the movements of the visible planets for as long as we've been able to look up and wonder what those lights in the sky are. We have a body of mathematically accurate planetary motion data that goes back to ancient Babylon. The sheer volume of mathematically accurate information available to NASA's programmers has created models that are correct down to a fraction of a secpmd of motion for a given planet. In fact, you can sit down with a ppencil, paper, planetary motion ephemeris, and a logarithm chart and get pretty close using your own mathematical wizardry. This is not, as they say, "rocket science". Anyone with a halfway decent grasp of logarithms can do this. For a computer, its a snap. "Store" (planetary data) and "add" (logarithmic functions).

However, the global climate models do NOT have 7,000 years of solid mathematical data to back them up. Somewhere in the script for the program, there HAS to be a statement coded to mean "x amount of CO2=1 deg temperature increase".

The elephant in the room is that we do NOT know the exact value of "x".

We have some scientists who have GUESSED at it, but not a single one of their climate models has proven accurate. Until we know the EXACT value of x down to several decimal places, it will not be possible for climate models to be correct.

The SECOND elephant in the room, which entered this past year, is that we don't even know whether CO2 causes warming or whether warming causes CO2. Stand by, they're working on that angle.

One thing that a computer most certainly can NOT do is reach an inspired conclusion. The computer can not notice a trend in the data flow and think, "Hey, maybe that means this instead of that!" "Inspiration" is not a computer function. HUMANS can do that, but computers will continue processing down the path you programmed it to take.

So, basically, those people who are building all those "Gee Whiz!" climate models are wasting time and money, and a doing a serious disservice to the cause of science. Why a disservice? Because the computer will tell you what you TOLD it to tell you! If you have a belief that CO2 is causing global warming, that's what it will show because of the "x=1 deg" line of coding when we don't even know what "x" is. If you have a belief that CO2 is NOT causing global warming, the computer will show you THAT for the same reason, again a WRONG answer.

What the computer says is ONLY what you tell it to say. If the mathematics are not precise, as they are with the solar system models, the results are total garbage.


re: "NASA's programmers has created models that are correct down to a fraction of a secpmd of motion "

That's "fraction of a SECOND of motion" :D

@ Scout, even if we granted that reducing CO2 and conserving energy were unalloyed good things, they might not be good things that we choose to spend $1T on. Plus Opportunity Cost.

The "global warming" controversy is about faith, not about the atmosphere.

Global warming is the European counterpart to intelligent design. Same mimicry, opposite line of vision: Intelligent design is origin times theology labeled as science, global warming is end times theology labeled as science. And the same failure to draw the line between physics and metaphysics correctly, but attempts from different sides of that line. Both movements are driven by the same fear of a dictator God, but in complementary ways: One longing for artificial signatures of the authorship of the Creator, the other for natural expressions for the muted fear of Armageddon. Both creationism and environmentalism are tempted to lose sight of the cosmological and geological timecycles beyond their short-age horizons.

But if the creation is very old and the apocalypse is very far, then the future consumption of the fossile resources that started up the technological civilization is to be projected on the same geological timespan that evolution needed to create them. If it is not time that is limited, then the limited resources must be put into an intelligent relationship to the quasi unlimited remaining time. Then the design challenge is to find the smallest possible minimum of regulation that is able to prevent civilization from exhausting its accumulated fossile resources before it can fully substitute the dependencies with other energy sources at some point in the future.

It is not so much the Crusader imperialism but the Kyoto protocol that is proverbially "all about oil". But it is an arrangement that applies at the maximum distance from the energy source, at the emissions, which is the best formula to produce a maximum of regulation. For a feedback mechanism that translates demand surplus into increased substitution capability, and achieves this equilibrium with a minimum of regulation, it is instead required to access at the minimum distance to the energy source. There are no artificial limitations of consumption necessary, a global tax on oil and gas wells will be sufficient to institute this feedback into the market system.

With the human contribution to the climate under control, its independent momentum can then again be seen as what it is.

@Alan Shore

Here's some interesting reading for you, Alan. The Solar Constant Isn't Constant. Pay particular attention to the findings of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt.

After listening to the indoctrination to which my 18 year old son had been subjected to in the German school system, the article enabled me to give him some food for thought. And by the way, I am fully in favor of the reduction of emissions - but not because I am convinced that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming.

@LC Mamapajamas

Why don't talk to the good folks at the EPA about your doubts. I quoted their website. Mind you that EPA is part of the US government that is fighting Kyoto so hard. Also, the part that you re-quoted does not even mention global warming.

OR IT MIGHT MEAN THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING THE INCREASE OF CO2.

Interesting point. Because of global warming the human race is producing CO2? The industrial revolution caused by a rising global temperature. And all because "the sun is a variable star." Amazing don't you think? You should write a paper about your theory. Maybe you even can prove that there is an Intelligent Designer?

And please... I'm STILL waiting to hear your view about the global warming that's been tracked on Mars and Jupiter from the prior thread where we discussed it.

Were my sarcastic remarks in the prior thread not enough? Do you know what people mean when they talk about "apples and oranges"? Mars doesn't even has a real atmosphere and Jupiter is a gas planet! I think we all agree that Global Warming is a complicated scientific matter and still poorly understood. What I don't get is how this is a justification for wasting ressources and for destroying our environment. We only have this one Earth. Mars and Jupiter maybe warming too but either way they are rather hostile places. As I mentioned before the CEO of Ford is now promoting hybrid cars and the use of renewable fuel sources. He knows that the American people understand why and that this will result in inceased revenue. Sooner or later people like you (or the people in Washington DC for that matter) will understand too.

@Alan:

"I think we all agree that Global Warming is a complicated scientific matter and still poorly understood. What I don't get is how this is a justification for wasting ressources and for destroying our environment. "

Who'se this "we", keemo sabbe? Maybe *you're* wasting resources, but *I'm* not. Further, if global warming is still "poorly understood", how does that justify taking drastic action that will destroy economies and standards of living? How do we know that we aren't totally mis-reading the situation, and that Kyoto, if it were implemented, wouldn't actually lead to a worse situation?

"As I mentioned before the CEO of Ford is now promoting hybrid cars and the use of renewable fuel sources. "

What they are promoting is tax breaks for the EPA flavor-of-the-month in technology. A few years ago it was electric cars. The EPA twisted GM's arm to build a bunch of them. Guess what: even with the tax breaks, no one bought them. Before that, it was diesel engines. Before that, it was rotary engines. Before that, it was Stirling-cycle engines. And, going back to the early '70s, I can remember when everyone in Washington was all hot for a comeback of steam engines. (Bill Lear wasted a vast portion of his personal fortune on that one.) Lesson: when Washington politicians set out to play automotive engineer, real car people cry because they've already seen this movie and they know how it will come out, and wise financiers keep their wallets in their pockets.

@ Alan

“A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.”

One more attempt to convince you that Global Warming may not necessarily be man-made. Oceanographers can determine the mean temperature of Earth by taking sediment samples from the ocean.

Scientist can determine the mean Earth temperature by measuring the ratio of microscopic animals that thrive in cold and warm environments. When the earth is warming, the number of microscopic animals that thrive in a warm climate increase. The inverse is true when there is a cold trend, the cold thriving microscopic animals increase their number. These animals have a short life and when they die, their small little bodies fall to the bottom of the ocean.

During the late 14th century, there was a cold trend of 7 degrees F. The glaciers in the French Alps increased at a rapid rate. The glaciers grew so fast that they consumed whole villages and farms. The Catholic Church recorded this trend because the locals thought it was the work of the devil. French priests (How appropriate, the French), performed exorcisms on the glaciers to drive away Satan!

The cold trend can be historically validated by the fate of Viking settlements in Greenland. Apparently, Lief Erickson did not lie, as history has lead us to believe, by giving Greenland it’s name to attract naive settlers. Greenland was actually lush with grass and trees. The Norse imported sheep to raise in Greenland. Mutton was 80% of the Viking diet. This can be validated by archaeological digs. By the late 1500s, the Norse in Greenland died out because they could not adapt to the cold. The last survivors of the Viking colony ate only 20% meat. They survived on fish because their barnyard animals could not survive the drastic climate change in Greenland.

Alan: Perhaps the warming trend that you attribute wholly to CO2 and the Greenhouse effect, is nothing more than the earth warming up to the temperatures that it enjoyed before the Mini Iceage. Please show us that you are a little open minded. If not we'll find you a good secular exorcist to chant at the disappearing Euro glaciers:-)

@ Alan

“A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.”

One more attempt to convince you that Global Warming may not necessarily be man-made. Oceanographers can determine the mean temperature of Earth by taking sediment samples from the ocean.

Scientist can determine the mean Earth temperature by measuring the ratio of microscopic animals that thrive in cold and warm environments. When the earth is warming, the number of microscopic animals that thrive in a warm climate increase. The inverse is true when there is a cold trend, the cold thriving microscopic animals increase their number. These animals have a short life and when they die, their small little bodies fall to the bottom of the ocean.

During the late 14th century, there was a cold trend of 7 degrees F. The glaciers in the French Alps increased at a rapid rate. The glaciers grew so fast that they consumed whole villages and farms. The Catholic Church recorded this trend because the locals thought it was the work of the devil. French priests (How appropriate, the French), performed exorcisms on the glaciers to drive away Satan!

The cold trend can be historically validated by the fate of Viking settlements in Greenland. Apparently, Lief Erickson did not lie, as history has lead us to believe, by giving Greenland it’s name to attract naive settlers. Greenland was actually lush with grass and trees. The Norse imported sheep to raise in Greenland. Mutton was 80% of the Viking diet. This can be validated by archaeological digs. By the late 1500s, the Norse in Greenland died out because they could not adapt to the cold. The last survivors of the Viking colony ate only 20% meat. They survived on fish because their barnyard animals could not survive the drastic climate change in Greenland.

Alan: Perhaps the warming trend that you attribute wholly to CO2 and the Greenhouse effect, is nothing more than the earth warming up to the temperatures that it enjoyed before the Mini Iceage. Please show us that you are a little open minded.

Alan, you are working hard to be blind.

If you think that global warming on Mars and Jupiter is insignificant because their atmospheres are different, you're missing the entire importance of the discovery of solar warming. Something caused those planets to start heating up. Must have been all those SUVs the Martians are driving around up there, you think?

@ Because of global warming the human race is producing CO2?

This comment is too assinine to reply to.

@ Were my sarcastic remarks in the prior thread not enough?

BINGO! You got it in one! :) There is hope for your intelligence after all!


::sigh::

Alan, let us try this in short sentences.

The Earth appears to be warming.
Mars appears to be warming.
Jupiter appears to be warming.
And, in the latest news, Pluto seems to be warming.

The Earth is covered with air and water. Mars is rocky and cold and has little or no atmosphere. Jupiter is huge and is mostly atmosphere. Pluto is extremely far away and seems to have little atmosphere. What do they have in common?

Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are planets that travel around a star called "Sol" or "the Sun". It is possible to quibble about Pluto being a "planet", but it travels in orbit around the Sun like the others.

What they all have in common is that the energy, the warming, that they get comes from solar energy, and it all comes from the same place: Sol (the Sun).

Pluto and Mars don't have "the greenhouse effect". They can't. They don't have enough atmosphere. Jupiter may or may not have a greenhouse effect, but all we can see is the extreme outer layers anyway; if it has a greenhouse it isn't relevant.

If all four planets are warming, and only one of them has a greenhouse atmosphere, perhaps the source of the warming is not the greenhouse effect. Perhaps it is more energy arriving.

I have an encyclopedia from around 1900. Back then, nobody knew about nuclear energy. They thought the Sun got its energy from shrinking slightly over time, and that would work, though it turned out to be wrong. But even then they knew the energy output of the Sun changed over time. Sol is a variable star. Sometimes it's brighter, sometimes it's dimmer. If it's brighter, it's putting out more energy, and the things it shines on get warmer. Us, for instance.

I repeat: Four (at least) planets are warming. Two of them don't have greenhouse atmospheres, and it doesn't matter in the case of the third because what's warming is the cloud tops. This is a strong clue that something other than the greenhouse effect is happening.

You are fixated on CO2. Perhaps you were molested in a greenhouse once. But either you are being pursued by bugbears of your own imagination, or you have some other agenda and are trying to promote it indirectly. The longer you push it, the more it looks like the second alternative.

Regards,
Ric

@Alan Shore - And all because "the sun is a variable star." Amazing don't you think? You should write a paper about your theory. Maybe you even can prove that there is an Intelligent Designer?

You mean like the "proof" for global warming? Please. You're entitled to figure out your own way from your Spaceship Earth worldview into the heliocentric cosmology. Nobody can make your Copernican turn for you. Because any unsolicited attempts to pick up your ideas from where you are would imply that there was not enough time for you to think yourself through that path on your own, any "secular exorcism", be it with holly wood or any other allegorical fetish, would only amount to ontological incest. I think the Americans know just as good as you do that the corpus delicti of related cultures exorcising each other is taboo, even when it does not happen in abusive ways. Anything else than that would be as little intelligent design as the Kyoto protocol.

@ LC:

I fixed your comment above. You forget a quotation mark.

@Ray: Thank you for fixing my comment! I kinda thought I'd left the closing quote out... PMIF!

@Ric Locke: Excellent comment! I especially liked the line that goes, "You are fixated on CO2. Perhaps you were molested in a greenhouse once."

To me, that seems a highly probable explanation for Alan's fixation on greenhouse gasses :).

I mean... the fact that there are at least three (and possibly four? Wow!) planets warming in this system, along with a 20-year NASA study demonstrating that solar activity has increased should be a no-brainer. That giant furnace in the center of our system pouring billions of tons of superheated matter into our upper atmosphere has a LOT to do with the weather, you know! But it isn't going to be easy to convince the kool aid drinkers!

Thanks for the comment... it was... uh... illuminating :).

@ Ric, LC -

"To me, that seems a highly probable explanation for Alan's fixation on greenhouse gasses :)."

Don't finger it too much, the mental greenhouse does not only exist in Alan's imagination. It also is an indigenous cultural workaround in which Europe could understand itself as safe enough from the world to grow fresh roots after the suicide attempt of the 20th century. This "explanation" is a sheer statistical banality, a number of traumatized people can be found among any group that is large enough to share a culture-bearing mental construct. There is no need to rattle that greenhouse, it will be routinely taken off when the climate of the outside world has developed to the point that the flowers are ready for it.

As you brought up the issue of childhood experiences, this reminds me of a book by a French aviator which I enjoyed as a kid:

***

I believe that for his escape he took advantage of the migration of a flock of wild birds. On the morning of his departure he put his planet in perfect order. He carefully cleaned out his active volcanoes. He possessed two active volcanoes; and they were very convenient for heating his breakfast in the morning. He also had one volcano that was extinct. But, as he said, "One never knows!" So he cleaned out the extinct volcano, too. If they are well cleaned out, volcanoes burn slowly and steadily, without any eruptions. Volcanic eruptions are like fires in a chimney.

On our earth we are obviously much too small to clean out our volcanoes. That is why they bring no end of trouble upon us.

The little prince also pulled up, with a certain sense of dejection, the last little shoots of the baobabs. He believed that he would never want to return. But on this last morning all these familiar tasks seemed very precious to him. And when he watered the flower for the last time, and prepared to place her under the shelter of her glass globe, he realized that he was very close to tears.

"Goodbye," he said to the flower.

But she made no answer.

"Goodbye," he said again.

The flower coughed. But it was not because she had a cold.

"I have been silly," she said to him, at last. "I ask your forgiveness. Try to be happy . . ."

He was surprised by this absence of reproaches. He stood there all bewildered, the glass globe held arrested in mid-air. He did not understand this quiet sweetness.

"Of course I love you," the flower said to him. "It is my fault that you have not known it all the while. That is of no importance. But you--you have been just as foolish as I. Try to be happy . . . Let the glass globe be. I don't want it any more."

"But the wind--"

"My cold is not so bad as all that . . . The cool night air will do me good. I am a flower."

"But the animals--"

"Well, I must endure the presence of two or three caterpillars if I wish to become acquainted with the butterflies. It seems that they are very beautiful. And if not the butterflies--and the caterpillars--who will call upon me? You will be far away . . . As for the large animals--I am not at all afraid of any of them. I have my claws."

And, naïvely, she showed her four thorns. Then she added:

"Don't linger like this. You have decided to go away. Now go!"

For she did not want him to see her crying. She was such a proud flower . . .

Antoine de Saint Exupéry: The Little Prince (IX)

@LC Mamapajamas
The computer can not notice a trend in the data flow and think, "Hey, maybe that means this instead of that!" "Inspiration" is not a computer function.

Actually, trend analysis software has been doing exactly that since at least the early 90's. Fed enough properly modeled data, it can and will find relationships between seemingly unconnected things and in unexpected places (but then, I guess that's what it's there for). In this climate modelling case, I think that your essential point about the lack of data -- as well as proper modeling -- still holds, however.

I disagree that the climate model people are doing anyone a disservice. If we're ever going to have anything like a reliable model, it has to start somewhere. Building something that complex has to be an evolutionary process, you're not just going to jump from "no model" to "great model" out of the gate. If the models available today are inaccurate, they'll show it, and the flaw in the model will be sought & fixed. That's the service todays modellers do us - if others package their achievements as gospel in the Church of Left's eco dogma, I think it isn't really their fault.


@Alan -
Mind you that EPA is part of the US government that is fighting Kyoto so hard.

The U.S. government isn't fighting Kyoto - hard, or at all. We didn't opt in; that's it, end of story. No fighting here. There's nothing to fight.


@FranzisM -
I LOVED the little prince! That was probably my favorite book ever! Well... at least until I was about 12 and got into Lloyd Alexander... but nevermind him. That story was magic to me, I wish I had it still.

Doug: " If the models available today are inaccurate, they'll show it, and the flaw in the model will be sought & fixed."

Yes, they show it.

Climate models are tested by backdating the computer for a specified time frame, say 20 years, loading the pertinent data up to the chosen cutoff date, then asking it to predict todays climate. They are invariably wrong... and not by small margins. The very BEST climate model so far tested this way had Florida and the Gulf Coast under water today.

You can't correct a model if the set of theories it is based upon is wrong from the start. And that is the problem. The modelers are making the ASSUMPTION that greenhouse gasses cause warming, and that has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been "settled". Years back, a group of 17,000 scientists challenged the IPCC report that Kyoto was based upon with a petition saying that they do not agree that greenhouse gasses are the cause... they only agreed that the increase in greenhouse gasses was concurrent with apparent warming. They stated very clearly that they did not know what the cause was, and did not pretend to know. There are more and more scientists looking into the possbility that warming is causing the greenhouse gasses increase (and NOT the other way around!), and there is a growing number of scientists who are looking into solar warming. The basic theories behind global warming are NOT settled. If the theories a model is based upon are wrong, you have to trash the entire thing and start over from scratch. GIGO.

What makes Exupery so outstanding is that he does not pick up any traditional lore. Most fiction writers borrow from some older story, it is hard to find one who can reach the archetypes without that. No doubt that Exupery is great at that, yet the full explantion what the Greenhouse really is can only be found beyond the realm of fiction.

Oops, forgot address, the comment above is @Doug.

@LCMPJ -
They can only try to stuff pegs into holes for so long before they figure out that they're just not the same shape. True, it's taking them much longer than the typical two-year-old, but have patience - they'll get it.

@FranzisM -
Greenhouse? That book might have to go on my Christmas wish list, I don't remember a greenhouse.

@Doug: "@LCMPJ -
They can only try to stuff pegs into holes for so long before they figure out that they're just not the same shape. True, it's taking them much longer than the typical two-year-old, but have patience - they'll get it."

LOL! Good point :). However, it would be very helpful if the people creating these incorrect climate models would stop telling everyone that the world is going to end any day now... based upon what their flawed models say.

A very LARGE part of the global warming argument is based upon climate models... models based upon theories that haven't been proven. It's a house of cards that is going to come crashing down one day, and it isn't going to be pretty when it does. In the meantime, grants depend upon their being an imminent crisis to figure out, so those who are working on the "greenhouse gasses are going to destroy the world" view are going to continue to make that claim for as long as they are getting grants to do so.

@Doug - "I don't remember a greenhouse."

Fine ;-) If you ever want to remember it though, come to Berlin.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31