« Illinois State Senator Introduces Stricter Gun Control Laws | Main | Obama Links VT Shooting to Iraq and Outsourcing »

You Really Can Have it Both Ways

After Hurricane Katrina (which I'll remind you hit New Orleans as a Category 1 and didn't flood New Orleans either) all the global warming hucksters were blaming it on global warming and declaring that we'd see an ever increasing series of powerful hurricanes fueled by the rise in the earth's temperature. They predicted a cataclysmic 2006 hurricane season.

Of course the 2006 season was a complete dud. I don't think a single hurricane touched the U.S. much less brought the unbridled death and destruction the hucksters guaranteed.

Realizing they stepped in it, the hucksters took a page out of the old playbook...

Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes

MIAMI (Reuters) - Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday.

The study, to be published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, found that climate model simulations show a "robust increase" in wind shear in the tropical Atlantic during the 21st century from global warming.

Wind shear, a difference in wind speed or direction at different altitudes, tends to tear apart tropical cyclones, preventing nascent ones from growing and already-formed hurricanes from becoming the monster storms that cause the most damage.

You see... it's perfect. If we have an active 2007 season it's because of global warming. If we have another dud... That's right; more proof of global warming. You really can have it both ways.

The sad thing is that millions of people believe this nonsense.

Hurricanes are arguably the most studied of all the major meteorological events. -- If researchers can't figure out how supposed global warming will effect hurricanes next year, how can they tell us with any accuracy what it will do in 100 years?


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You Really Can Have it Both Ways:

Comments (86)

Amen. I watched last season... (Below threshold)

Amen. I watched last seasons' hurricane activity with an eye towards the enviro-nuts predictions, and as each day, week, month passed without a major hurricane, it was hard not to chuckle and point at their idiocy.

"You really can have it bot... (Below threshold)

"You really can have it both ways"

Liberals CAN have it both ways.

Thems the rules.

"You see... it's perfect. I... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"You see... it's perfect. If we have an active 2007 season it's because of global warming. If we have another dud... That's right; more proof of global warming. You really can have it both ways."

You expect any different from the criminal democrat perpetual fraud?

"The sad thing is that millions of people believe this nonsense."

Not to mention spineless Republicans who seem go along with the feel good phonies rather than telling them to go fly a kite.

It's a chaotic system, folk... (Below threshold)

It's a chaotic system, folks. Why do you think we talk about the weather ad infinitum et sin nauseum?

Heads, the AGW lunatics win... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Heads, the AGW lunatics win.

Tails, the rest of humanity loses.


So, they predicted a huge h... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

So, they predicted a huge hurricane season last year, and when it came up short they claimed it was global warming's fault. This year, they again predict a huge hurricane season and once again blame global warming if it doesn't (or didn't) happen.


"You really can have it both ways"

Liberals CAN have it both ways.

Thems the rules.
Posted by: Murphy at April 18, 2007 12:36 AM

Murphy's Law? ;)

So global warming helps us?... (Below threshold)

So global warming helps us?

Three cheers for global warming! I'm going to go have a few beers, cabbage, and beans and fart my way to my car and light her off and drive her around the neighborhood

Hip hip hooray!

The sane climate researcher... (Below threshold)

The sane climate researchers think the La Nina last summer helped tone down the hurricanes. We're moving into a similar La Nina event again right now, which they're guessing will have the same effect this summer.

'Course, the Savior (Al Gore) will claim otherwise, but he doesn't have to explain himself, because he's the Savior.

"So global warming helps us... (Below threshold)

"So global warming helps us?"

It very well may. Historic periods of warming seem to have been prosperous. I don't think that the deserts were actually any worse. It would be interesting to find out if anyone has actually studied the climate in currently arid regions during the past significant periods of warming. (such as during the Medieval Whats-it)

For all we know all that glacial melting and extra heat increases the evaporation and precipitation cycles. For all we know the deserts might even end up a bit greener.

Guessing about the future (more hurricanes? fewer hurricanes?) is sort of silly when we *can* look in the past and see what happened.

(And even *without* any human influence the Earth WILL get warmer, probably much warmer, at some time.)

The climate may well be war... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The climate may well be warming because one thing that has been learned is that the climate is always changing. The real question is what's causing it? The only consistent evidence for human caused global warming comes from computer models that start out with an assumption call CO2 forcing. The fundamental problem, however, is that you can't model something you don't understand.

Finally, there is real science being done this summer and CERN to investigate the extent of the effect the Sun's magnetic field (not it's luminosity) has on Earth's climate. That link has already been established in peer reviewed scientific publications, but now CERN is hosting as series of experiments under the acronym CLOUD to discover the extent of the link. The results of these experiments may collapse the climate alarmist's theories like a house of cards. In fact, if the link is strong then the best prediction is that the Earth is headed for global cooling starting in about 5 years. We may need to release more CO2 to offset the Sun induced cooling.

First of all, I agree with ... (Below threshold)

First of all, I agree with Mac Lorry's post. Now I am going to natter. Solar luminosity is decreasing, which oddly enough means the total energy released is greater. Any elementary text in astronomy will explain why. I use Seeds "Fundametals of Astronomy

Global Warming = Golf all w... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Global Warming = Golf all winter = Life is Good!

Ask any Meteorologist and t... (Below threshold)

Ask any Meteorologist and they will tell you it is very difficult to get an accurate 10 day forecast. GLO-BALL warming cultist claim they have an accurate 10 YEAR forecast!!

It's one thing to debate warming and cooling of the planet, but start yapping about a 100% chance of specific consequences of future events, and one becomes an ASS.

So I have no idea what to m... (Below threshold)

So I have no idea what to make of the hurricane thing - it does seem that a number of people are quite eager to make a connection between individual hurricane seasons and climate change, which is really stupid - but as usual, some of the comments in this thread are equally bad.

Knightbrigade: you're confusing climate and weather. The two aren't the same, and predictions of the two don't come from the same models; it says a lot that this comes up in every single Wizbang climate thread.

Mac Lorry: "CO2 forcing" is not an assumption. CO2 is well known to be a strong absorber of IR radiation, and so has the potential to warm up the atmosphere - that's a fact, one that has been known for several centuries. The only question now is the strength of all the possible mitigating factors which may reduce the effect of the CO2 being added.

jayro, for the sake of all ... (Below threshold)

jayro, for the sake of all us idiots who aren't up on the difference between climate and weather please let us in on what constitutes climate. Last time I checked it was weather and, uh... more weather but you apparently have some additional information on the subject.

Jayro,"weather" is a... (Below threshold)

"weather" is a descriptive term identifying current atmospheric conditions. Climate is a descriptive term for weather over time in a specific region of the earth's surface (WNW Dict, 1997)

So how is asking the very real question of current weathers' impact on AGW somehow ignoring climate? A period of given temperatures will become the defacto "climate".

As to CO2, all gasses are impacted by one portion or another of the electromagnetic spectrum. The functions of specific gasses in this case were first noted at the end of the 1800's, and finally explored & documented in the early 1900's (hardly "known for several centuries").


Jayro,It's you who... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


It's you who have your fact wrong. It's a fact that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, but it's over very narrow bands of the IR spectrum and thus, it's absorption is less than a twentieth of that of methane. It's also a fact the water vapor is both an absorber and a reflector of IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact that atmospheric dust is both an absorber and a reflector of IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact the vegetation absorbs both IR and visible radiation. It's also a fact the some types of vegetation produce aerosols that reflect both IR and visible radiation.

However, it's an assumption to say that any of these known facts "forces" either warming or cooling. That's why anyone who talks about CO2 forcing is making an assumption. It's no more valid than talking about water vapor forcing or dust forcing. The computer models are designed around the assumption of CO2 forcing, and apart from these models of human ignorance there's no evidence that CO2 is responsible for global warming. In fact, the ice core evidence consistently shows that atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by global warming, not the other way around.

If the data from the CERN experiments establishes a strong link between the Sun's magnetic field and comic ray induced clouds we will finally have verification of a theory that explains nearly all the observed evidence of current and past climate changes. The CO2 forcing crowd will be proven wrong and put to open shame. We can then move on with policies based on real understanding. Of course, I don't expect Al Gore to relent in his pursuit of foolishness, and it's almost comforting to know that whatever Al Gore is pushing is wrong.

jayro, you are close. Most... (Below threshold)

jayro, you are close. Most of the assumptions about the effect of the forcing and most of the models therefrom derived are pitifully inadequate at replicating all of the chaotic forces working on the climate, let alone the carbon cycle. And in this degree of ignorance it is senseless to wreak economic havoc on societies.

There is a nice recent arti... (Below threshold)

There is a nice recent article correlating aurorae and Nile River levels. I mention it because the aurorae are connected with the sun's magnetism, not it's luminosity. Cosmic rays and cloud formation may be a key.

I was intrigued by the suggestion that total energy from the sun is constant, but slowly increasing. In other words, a temporal decrease in luminosity has a corrresponding increase in magnetic and other output. Here are y

et more chaotic systems which impact our earth which are poorly understood.

Yes, Mac, you have the best... (Below threshold)

Yes, Mac, you have the best precis I've seen, lately. Thanks.

There is only one word for ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

There is only one word for the stupidity released in the form of hot air by all the know nothings on this post........GAIA.

Know it. Learn it. Observe it. Live by it.

How many different ways the level of ignorance and denial is manifested in America amongst the neocon supporters. How far has the green dollar separated this country from humanity's golden circle.

The "30 Percenters" may continue to deny reality but the rest of us have already started accepting responsibility for our actions.

Mac Lorry:The fun... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry:
The fundamental problem, however, is that you can't model something you don't understand.

That's completely false. You can model something you don't understand and probably get a nice research grant to do so. However, the problem is when someone starts pushing the results of a flawed model as the 'gospel'.

(note that I'm not arguing against Mac's point but emphasizing that problems with climate alarmist)

Mike: Global warming made y... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Mike: Global warming made you say that! See, that proves it!

The "30 Percenters" may ... (Below threshold)

The "30 Percenters" may continue to deny reality but the rest of us have already started accepting responsibility for our actions.

It's funny how the rapid leftards like citing polls and referring to those with whom they disagree as '30 perceters'. Every time I hear this I think back to stunt Dave Letterman (or was it Leno?) did a few years back. He put people down on the street on NYC with a petition to help 'End Women's Suffrage'. Like good Democrats, people would sign and nobly express their outrage at womens suffrage and how it was wrong for women to suffer. Obviously, they didn't have a clue what they were supporting but it sounded bad so they were appropriately outraged.

Of course atmospheric CO2 a... (Below threshold)

Of course atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are related. When temperature increases, CO2 concentration increases. Why? you ask. Simple -- the oceans. There is an equilibrium between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the CO2 concentration in the oceans. This equilibrium is dependent primarily on pressure and temperature (concentration of other gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, etc. and water salinity also affect the overall equilibrium, but to a much smaller degree). Even though there are atmospheric pressure changes, the affect of these changes is relatively small as compared to temperature changes.

The solubility of most gases (including CO2) in water decreases with increasing temperature. [Think of how much CO2 is released when you open a hot Coke vs a cold Coke.] So as temperature increases, the atmospheric/oceanic CO2 equilibrium shifts toward more CO2 in the atmosphere, and less in the oceans.

Of course, this is not an instantaneous shift -- the oceans are pretty deep and it takes a lot of time for all of the water to mix and/or for the CO2 to diffuse from the lower depths to the upper depths which are in equilibrium with the atmosphere.

I find the percenters delic... (Below threshold)

I find the percenters deliciously ironic. Socialists disturbed by the excesses of Communism and Fascism studied the phenomenon and noted an apparently constant percent of people who favor authoritarian rule. These are the useful idiots of the moonbat fringe. You could look it up.

for cb et al:

I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message of a cloud.

Interesting explication of ... (Below threshold)

Interesting explication of one part of the carbon cycle, but I don't think oceanic warming has caused most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that we have seen in the last century.

mike, I know they did that ... (Below threshold)

mike, I know they did that women's suffrage clip on The Man Show. Damned funny!! "We want to put an end to the suffraging of women"!

Hey cb, Gaia wishes you wou... (Below threshold)

Hey cb, Gaia wishes you wouldn't pretend to appreciate her when you know so little about her.

Civil Behavior:<block... (Below threshold)

Civil Behavior:

There is only one word for the stupidity released in the form of hot air by all the know nothings on this post........GAIA.

Know it. Learn it. Observe it. Live by it.

Hows that wooden computer holding up?

How many different ways the level of ignorance and denial is manifested in America amongst the neocon supporters. How far has the green dollar separated this country from humanity's golden circle.

I think ignorance is more apparent in those who follow the likes of Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis. Much the same can be said for those that heed the dire portents of a man with no education in climatology or science.

Instead of relying on superstition and outdated hypotheses', perhaps you should take a close look at some of the competing theories.

I promise, Gaia won't descend from the heavens and turn you into a daisy.

Assuming for a moment that ... (Below threshold)

Assuming for a moment that this issue is more political than scientific, what are the motivational forces driving the two sides? What is driving the preponderance of respected scientists throughout the world to come up with their conclusions that it might be a good idea to address the impact, both present and future, our footprint has upon our little green and blue spinning home? Job security? Grant money? Fame and fortune? Are they plotting something? What about the other side? Let's see, who could possibly have a problem with science that supports a re-thinking of our energy strategery? Who would actually be against something with such a tremendous global upside? Maybe the factions that, as we speak, are battling to corner the market on what's left of last century's nonrenewable energy source?

Throughout this debate I've failed to see the downside of erring on the "conservative" side. What is there to lose by cleaning up our energy production and consumption habits? One thing, really, dollars in the pockets of the energy conglomerates who are bound and determined to wrench every last penny of profit without a single thought to the consequences. So because their pockets are the deepest they fund studies that attempt to contradict the conventional wisdom and engage their media mouthpieces to convince the masses that the whole thing is nothing more than a few headline grabbing politicians out to extend their 15 minutes of fame.

So the political eclipses the scientific. It's not about what may happen to the planet down the road, it's about Al Gore's messiah complex and his electric bill. Consume! Consume!

_Mike_,There's als... (Below threshold)


There's also the famous "dihydrogen monoxide" petition ...

groucho, the Twenty-First C... (Below threshold)

groucho, the Twenty-First Century's first trillionaire will be the one who creates the most effecient market for carbon exchanges, but it will have ground the poor by increasing the cost of energy. Gee, thanks.

Blind perverst. ::spits::

groucho,It has not... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:


It has nothing to do with the dollars coming out of the pockets of "energy conglomerates". It has everything to do with dollars coming out of my pocket. That is the downside to the socialist side (not the "censervative" side) of this argument.

We currently have only one economically feasible solution to CO2 emmissions right now. That is nuclear power. Of course the leftist have been against that for some time--playing on people's fears and lying to them as leftists so commonly do.

What motivated them, grouch... (Below threshold)

What motivated them, groucho? I don't know. From here it looks like a simple minded application of greenhouse gas theory and Mann's initially honest mistake with the hockey stick combined in the imagination of UN policymakers whose fundamental motivation was wealth redistribution to create this 'paradigm' of man's causing the destruction of the earth unless the redistributing was done. It's basically snowballed in the public imagination, particularly with madmen like Gore, and idiots like our journalists, helping to create the illusion of unanimity about the climate.

A wide variety of the best scientists are skeptical. These are the best times to be skeptical, because ironically one thing is certain, and that is that Gore can't be right.

_Mike_Ok, you got ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Ok, you got me. I should have said you can't accurately model something you don't understand.

You can see from civil behavior's rant that much of the human caused global warming catastrophe dogma is the result of deeply held beliefs that human pursuit of a technologically based and developed world are inherently evil. People who feel this way see CO2 regulation as a means to control and limit such development. Thus, when real science comes along that disputes their human caused global warming catastrophe dogma they attack the source with religious vigor. Little wonder scientists working at CERN this summer to understand the linkage between the Sun's magnetic field and cosmic ray induced clouds are trying to stay under the radar for now.

Civil behavior's instincts are not completely wrong, however. There does need to be a means to control behavior that damages the environment. International treaties have had some success in limiting the use of various chemicals such as CFC's. The U.S. really does need to move away for dependence on oil and coal for it's energy needs, but that move needs to be based on real science not on cover for inefficient cars and job programs for farmers, which is what bio-fuel and ethanol are really about. For those like civil behavior I say they need to drop the emotional response and do the hard work of real science if they want a better world for future generations.

Even Lovelock's in favor of... (Below threshold)

Even Lovelock's in favor of nuclear power, now.

One thing that ggets my goat is that all these calls for 'renewable' energy all tap into the very processes that regulate climate. When you start getting significant quantities of energy from the wind, the water, and the sun, in other than traditional ways, then you mess in unknowable ways with what keeps the earth regulated in a relatively stable manner, one stable enough to sustain life. It is so ignorant to believe we can power the world's economy with 'renewable' sources. It's dangerous to try.

Check out pebble bed nuclear technology. The plants are easily scaled, they can't melt down, and don't use the highly reactive chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, to transfer energy. The Chinese are way ahead of the rest of the world in this technology.

Fusion? Bah, humbug.

I hear al bore will be rele... (Below threshold)

I hear al bore will be releasing his "greatest invention to date". It will be gobbled up by many libtards in the enviro-nazi herd and make him rich beyond all imagination. His invention? Powdered water.

Only one thing is certain: ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Only one thing is certain: Anyone who says "the science is settled" is a scientifically ignorant religious fanatic.

Mac, there is now a better ... (Below threshold)

Mac, there is now a better geopolitical reason to seek energy independence than an environmental one, but that is also a whole nutha argument.

You know, when they shove Gore's Convenient Untruths down elementary school students' throats even here in America, you know that there is about to be a counteraction, and you can feel it happening now. Nearly everyone intuitively understands that they are more skeptical than Gore, and as more scientists start opposing his sort of propaganda, and as further studies come out, like the cloud/cosmic ray one, then we'll start to settle in to the realization that good policy must follow good science.

Moseby,Sorry, but ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Sorry, but powdered water is not a new invention nor is it in short supply. Parts of New York got several inches of powered water over the weekend.

Good point Kim (@11:33am),<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Good point Kim (@11:33am),

I wonder if Al Gore, the MSM, the UN, and the rest of the left realize what harm they are doing to science by pushing their religious dogma as science and declaring that "the science is settled"?

When the rest of the people being to realize that this has all been hype and propaganda, they will be sceptical of pretty much all science.

At the time of EnRon's demi... (Below threshold)

At the time of EnRon's demise, they were on the verge of establishing what they felt was to be the next great commodity and they wanted to try and 'corner' that market: CO2! And we all know how ethical those EnRon guys and gals were!

I'm optimistic, PB. Gore w... (Below threshold)

I'm optimistic, PB. Gore will get discredited sooner than science, as will the MSM and the UN. You have a point about the left, though.

Screw Co2, I'm going to buy... (Below threshold)

Screw Co2, I'm going to buy the rights to nitrogen. Every time someone breathes, they owe me 3 cents. If they breathe heavily they owe 6 cents.

Jess and Bullwinkle:<... (Below threshold)

Jess and Bullwinkle:

Yes, the simple definition of climate is the average weather. But averages are FAR easier to predict than individual points. A casino has no idea whether the house will win or lose a given blackjack hand, but it's quite sure it'll make a nice profit over the course of the night, or over an entire year.

Mac Lorry:

You admit CO2 absorbs radiation. That is the definition of CO2 forcing - and therefore it's not an assumption. Yes, there are many other forcings out there, many of which are highly uncertain (I admitted as much), but that doesn't mean CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere.

Kim,Most forms of ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Most forms of energy production have environmental consequences. The question is, can those consequences be contained or mitigated? The fundamental problem with fossil fuels is that they are going to run out at some point. The problem with fission nuclear power is the radioactive waste has the potential of getting loose in the environment. The problem with hydroelectric, besides being limited, is the dam and reservoir it creates. The problem with wind energy, besides the towers and turbines being unsightly, is that there's no technology yet to store the abundance of energy produced when the wind is strong for use when the wind is weak. The problem with bio-fuels is the maximum amount that could be produced is well below current energy needs and these fuels require between 50% and 125% as much energy to produce as they contain. They also competed with food production, which raises the price of food, and besides that, the current farming techniques are not sustainable.

There is no current or soon to be available source of energy that could replace oil and coal other than a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind. For the U.S. to convert to such sources would require a level of commitment and effort similar to that expended to win WW2. Would this generation make such sacrifices voluntarily? It seems we are all waiting for the magic bullet of a practical fusion reactor, but that might be 50 years away. Given the rise in demand I doubt the supply of oil is great enough to keep the price of this resource affordable for long. It may be economic factors, not international treaties that ultimately obsolete the oil dependent culture of the U.S. It's not that conservatives are doing nothing about future energy production, it's that we are waiting for market forces to drive that change. With limited exceptions, historically, that has been the wise course of action.

Mac you're going to love a ... (Below threshold)

Mac you're going to love a post of mine I've been working on. -- BTW

"It's not that conserva... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"It's not that conservatives are doing nothing about future energy production, it's that we are waiting for market forces to drive that change. With limited exceptions, historically, that has been the wise course of action."

Exactly right Mac! Of course if the leftists understood, even slightly, market forces and economics, they wouldn't be leftists.

Jayro,Yes, CO2 abs... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Yes, CO2 absorbs IR radiation, but that doesn't mean it causes warming of the atmosphere, which is the real definition of forcing. CO2 is also a potent aerial fertilizer that causes substantial increase in certain types of plankton growth as well as terrestrial plant growth. Many of these plants give off sulfur compounds as aerosols that cause water vapor in the atmosphere to form more clouds or clouds of smaller particle size that reflects more total radiation than the increased CO2 absorbs. That effect has actually been documented in peer reviewed scientific studies, but other than flawed computer models, there has been no confirmation of CO2 forced warming in the real world. Thus, CO2 forcing is an assumption based on ignorance of the complexity of the atmosphere and the biosphere it supports.

If the CERN studies confirm the preliminary results obtained so far it will mean that the effect of the Solar magnetic cosmic ray induced clouds have a warming/cooling effect that's more than a magnitude greater than doubling of CO2. Now that's forcing, but this effect is totally absent from current computer models. That's why I call them models of ignorance.

Paul, I love most of your p... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul, I love most of your posts. Weather I agree or not I always learn something from them. Thanks for taking the time to blog.

Mac, I suspect the Chinese ... (Below threshold)

Mac, I suspect the Chinese will perfect a method of reprocessing the pebbles from pebble bed nuclear reactors. If the waste is dangerous, it has energy in it.

Alternatively, the wastes from fission can be dropped in the deep oceanic trenches where nothing can happen to them for a hundred million years except be silted over.

Mac Lorry,Okay, in... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry,

Okay, in your definition of "CO2 forcing" you're including feedback effects. I don't think I've ever heard the term "CO2 forcing" refer to anything besides "radiative forcing by CO2", but whatever. Still, your initial argument, that CO2 forcing is an assumption made by computer models, in incorrect. The models begin with CO2 *radiative* forcing (which I think we agree is a fact), and then any feedback effects (positive and negative) result from the modeling. There are certainly assumptions inherent in modeling those feedbacks - all models have assumptions - but that doesn't mean the models "start out with an assumption of CO2 forcing".

The feedback effect you laid out is a variant of the CLAW hypothesis - normally a response to increased temperatures rather than CO2, but that's a minor point - but sorry, that's a modeled effect as well, which also has plenty of assumptions. If you're going to throw out all uncertain results from computer models, count that one in as well. Sure, the hypothesis makes a lot of sense, but at present there is no direct experimental evidence showing that it is an effective negative feedback effect for climate change.

Jayro...No, it's the... (Below threshold)

No, it's the only definition of climate... if it's colder outside, then that becomes a defacto part of the climate.

As far as CO2, it is just one of several gasses that are thermally impacted by infrared radiation. Note that other gasses (such as Nitrogen & Oxygen) are thermally impacted by other segments of the electromagnetic spectrum (such as what we often refer to as "visible light"). In other words, "sunlight" (all across the spectrum) will have a thermal impact on any gas. That's an inconvienient truth...


Jess-The presence ... (Below threshold)


The presence of other gases which interact with electromagnetic radiation is an "inconvenient truth"? How exactly is that? You don't really think models exclude them, do you? The only reason CO2 is the primary gas discussed in the context of global climate change is because it's the strongest IR absorber that's changing rapidly (though changes in halocarbons, N2O, methane, and ozone also contribute).

And you apparently missed the point re: climate vs. weather. Averages are easier to calculate than individual data points.

No, I got your point @ clim... (Below threshold)

No, I got your point @ climate. It was vague when first posted, and is now incorrect.

Yes, many of the models do discount other thermal events (see the R/S model info @ NOAA.gov, which also, BTW, stopped collecting temps @ ice covered lands & removed readings from icecap stations during the 90's), and no, water vapor can be a far better collector of infrared than CO2.


Jayro,Many of the ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Many of the feedback mechanism now in computer models were added only when real science demonstrated the effect. If no one knows how a system works than no one can model it with any accuracy, yet the world is full of those who believe anything spit out by a computer is correct. Most of the IPCC position is based on these models, but a growing number of scientists are expressing criticism about relying too heavily on their output.

How is it incorrect? If on... (Below threshold)

How is it incorrect? If one thing is the average of another, they are not the same thing. (Unless it's a completely static system, which weather is not.)

I said CO2 is "the strongest IR absorber that's changing rapidly". How much is water vapor changing these days? Has its concentration gone up ~20% in the last 40 years? I look forward to seeing your data.

We are rapidly approaching ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

We are rapidly approaching peak oil, tropical forests are dying back, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are 30% higher now than in the last millions of years. In the ocean, there have been changes in deep and surface circulation and natural variability cannot explain all the changes, a distinct warming trend is affecting zoo- and phytoplankton and there is less nutrient to support the biomass, practices such as intensive agriculture may have boosted production in the short term, but have also caused a host of other problems such as soil erosion and reduced soil fertility. Fossil-fueled energy use is climbing, both in industrial nations and in the developing world, adding to atmospheric carbon. Humanity now uses over one-half of the total accessible freshwater runoff. Freshwater is the scarcest resource in the Middle East and in North Africa. Efforts to husband freshwater are not succeeding there, in East Asia, or in tPacific. . Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. Animals are changing migration and mating habits. And glaciers are melting and shrinking at alarming rates.

To understand increasing carbon emissions it is essential to realize that the known carbon sinks have a strictly finite ability to absorb the carbon going into the atmosphere. We have increased the earth's temperature by 0.6 degrees K in the last 80 years, in an accellerating trend that has increased to 0.15 per decade in the 90's and 00's.

The people that do not believe in man-made GW do not have the scientific data to back them up. They say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and has had natural cycles. Of course they fail to understand that the boundary conditions were vastly different than than now. Then they say GW will be GOOD for the planet, failing to understand that the microflora has been designed by evolution to be tailored to a very minor range of temperatures and atmospheric conditions. Think of it: right now there are many millions of adults in the united states that cannot even comprehend that the earth is over 6,500 years old. These millions cannot even join the debate. Many others are so self-disrespecting, so politically partisan or so uncomfortable with the idea of scrapping the Holy Grail that they are willing to toss their own children on the fire. All for the satsifcation of human arrogance and greed hallowed as the mysterious spirit,THE ECONOMY. At all costs, and in all eventualities, you will defend the mantra, Thou Shalt Not Squeeze Business

Well,guess what? The economy ultimately depends on the resources of the planet. Do any of you have an idea how much *heat* is involved in a *global average* rise of "A degree or two?" What could possibly be the significance of a single degree, unless that degree change is 32.5 to 31.5 then the eutectic point between solid and liquid water has been crossed.

Science is repeated observations, verified observations, and reproducible experiments. On global warming, the argument among honest scientists who deal in in the tools of science, hypothesis, test, verify, and reproduce tests to produce results, is, there is simply no debate left. Those who claim there is ignore the truth, and ignore the facts.

In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

IF the planet has indeed reached a "tipping point" and Gaia's capacity for "buffering" these incursions have indeed been overwhelmed, then fasten your seatbelts, as the ride will be stormy. IT will be beyond tragic that when we still had the time, our leaders and his followers lacked the political will to act not only for ourselves, but for generations hence.

NATURE is a harsh Mistress and always has the last word... always.

Wow, civil behavior, you ar... (Below threshold)

Wow, civil behavior, you are the *master* of the cut and paste. Half a dozen phrases grabbed at random throughout your comment and googled yield a veritable treasure trove of lefty and global warming websites. Like this, for example:
Humanity now uses over one-half of the total accessible freshwater runoff.


Here's another: <a href="ht... (Below threshold)

Here's another: Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing.

You *really* liked that livescience article, didn't you?

Bad <a href="http://news.ya... (Below threshold)

Bad news for those who wish to be cremated when they die:

SYDNEY (AFP) - An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming.

Professor Roger Short said people could instead choose to help the environment after death by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree.

It's hard to imagine how you could be more carbon neutral than being dead, but apparently even that's not enough.

So everyone note, when a loved one dies, wrap them in a refrigerator box and bury them in a shallow grave at a tree base, you know, not unlike how mass murderers dispose of thier victims.

<a href="http://www.abelard... (Below threshold)
Something about this has be... (Below threshold)

Something about this has been nagging at me for quite a while and now that you have brought it up again I figured it would be appropriate to comment on it now. Maybe I'm wrong here but didn't Hurricane Katrina knock out the power in NO? Without power there were no pumps to handle the flooding. It probably could be argued that in the absence of the problems caused by Katrina the city would have been in much better shape to handle a breach of the levees. You want to put the failure of the levees into a vacuum which cannot be done. The city had been partly evacuated and those who were still in the city were not the types who could respond to something like this. I also seem to remember seeing quite a bit of damage to several of the major roads leading into town which would have prevent the quick movement of the type of equipment needed to repair the breach. I can go on but I think you get the point. So saying that Katrina didn't flood NO is disingenuous at best.

It probably could be arg... (Below threshold)

It probably could be argued that in the absence of the problems caused by Katrina the city would have been in much better shape to handle a breach of the levees.

Ummm... yeah. Lance Armstrong, being a professional athlete, was in much better shape to defeat cancer than my husband was, too. I fail to see the relevance. The levee breaks/cancer were the primary problem. The hurricane conditions/not being in perfect physical condition were secondary problems, and barriers to solving the primary problem.

civil behavior,Apa... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

civil behavior,

Apart from the question of global warming I agree that people cause environmental damage and stress. The best thing environmentalists can do on a personal scale is to abstain from having children. Seriously, by not having children you're preventing all the environmental damage and stress your offspring and their offspring would otherwise cause simply by living in a developed nation. If it's too late for you to abstain from reproducing than at least instill this idea in your children. Also, spread the word to other environmentalists that they should set the standard for the rest of humanity by not having children. If environmentalists are not willing to make such sacrifices than why should anyone else make sacrifices? In just a generation environmentalists could make the world a much better place. . . for the rest of us.

cb, you are already out of ... (Below threshold)

cb, you are already out of date, the next IPCC is out and it tones down the hysteria, at least partly because no one can defend Mann's Crooked Hockey Stick anymore. The science in the mass of the report is, once again, more cautious than the summary for policy makers. Plenty of honest, and competent, scientists are skeptical. Wake up, we're not all gonna die.

What is wrong with that pic... (Below threshold)

What is wrong with that picture?

Kim - what's wrong with the... (Below threshold)

Kim - what's wrong with the picture of cb mindlessly plagiarizing global warming hype, or do you mean something else?

Laura, You have a ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


You have a problem with my cutting and pasting from those who are able to instruct people like yourself much beter than I could as far as the science and facts that make the point.......too bad.

Doesn't make the facts any different.

Global warming IS real and "in February the panel, which has tracked research on human-caused global warming since it was created under UN auspices in 1988, released a report that for the first time concluded with 90 percent certainty that human actions were the main cause of warming since 1950." (cut and paste)

Get it? 90%.......in their words not mine. 1200 plus scientists from 130 plus countries who had to agree on most every word that weas released for public consumption. Line by line, they did it Kim. In essence it is the lowest common denominator scenario of the consequences of global warming. In fact some scientists said they would not be part of it again as they know much of it was watered down in order for the government delgates to agree. Kim "You can lie to yourself that your shoes are on fire all you like, but when the flames start licking at your navel, did it really matter?" (cut and paste)

Laura, so as for your dissing of the compilation of other wiser men's words I guess you feel that repeating of the facts still won't be enough for you to understand the seriousness of the climate change that is happening. Why does that not surprise me?

People like yourself are unwilling to do anything that will compromise your pimped lifestyle in order to mitigate the effects of a warning that has been over years become definitive. When trying to reproduce what the twentieth century climate was like on computer models they are unable to do so WITHOUT including human produced heat trapping emissions along with the natural forcings.

And as far as ALL the comments I made from the "freeshwater runoff" to the "ground in the Northern Hemisphere" to "carbon sinks having a finite ability" I "realize" that you have nothing to offer up other than attacking the messenger in your bag of used up rhetoric. How sad for you. You could have so much more to offer if you had used even one of your rebukes to disprove what I said.

There isn't a single thing I wrote that you can bring proof to bear that scientifically contradicsts what I said. How do I know that? Because unlike yourself I have read everything I can possibly get my hands on for the past year (both sides of the argument)and even though I am not a scientist there is no more debate that global warming is real. It is happening. The wolf is inside. The only thing we don't really know yet is how quickly the changes might come about.

People like myself who have lived very close to the land for many many years have seen the changes in the land and the water and the animals. Nature's weather patterns are turning more and more erratic. Unpredictable. Patterns that are making for increasingly extreme climate changes. Gaia is no longer much of a theory. Most scientists recognize it as the best possible explanation of the earth mother.

What exactly do you think happens when we combust billion barrels of oil every day and pump the resulting amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

As most big emitters of greenhouse gases continue to pay "scientists" to deny global warming the earth is heating up. You play their hand for them.

Kim, there just aren't " Plenty of honest, and competent, scientists (that) are skeptical. The profiles of those who claim global warming is just a figment of our imagination have already been exposed for the frauds they are. The oil, coal, gas and think tanks supported by the same are the ones funding these "scientists". That's a bogus argument. Try harder.


"Environmentalists" are not the ones having so many children. Not to be so rude but it's the bible babies and the immigrant population that is, at least in America, keeping their women barefoot and pregnant. Abstinence only and cultural traditions keep progency coming at a rate that is unsustainable. Environmentalists are by the way the ones pleading for clean green energy (and please don't go the ted kennedy and the Nantucket wind farm argument, real progressives know that he too needs more than most to "sacrifice")

So you are preaching to the wrong segment by asking me to make the world a better place. In my area of the world it's the guys like Limbaugh who live in a 30 million dollar palace on the barrier island running gobs of air conditioning having the government refurbish his eroded beach all fueled by his gross consumption driving his gas guzzlers all for one fat slob. For those who listen to his global garbage and believe it if they only knew how he'd treat them if they became a "climate refugee". All those dittoheads who made him rich. He'd sooner spit on them than give them a drink of water ....of that you could be guaranteed.

No, Laura, we are all gonna... (Below threshold)

No, Laura, we are all gonna die.

cb, we object to you repeating the catechisms that you don't understand. We are amused that you are concerned that weather is now becoming unpredictable. We wish we could remember, like you, when it was.

And you are just flat wrong that all the skeptics are in the pay of the oil companies.

Lastly, Walmart is gonna gitcha, gitcha, gitcha.

cb, Gaia doesn't understand... (Below threshold)

cb, Gaia doesn't understand why the ungrateful carbon based life forms she has brought forth on the planet almost all want to sequester the whole supply of carbon underground permanently. She is grateful that one of her children has taken it upon itself to free some of the carbon so life can go on.

Kids these days.

Back to juvenalia. cb, you... (Below threshold)

Back to juvenalia. cb, you claim to have studied this intensively for the past year, and then you throw out stuff like we 'combust billion barrels of oil daily'. Now you know that's hyperbole, but do you know that the rest of your rant sounds just as far out, founded as it is on the desire to have fewer people on earth. How do you propose to accomplish that? Oh, I forgot, you're a proggrressive; you have your ways.

Kim, Your list of... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


Your list of "plenty of honest and competent scientists" that are skeptical:

Sallie Baliunas........... senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (received $310,000 from Exxon Mobil). She co-wrote (with colleague Willie Soon, who did not sign the skeptics letter) the Fraser Institute pamphlet "Global warming: a guide to the science." (The Fraser Institute receives $60,000 a year from Exxon Mobil.) Baliunas is "enviro-sci" host of TechCentralStation.com (received $95,000 from Exxon Mobil) and is on science advisory boards of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($252,000) and the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($427,500). She has given speeches before the American Enterprise Institute ($960,000) and the Heritage Foundation ($340,000). The Heartland Institute ($312,000) publishes her op-ed pieces.

Tim Ball, a retired professor of climatology from the University of Winnipeg. Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. In the past year, he's given policy briefings to the Fraser Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg.

You could have found him and Baliunas at a conference in Ottawa in November 2002, just days before parliament ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That conference, urging the government not to proceed with ratification, was paid for by Imperial Oil (Exxon Mobil's Canadian subsidiary) and Talisman Energy and put together by public relations firm APCO Worldwide.

APCO's assignment for Imperial Oil was to bring together a roster of climate change skeptics to reveal Kyoto's "science and technology fatal flaws."
(all cut and paste so as not to miss any essential information)

I could go on and list all your other favorite "skeptics" and their corresponding think tank monetary supporters which the oil, coal and gas industry has as thier paid shills but why would you want me to? You already know the drill and you are choosing to deflect from the moral imperative that lies in your court. I think you've termed such obfuscation, "family values".

But then again, why would I expect anything else.
Have a nice day.

So, a grant from a Foundati... (Below threshold)

So, a grant from a Foundation or other tax exempt group is "ok", but monies from private industry are "tainted"?? CB, you're just funny.
nice... but get some rest. You were the one discounting the impact of current conditions (weather) on periods (climate). Just admit that the last 5 years' winter precip (snow) in the NE U.S. is the most in recorded history (since the 18th Cent), thus that climate has changed (cooled). As to CO2 vs water vapor, I was being correct - CO2 is a fixed value (1 cu/ft/pressure of CO2 will exhibit X thermal change, no matter what), while "water vapor" is a somewhat less defined term, so that while low levels of vapor will exhibit less thermal impact, high levels of vapor will exhibit far more impact than CO2, and there is far more water vapor in "air" than CO2, thus the impact of CO2 in thermal activity is miniscule in comparison. Were one truly invested in what is called the "greenhouse effect", one should look at vapor, not CO2.
PS -
gaia??? earth mother??? that's funny. I live on a rock. 3rd one from the Sun, BTW.

I don't have time to deal w... (Below threshold)

I don't have time to deal with this whole mess of a thread, but one wonders why it hasn't dawned on any of the experts here that as global temperatures increase, the concentration of water vapor in the troposphere will increase, thus increasing warming further. To look at C02 and water vapor as somehow not related, to not understand the positive feedback provided by water vapor in response to C02 increase, only shows how little one understands about our climate.

Oh, and by the way, we don't have any control over the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere; we have some control over the amount of C02. Further, while the water vapor constitutes a larger percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the amount of C02 is not negligible.

You have a problem with ... (Below threshold)

You have a problem with my cutting and pasting from those who are able to instruct people like yourself much beter than I could as far as the science and facts that make the point.......too bad.

Doesn't make the facts any different.

cb, I have a problem with your plagiarism. It shows you're untrustworthy. If you just wanted the quotes you'd have provided cites, but instead you wanted to make yourself look smarter than you evidently are; like the expert you patently are not, or you wouldn't have to steal.

By all means continue living with the adrenaline rush of imminent death; pose as an expert on as many websites as you like. This is the fourth global climate change scare cycle. The first was started by the New York Times in 1895. (That's right, over a century ago. What you're selling is nothing new.) They were wrong about the upcoming ice age a century ago, they were wrong about global warming from the 30s to the 50s, they were wrong about global cooling in the 70s, and you're wrong now.

Al Gore doesn't even buy what he's selling - that is, except for his purchase of his own company's carbon offsets - if he were genuinely concerned he'd live like it. You should take his example.

*sigh*Mantis, that's... (Below threshold)

Mantis, that's just funny... almost completely incorrect, but funny none the less.


(remember, higher concentrations of water vapor block the visible spectrum, thus reducing, by default, any IR factor, thus removing thermal inputs. That's a very long way of reminding all that it's cooler on cloudy days...)

And your confidence that th... (Below threshold)

And your confidence that there would be enough negative cloud feedback in response to increased warming and vapor concentration to cancel out (or even reverse) the warming is based upon what, exactly?

mantis, I'm pretty certain ... (Below threshold)

mantis, I'm pretty certain that water, in all its phases, can be either a positive or negative feedback mechanism, depending upon need. There is lots of opportunity in a chaotic system, and lots of flexibility in that magical little molecule.

cb, you are unpersuadable. How uncivil.

I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.

I have a unified theory, to... (Below threshold)

I have a unified theory, too, but I've got to figure out where aurorae and cosmic rays fit into it.

Probably just part of the c... (Below threshold)

Probably just part of the chaos.

Kim, Show me a con... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


Show me a consensus of 1200 scientists plus that aren't paid off by the fossil fuel industry. I notice you have no defense for the names tied to the fossil fuel industry who ahve captained the denier industry.

When you can come up with at least 1,000 I will pay some mind to your ranting until then get off the sites "friends of science" or "CEI"" or "Heartland". Why do you choose to use their immoral stance to excuse your own lack of responsibility towards the filth we are contributing to our earth. Unless you stand to gain somehow monetarily why would you be supporting those who are out to destroy you and your family and your lifestyle. You really don't believe they care about you do you, unless of course, you are one of those benefitting from the profits that are being made.

In the interim you are simply another shining example of arrogance, waste and greed for which the US is being targeted throughout the world. Thanks so much for your contribution.

cb, I really don't bother t... (Below threshold)

cb, I really don't bother to read anything but climateaudit.org which is Steve McIntyre's blog. Also, for secondary information, JustOneMinute, Polipundit, and RCP. Finally, interaction with commenters, here and elsewhere.

I'm not knocking down your strawmen. There are plenty of scientists in diverse fields who are skeptical. Primary among them are physicists and geologists.

Your entire argument is ad ... (Below threshold)

Your entire argument is ad hominem, strawmen, and invective. Thank you for your contribution; but we'd thank you more if you addressed facts.

Without reading the thread ... (Below threshold)

Without reading the thread to see if anyone mentioned this ...

How many people remember Bill Clinton blaming the Blizzard of '96 on global warming?

THAT was rich!







Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy