The unbearable lightness of climate denialist thought


Maybe “emptiness” would be a better description.

Carbon dioxide’s greenhouse gas functions were discovered in the 19th century.  The physics are beyond dispute by rational people.

But that doesn’t stop the hard-core denialists from searching for a way to deny the undeniable.  Anthony Watts hosts a guest post from a guy who says that because the atmosphere is complex, the physics of global warming do not apply.

The guest poster is Willis Eschenbach.  His argument?  Well, rivers don’t run straight to the sea; they meander.  Ergo, water doesn’t run downhill in a complex system.   Consequently, no global warming.  In another place he argues that humans are not metal, therefore, no global warming.

I mean — sweet Mother of Pearl! —  this guy even denies the existence of the Army Corps of Engineers, and river straightening:

The results of changes in such a flow system are often counterintuitive. For example, suppose we want to shorten the river. Simple physics says it should be easy. So we cut through an oxbow bend, and it makes the river shorter … but only for a little while. Soon the river readjusts, and some other part of the river becomes longer. The length of the river is actively maintained by the system. Contrary to our simplistic assumptions, the length of the river is not changed by our actions.

No wonder they place all their bets on stealing e-mails from scientists.  Somebody show that man the South Platte River through Denver, Colorado, or the Los Angeles River through Los Angeles, or the Mississippi from Arkansas to the Gulf.  Somebody give that man a paddle!

Here are a couple of clues:  First, water always runs downhill — capillary action being the exception.  Eschenbach doesn’t propose capillary action as a driver of river meandering.  Any hydrologist will tell  you, however, that even a meandering river runs downhill.  Second, human beings don’t conduct heat like metal blocks.  Even a dead human won’t conduct heat like a copper block, but especially a living human will radiate heat away through several different paths, so that heating the feet of a human will not cause a concomitant rise in temperature of the head.  But, heck, if you soak the human’s head in hot water, it won’t warm like a block of steel, either.  The examples offered in this piece get pushed past the brink of absurdity.  It’s impossible for me to believe that Eschenbach — or Watts — fails to understand the physics so greatly.  I can only imagine that they are driven by a fanatic devotion to an idea of the result they hope to see, and that blinds them to the errors they make.

Finally, water’s flow, downhill or up with capillary action, doesn’t negate global warming.  Human conductivity affects warming not at all, also.

(No, “constructal theory” doesn’t have much to do with itConstructal theory generally doesn’t apply to atmospheric conditions, since the air is, technically, not alive, but a dynamic fluid system already highly evolved for these purposes.  Even for those cases in which contructal ideas apply to non-living systems, constructal theory does not claim that laws of physics are suspended or held in abeyance, as Eschenbach claims at Watts’s blog.  The idea of constructal theory is that systems not in equilibrium, will, over time, figure out (evolve) more efficient means to get into equilibrium.  This has nothing to do with the fact of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.  Constructal theory would only suggest that, over time, the atmosphere would develop systems to get heat distributed better despite CO2, which means that warming would not be held in abeyance at all, but spread out further and farther.)

Watts is already hot that I posted science links at his place on another post.  Go see what other commenters can get away with.  Can the camel’s nose of real science push into the WUWT tent?

Share the lightness:


Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

About these ads

5 Responses to The unbearable lightness of climate denialist thought

  1. Assertiveness is state of self-assurance wherein a single is bold, direct and primarily confident with other folks. Many times assertiveness gets confused with aggression. This leads to mishaps like snubbing other men and women on the wrong internet site, thereby making a negative impact. For this reason, it is crucial to recognize how to be assertive particularly at the work location. Getting assertive can showcase a far more proactive and confident person.

    Assertiveness is crucial in the workplace where colleagues and managers can make unreasonable requests or demands on your time – top to anxiety, depression and anxiousness. This in turn leads to aggression, aloofness and attrition. Very typically, it can even ruin very good profession prospects.

    Why Assertiveness is perceived to be tough

    People have a tendency to be hesitant to assert themselves for the following reasons:

    They feel anxious that it would attract dislike from other folks

    This misconception is almost certainly what prevents most individuals from getting assertive. We all strive to be accepted and liked by others. We appear up to people who can make their presence felt. A lot of folks have a sphere of influence, wherein their opinions are accounted and accepted.

    The only way this can occur is by means of their assertiveness. It helps them get their tips across, and with a small bit of convincing, every person sees good judgement in their view. Men and women have a tendency to respect these have the potential to be assertive, not aggressive.

    http://quizilla.teennick.com/stories/18138750/online-dating-need-the-best-online-dating-site

    http://theonlinedatingguide.wikispaces.com/Online+dating+sites+are+the+perfect+starting+point

    Like

  2. mark says:

    Water often does flow “uphill”–as it flows downgradient. The meandering river example is a poor one because no mention was made of sediment carried, eroded, and deposited by the river, without which no meandering and channel-shifting would occur.

    If the climate models considered only carbon dioxide, they would be hopeless. They are useful because they take into account numerous factors, and are modified as our data and understanding increases.

    Like

  3. Gail says:

    SO disappointed that Anthony Watts finally gave up the ghost. It was quite entertaining, the way he persisted, speaking of hysterical!!

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Perhaps because you don’t “believe” that water flows downhill.

    It’s not the rhetoric on this side, but the lens on your side.

    Like

  5. Alex says:

    Why does your rhetoric appear hysterical?

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,271 other followers

%d bloggers like this: