Fighting global warming would save energy, cost less, and create jobs


From the Climate Denial Crock of the Week:

Of course this flies right in the face of most conservative, and denialist, claims about fighting global warming.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 12:54 am and is filed under Climate change, climate_change, Economics, Energy, Environmental protection, Global warming, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

193 Responses to Fighting global warming would save energy, cost less, and create jobs

← Older Comments
  1. Black Flag® says:
    October 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    Pang,

    No Black Flag. You’ve repeated over and over that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change because the scientist in question didn’t run an experiment but used computer models to evaluate and extrapolate their data.

    No, you are incorrect in phrasing my position.

    I said Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis has been FALSIFIED.

    You are the one who keeps trying to use computer models as proof and using computers as a valid replacement of experiment – of which neither is true nor possible

    Are you clear now?

    Like

  2. Pangolin says:
    October 26, 2011 at 2:00 am

    No Black Flag. You’ve repeated over and over that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change because the scientist in question didn’t run an experiment but used computer models to evaluate and extrapolate their data. In other words they used observation and modeling to test their hypothesis against real world data sets. Just like we figured out the tide tables.

    There is not a single scientific academy in the world that supports your conclusion. Not one.

    You’re a crackpot and a sophist and utterly without standards.

    Your ideal argument is one where you ignore and avoid actual data and science and reframe the argument into one of language and sophistry. It’s crap.

    The whole “what is the scientific method” bullshit is simply filler to steer away from any actual examination of data or peer-reviewed research. There you have no standing.

    Refer to published research or admit you’re a crackpot.

    Like

  3. Black Flag® says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:44 am

    Pang,

    Apparently science, in Black Flag’s odd pocket universe, never does any observation of systems too large to fit into a laboratory experiment that he likes to fetishize.

    See, you don’t really know science nor the scientific method, do you?

    Define a question
    Gather information and resources (observe)
    Form an explanatory hypothesis
    Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
    Analyze the data
    Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
    Publish results
    Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

    The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

    Tides; how do they work? Apparently you can’t understand them without running an experiment. Well at least according to Black Flag and Bill O’Rielly.

    Exactly!

    We figured it out by the scientific method – but since you are oblivious to it, you think it was something else

    In the real world of science and scientists we get to observe systems that we cannot control and test our hypothesis against those observations. Exactly how scientists tested Albert Einstein’s hypothesis that large gravitational objects can bend the path of light. A handy little observation if you happen to be running the Hubble Space telescope.

    Exactly what I said already, Pang

    He proposed an experiment and it was tested, and found that he was correct

    I think you do not understand very much of science at all, sir.

    You are way out of your league.

    Like

  4. Pangolin says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:31 am

    Apparently science, in Black Flag’s odd pocket universe, never does any observation of systems too large to fit into a laboratory experiment that he likes to fetishize.

    Tides; how do they work? Apparently you can’t understand them without running an experiment. Well at least according to Black Flag and Bill O’Rielly.

    In the real world of science and scientists we get to observe systems that we cannot control and test our hypothesis against those observations. Exactly how scientists tested Albert Einstein’s hypothesis that large gravitational objects can bend the path of light. A handy little observation if you happen to be running the Hubble Space telescope.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Ed,

    One more of BF’s failed attempts to disprove that the invisible pink unicorn is running the world.

    Tell me, Ed, when did you abandon reason for utter madness?

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:02 am

    As Pierre Gallois explained,

    If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it

    One more of BF’s failed attempts to disprove that the invisible pink unicorn is running the world.

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:21 am

    As Pierre Gallois explained,

    If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.

    Like

  8. Black Flag® says:
    October 26, 2011 at 12:17 am

    Pang,

    Still trying to reframe the argument BF?

    No, I am place the frame on the argument – if one wants to argue science, we use the Scienctific Method

    But you cannot argue the science, because it has falsfied your crackpot theory.

    So you want to politicize the science, junk it up, use a computer program and pretend you are doing “science” – because you are a zealot on your agenda – which has nothing to do with nature – but everything to do with control.

    What you can’t do is actually establish that you have any backing from the process and standards of science that puts men on the moon,

    You are a card!

    You think we got to the moon by using a computer model???

    No, we got there by Scientific experiment – remember Mercury, Apollo 1 thru 12, etc???

    genetically sequences human insulin,

    By scientific EXPERIMENT

    produces super-strong fibers

    By scientific EXPERIMENT

    Mysteriously when the same training

    You do not know what you are talking about.
    Scientists are trained in the Scientific method, as it is the cornerstone of modern Science.

    Where is the experimental proof of your hypothesis?

    You lost. Your whole side lost.

    No, your ilk have been exposed as mere zealots of some anti-human religious cult.

    Your hypothesis has been falsified – and slowly the politics is marginalizing you. The last nail in the coffin has been set, all is left is to bury the stinking corpse.

    I mean, it’s pretty damn hard to refute global glacier loss without looking damn silly.

    You are completely bizarre.

    What part of being in an Interglacial Period is utterly lost on you????

    The glaciers are going or gone.

    You just figured that out???

    You do know that the Northern Hemisphere was under a mile or two of ice 20,000 years or so ago, right????

    …the most recent colder period that peaked at the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago, in which extensive ice sheets lay over large parts of the North American and Eurasian continents.

    …. “glacials” for colder periods during ice ages and “interglacials” for the warmer periods.

    Man, if you paid for your education – if I were you, I’d demand a refund…..

    Like

  9. Pangolin says:
    October 25, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Still trying to reframe the argument BF? You want to argue about definitions of “the Scientific Method” because you have this handy-dandy argument you can cut and paste from your creationist manual of approved fallacy.

    What you can’t do is actually establish that you have any backing from the process and standards of science that puts men on the moon, genetically sequences human insulin, produces super-strong fibers like Spectra and b.t.w. operates your computer. That science is all well and good with you.

    Mysteriously when the same training and methods produce scientists disagree with you we are off into wonky semantics about “the scientific method” rather than examining the data. Or, y’know, looking at glacial records and arctic sea ice and noting that something is damn weird.

    If you can’t win change the argument.

    You lost. Your whole side lost. Now you’re trying to change the argument because you simply can’t win on the data.

    I mean, it’s pretty damn hard to refute global glacier loss without looking damn silly. The glaciers are going or gone. You can claim it was warmer some time in the past but you have no, zero, nada, data to back that up. The hockey stick not only stands but gets repeated confirmations by independent panels.

    “Scientific Method” my ass.

    Pang,

    Once again. You can go quote Wikipedia about some sort of monolith called The Scientific Method but it’s crap. It’s an explanation given to children.

    But of course its crap to those who cannot abide by it!

    Yes, your junk science and alchemy just doesn’t cut it, so you have to pervert it.

    Science is done by people. It’s far more complicated than your little mind can apparently handle. And it works.

    Yes, Pang, it does work!

    Which is why your little hypothesis is nothing but crackpottery.

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:
    October 25, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Pang,

    Once again. You can go quote Wikipedia about some sort of monolith called The Scientific Method but it’s crap. It’s an explanation given to children.

    But of course its crap to those who cannot abide by it!

    Yes, your junk science and alchemy just doesn’t cut it, so you have to pervert it.

    Science is done by people. It’s far more complicated than your little mind can apparently handle. And it works.

    Yes, Pang, it does work!

    Which is why your little hypothesis is nothing but crackpottery.

    Like

  11. Pangolin says:
    October 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Once again. You can go quote Wikipedia about some sort of monolith called The Scientific Method but it’s crap. It’s an explanation given to children.

    Science is done by people. It’s far more complicated than your little mind can apparently handle. And it works.

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:
    October 25, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Pang,

    I still see an astonishing lack of references to peer reviewed literature by Black Flag. Apparently his grade school understanding of the “scientific method” which he fetishizes does not require data, record keeping, review or publication.

    I note you still have not provided one word regarding the Scientific Method

    Me thinks you have no understanding whatsoever regarding science.

    Thus, it is utterly pointless to discuss it with you.

    I await your education, first, on what is Science and the Scientific Method, otherwise, you are merely playing in myth.

    Like

  13. Pangolin says:
    October 25, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I still see an astonishing lack of references to peer reviewed literature by Black Flag. Apparently his grade school understanding of the “scientific method” which he fetishizes does not require data, record keeping, review or publication.

    He is a world unto himself.

    Perhaps the cause is that he doesn’t really have an argument. Sophistry, that he has a plentitude of but no actual reference to measurable reality.

    Like

  14. Black Flag® says:
    October 24, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Pag-

    By your logic we could claim no knowledge of the process by which the Sun operates since we cannot perform an experiment that starts with a gas cloud of solar mass.

    How little you know!

    Of course we can! The basic premise of the Universe sits on this axiom:

    “What happens “out there” as a law of the Universe, happens right here -as the Universe is “everywhere””

    So we do perform experiments that tell us about the way the Sun operates.

    From that, we make new hypothesis and observe the Sun to see if it fits what we have found here on Earth.

    Then we learn more stuff, and the process called the Scientific Method continues ad infinitum.

    But what you want is a computer model to prove your hypothesis, when it is a tool to provide an hypothesis.

    As exampled by the Star Wars water flow, you can model water based on what you know, but it tells you NOTHING about what you do not know about water.

    You would say that the moon is a hemisphere facing us since we cannot replicate the data that says there is a far side of the moon.

    Bizarre!

    So you would vacate REASON?

    Only children think that science demands experiments to prove theories to a sufficient degree of satisfaction so as to constitute a fact.

    So now Science is childish!

    Oh, how the bizarre and bewildered minds twist!

    No, sir, it is not childish.

    What is completely apparent is that you do not understand the Scientific Method and as you have completely avoided, hence refused, to answer my question about what the Scientific Method is, you totally confirm your ignorance about it.

    Thus, talking “science” to you or Ed is like talking Latin to a monkey.

    Like

  15. Black Flag® says:
    October 24, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Pag,

    By your logic we could claim no knowledge of the process by which the Sun operates since we cannot perform an experiment that starts with a gas cloud of solar mass.

    How little you know!

    Of course we can! The basic premise of the Universe sits on this axiom:

    “What happens “out there” as a law of the Universe, happens right here -as the Universe is “everywhere””

    So we do perform experiments that tell us about the way the Sun operates.

    From that, we make new hypothesis and observe the Sun to see if it fits what we have found here on Earth.

    Then we learn more stuff, and the process called the Scientific Method continues ad infinitum.

    But what you want is a computer model to prove your hypothesis, when it is a tool to provide an hypothesis.

    As exampled by the Star Wars water flow, you can model water based on what you know, but it tells you NOTHING about what you do not know about water.

    You would say that the moon is a hemisphere facing us since we cannot replicate the data that says there is a far side of the moon.

    Bizarre!

    So you would vacate REASON?

    Only children think that science demands experiments to prove theories to a sufficient degree of satisfaction so as to constitute a fact.

    So now Science is childish!

    Oh, how the bizarre and bewildered minds twist!

    No, sir, it is not childish.

    What is completely apparent is that you do not understand the Scientific Method and as you have completely avoided, hence refused, to answer my question about what the Scientific Method is, you totally confirm your ignorance about it.

    Thus, talking “science” to you or Ed is like talking Latin to a monkey.

    Like

  16. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Pan,

    Black Flag_Still no references to original works with quotes.

    Still no answer to what is the Scientific Method?

    Like

  17. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Black Flag_Still no references to original works with quotes. Still claims that a grade school explanation of the scientific method applies to the complex system of checks and balances that comprises modern science. Still wrong.

    My favorite position of the denier-troll……the statement that “they’re going away now” after you’ve refuted their full quiver of garbage followed by several more comments.

    It’s like they follow a script written somewhere else than their own brains.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Pag,

    Please cite the paper and line in which Tyndall claims that CO2 does NOT act as a greenhouse gas

    Again the earth is not a greenhouse so what you believe a “Greenhouse” gas is, I have no idea.

    You statement is why you are a mentally sick man.

    No matter how many times I say “Yes, Co2 effects atmosphere temp.”, you strawman my position over and over again.

    I have said It is a scientific fact that Co2 contributes to warming

    You then leap up and make the bizarre, idiotic statement above.

    Your position is that CO2 is the MOST SIGNIFICANT, and that is false.

    and WILL NOT produce climate forcing.

    You position in this matte is a hypothesis that up to today has not been proven whatsoever.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 10:06 am

    No, Pag/Ed

    It is you two who are making extraordinary claims.

    You both do not know the scientific method, no matter how many times you have been asked to explain it.

    You need to PROVE your position – not me.
    I merely need to DISPROVE your claim – which has already been done.

    Good luck, gentlemen, as your task of proof will prove fruitless.

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Pag,

    You need a better source then the rapid bunch at RealClimate –

    the fact that water vapor is the most significant component of atmospheric warming is undisputed – even the IPCC states such.

    It is you who needs to disprove a scientific FACT, not me trying to prove it to.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:15 am

    I referenced an article. Black Flag misquotes a line in said article referring to a second article as an attribution to the source I referenced. Twice!!

    The line he refers to was not penned by the author of the source I cited but rather was a quoted line from yet another denier the cited source was debunking. (also without attribution to proper source material b.t.w.)

    Black Flag, remember that post on your blog where you complained that other bloggers ban your commenting for your behavior which, they claim, makes you a troll?

    Pangolin has pinned you, and pegged you well.

    Like

  22. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:54 am

    I forgot. Black Flag also has to show evidence of a literature search that would indicate that any errors John Tyndall made were NOT corrected by subsequent literature.

    Like

  23. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:48 am

    Which of these Tyndall papers are you referring to?

    Tyndall, John (1861). “On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours…” Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85. Online here. Online here.

    Tyndall, John (1863). “On Radiation through the Earth’s Atmosphere.” Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.

    Tyndall, John (1863). “On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor.” Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

    Tyndall, John (1873). Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat. New York: Appleton.

    Tyndall, John (1873). “Further Researches on the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter (1862).” In Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat pp. 69-121. New York: Appleton.

    Please cite the paper and line in which Tyndall claims that CO2 does NOT act as a greenhouse gas and WILL NOT produce climate forcing.

    Like

  24. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:41 am

    Black Flag_Reading comprehension is really not your strong point is it.

    Pag,
    So let me get this straight:

    To demonstrate that water vapor is not the most significant, you go to the reference and

    quote the same line I did that refutes you!

    I referenced an article. Black Flag misquotes a line in said article referring to a second article as an attribution to the source I referenced. Twice!!

    The line he refers to was not penned by the author of the source I cited but rather was a quoted line from yet another denier the cited source was debunking. (also without attribution to proper source material b.t.w.)

    Like

  25. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:35 am

    Pag,

    Also Black Flag; you still have no reference to original source material that is a) peer reviewed b) supports your claims in data, summary and conclusion and c) has survived commentary without refutation successfully published in subsequent peer-reviewed articles.

    Actually, I’d be shocked if you made it past a.

    Pag, you already provide the EXPERIMENTAL PROOF by your Tyndale post

    And you still have no idea what the scientific method means, right??

    Like

  26. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Pag,
    So let me get this straight:

    To demonstrate that water vapor is not the most significant, you go to the reference and

    quote the same line I did that refutes you!

    And I though Ed was the only insane one here….

    Like

  27. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Also Black Flag; you still have no reference to original source material that is a) peer reviewed b) supports your claims in data, summary and conclusion and c) has survived commentary without refutation successfully published in subsequent peer-reviewed articles.

    Actually, I’d be shocked if you made it past a.

    Like

  28. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:25 am

    The actual quote that Black Flag misquotes in context:

    The quote comes from a lecture by an Australian climate ‘contrarian’ and frequent contributor to the southern hemisphere op-ed pages. Where did he get this from? One might assume that reference ’8′ was a scientific text, but one would assume wrong. It was in fact our old friend at Fox News, who may in turn have picked up his (junk)science from here. It is not clear whether this is the original source, but it’s close enough.

    So, starting at the top:

    (Followed by an inset block indicating the author of the real climate article was quoting the above referenced “Australian climate ‘contrarian’..”)

    Thus follows the quote from another denier which Black Flag quotes as if it were the author of the Real Climate article referenced by myself. Totally misrepresenting the context; i.e., lying his ass off.

    ….“95% of this warming is caused by water vapour”. This is sourced to a couple of chaps who may have worked for Accu-Weather, but a) is misquoted – their ’90-95%’ is for both water vapour and clouds, and b) just wrong and c) irrelevant anyway.
    Dealing with b) first, if you remove all water vapour and clouds you still absorb about 34% of the long wave radiation, and conversely, if you only have water vapour and clouds you absorb 85% (calculations here). Thus the effect of water vapour and clouds is between 66 and 85% – the range being due….(emphasis_Pangolin)

    An almost perfect execution of a Gish Gallop. Completely and verifiably false, misleading and misrepresentative of the source cited.

    Like

  29. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:10 am

    By your logic we could claim no knowledge of the process by which the Sun operates since we cannot perform an experiment that starts with a gas cloud of solar mass. You would say that the moon is a hemisphere facing us since we cannot replicate the data that says there is a far side of the moon.

    Only children think that science demands experiments to prove theories to a sufficient degree of satisfaction so as to constitute a fact.

    Oh, you still refuse to reference your arguments because it appears you live in a universe with one resident: yourself. Exactly who you think you’re responding to is quite a mystery.

    Like

  30. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:06 am

    Pag,

    Christ, right in your own reference, refering the the amount of warming due to water vapor…

    …..Thus the effect of water vapour and clouds is between 66 and 85% – …

    I find it ghastly that you do not read your own references, because you seem to contradict yourself horrifically

    Like

  31. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Pag,

    Black Flag_ The crux of your argument is that since water vapor has more volume than other greenhouse gases it has primacy of effect and control of climate variation.

    No, the crux of my argument is:
    Your hypothesis has been falsified

    As far as water vapor, I have said – repeatedly – it is the most significant gas for atmospheric warming.

    It is you who wishes to strawman arguments which is very simplistic.

    The explanation which you will not read is here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ fully referenced of course…… which you will deny is legitimate without references.

    What experiment … oh, None at all

    Again, you do not understand science, the scientific method, and the difference between FACT and HYPOTHESIS.

    Until you get at least this basic understanding, you swirl around irrationally.

    Like

  32. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Black Flag_ The crux of your argument is that since water vapor has more volume than other greenhouse gases it has primacy of effect and control of climate variation.

    A simplistic claim you cannot prove in literature.

    The explanation which you will not read is here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ fully referenced of course…… which you will deny is legitimate without references.

    All of which matters not at all since you will merely present another bogus claim based upon sciencey folderol that would get a high school freshman a failing grade. (christian schools excepted, of course)

    You are still, sir, a troll.

    Like

  33. Black Flag® says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Pag,

    Black Flag_ So far you have provided no proof to any of your claims.

    First, it is you who needs the proof.

    Second, you did it for me already, as noted already.

    Third your most major problem is you can’t remember anything you wrote, nor what anyone wrote.

    Virtually all of your conclusions are in direct contradiction the conclusions of ever scientific academy in the world.

    You lie.

    Not one atmospheric science says different.

    The experience of individuals working in the sciences is always, always, secondary to peer-reviewed studies.

    I have asked, but you yet to reply

    “What is the scientific method?”

    Since you do not know what this is, and probably you can’t even understand my question, I will not take your belief about what makes science at all serious

    You have nothing valid to add to the conversation.

    Facts cannot penetrate your mind, thus you remain irrational.

    Like

  34. Pangolin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:16 am

    Black Flag_ So far you have provided no proof to any of your claims. Virtually all of your conclusions are in direct contradiction the conclusions of ever scientific academy in the world.

    If you were making such claims in a hospital setting nobody would allow you near a mop much less a patient. The experience of individuals working in the sciences is always, always, secondary to peer-reviewed studies. We learned to do that because ignoring the process costs lives as well as dollars.

    The peer reviewed studies say that your claims are bogus. Without overriding, well researched, peer-reviewed, published and multiply verified proof to the contrary you are still making bogus claims.

    But you really don’t care; you’re simply trolling. Because responses to your trolls prevent productive people from producing original work. Which is why, in the opinion of many; global warming deniers should be subject to the same internet pariah status as white nazis, christian dominionists, one-world-government paranoids and sovereign citizen nutjobs.

    You have nothing valid to add to the conversation.

    Like

  35. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Pag,

    So we have claims such as:

    Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas

    .

    See, this is what makes you stupid.

    This is not a claim.

    It is a fact

    Completely ignoring the scientific findings on water vapor in the atmosphere,

    ….which continue to affirm the fact.

    ignoring all other greenhouse gasses,

    …no one is ignoring them it is you and your ilk that ignores water vapor and believe a TRACE gas is the most significant

    ignoring their repeated claims that there can’t be global warming,

    (

    You are a liar – no one here has said that.

    which is a product of greenhouse gasses

    The earth is not a greenhouse.

    Like

  36. Pangolin says:
    October 16, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    And thus we have a perfect demonstration of Gish Galloping; the favorite tactic of the conservative science denier.

    They know that science has a reputation for producing real world results that religion can’t match so they put on a mask of science while retaining a core of crass spiritualism. (due to the obvious profit motive)

    Nonetheless their claims cannot be verified and frequently the sources they claim to use actually contradict their claims. Usually vigorously. In perfect imitation of the “debating” (bastardizing the term) tactics of Duane Gish.

    Should you refute a particular claim they ignore that refutation and it’s implications and make another, equally fatuos claim, and a third, fourth, twentieth, and x+1th. If they should temporarily run out of original lies they simply reintroduce one already discredited.

    So we have claims such as:

    Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Completely ignoring the scientific findings on water vapor in the atmosphere, ignoring all other greenhouse gasses, ignoring their repeated claims that there can’t be global warming, (which is a product of greenhouse gasses they admit to) they claim that water vapor is the primary form of something they can’t admit to.

    It’s like claiming that gasoline is the primary fuel in your car and pretending that adding nitrous oxide won’t blow up your engine. It’s only a tiny component of the fuel/air mix right?

    We could go on an on but we already have. AGW deniers are simply the Flat Earthers of our day. They simply cannot accept the findings of science so they invent ludicrous explanations for observed data. Or simply deny the data also.

    Like

  37. Alan Scott says:
    October 16, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Ed Darrell ,

    ” I suppose one could make an argument that CO2 molecules are rather like electrons in a copper wire that carries electricity. When you flip the switch, do you get the electron that left the power plant, or the electron that happened to be sitting with the copper molecule in the wire next to your socket. ”

    I congratulate you for knowing how electricity flows through a wire. Kinda like tennis balls in a tube transferring energy from one ball to another. Electrons transfer energy at the speed of light even though individual electrons flow at I think it is only a few hundred feet per second .

    So you believe that each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere merely exchanges places with another CO2 molecule like electron current flow. It’s not a good analogy because the electrons entering the wire have to equal the electrons leaving it. Just the fact that CO2 levels have increased means that less have left the atmosphere than have entered .

    Unless you want to think of the atmosphere being a giant Carbon Dioxide capacitor that is building up a Carbon charge faster than it can be drained off. Using that theory , the higher the Carbon charge in the Atmosphere , the more it will force the ocean carbon sink to accept more Carbon molecules even faster.

    Like

  38. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Ed,

    You surely do not read your own blog:

    Co2 in atmosphere:
    In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule CO2 is ~16 year

    Like

  39. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Ed
    You are an idiot -you’ve confirmed that many times already

    Still says the same thing. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation, thereby slowing or stopping warming.
    ….
    I pointed out: “Water vapor acts to cool the planet, too.”

    what you wrote again, slowly. “Clouds reflect solar radiation.”

    Man, you are crazy.

    You claim water vapor then you flip and claim clouds then you flip back to vapor then clouds.

    You are an idiot.

    You really do not know the difference, do you???

    Like

  40. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Pag,

    In any case all fossil fuel burning must stop

    You first.

    Oh, how are you getting to work? Can’t drive, no buses, no electricity… got a horse?

    No computer, Pag, runs on coal generated electricity most likely… so turn it off.

    But _no_ you won’t do that … because your proclamations NEVER mean YOU have to do it…

    You, Gore, and others – do as I say, not as I do!

    Like

  41. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    You’re an idiot.

    To continue thinking you might get clue, yes, I appear to be an idiot on that issue.

    Once again your sources run exactly opposite what you claim. And yet, you think I am an idiot.

    Read this again:

    As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up).

    Still says the same thing. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation, thereby slowing or stopping warming.

    Confess, you either didn’t read it, or you don’t understand how clouds work.

    I pointed out: “Water vapor acts to cool the planet, too.”

    BF said:

    You are making up stories – no where does anything say that – except in the illusion of your mind.

    Clouds reflect the solar radiation.

    Read what you wrote again, slowly. “Clouds reflect solar radiation.” If you read what you quoted, you’ll see that it says clouds reflect solar radiation back out to space, away from Earth.

    Grok it yet? Clouds frustrate solar heating of the Earth. That’s why a white roof on a building is cooler in the summer — white reflects radiation away. Clouds reflect solar radiation away from the Earth in exactly the same manner.

    See here, for example, from the NASA Solar Observatory:

    Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud’s altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.

    Like

  42. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    The facts, Ed, is that it is 2 to 4 years – THIS HAS BEEN DISCOVERED BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT, not compute models.

    Great. Who did the experiment? Where is it written up? Show us.

    Quit pulling our legs, otherwise, okay?

    I asked you to offer a source for your extraordinary claim, and you offered the Yale Climate Forum. Everything I found there said CO2 hangs around in the air for hundreds of years, minimum. I asked for a tighter citation, and you gave me a link to a claim that CO2 hangs in the air for 20,000 to 35,000 years.

    Do you see the trend here? Your claims not only are not supported, but they are denied massively by the sources you cite.

    So I ask — for at least the third time on this one little issue — where is the evidence? You keep claiming all evidence is “not proven,” but you can’t provide anything half as good for your claims.

    Like

  43. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    Ed,

    hen human-caused CO2 emissions put excess CO2 into the air, it stays there for 20,000 to 35,000 years, according to your source.

    No, sir – there is no proof for such a claim.

    The Yale editorial – which is not science – postulates a bunch of stuff and nothing more.

    He offers a bunch of assumptions, none of which have ever been demonstrated in nature.

    Based on these assumptions, he programmed a computer, which no condition he programmed into the computer examples the Earth.

    Then he commented on a result.

    He made the fallacious leap to take that result and try to make it a fact

    It is not.

    The facts, Ed, is that it is 2 to 4 years – THIS HAS BEEN DISCOVERED BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT, not compute models.

    Like

  44. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Ed,
    You’re an idiot.

    Read this again:

    As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up).

    Water vapor acts to cool the planet, too.

    You are making up stories – no where does anything say that – except in the illusion of your mind.

    Clouds reflect the solar radiation.

    There are other complexities, but this one of the two basic reasons water vapor cannot be the culprit in global warming.

    Ed, it is the most significant component of global warming.

    Geez, man, get it in gear – this is becoming boring having to correct even the minor understandings of climate.

    When there’s too much vapor and its warming would be a problem, it reverses its purpose, and it cools the planet.

    No, it doesn’t.

    When the air warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans, and more precipitation which dispells the excess energy in the atmosphere;

    IF you understood even a modicum of thermodynamics, you’d see your statement to be utter nonsense

    What causes evaporation?

    When water moves from a liquid to a gas, it absorbs energy – as it takes energy to move from one state into the other

    When water moves from a gas to a liquid, it release energy as the liquid state is less energetic than in a gas.

    The amount of energy lost/gained going back and forth is …ZERO.

    also, this excess precipitation often comes in the form of snow, which further increases the reflecting of heating solar rays, back through the atmosphere.

    So you go about arguing with yourself – describing a set of observed negative loop feedbacks, which to you means the are positive feedback loops

    Like

  45. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Same with Co2, the atoms are the same – to claim that human co2 is “different” from other co2 is bizarre.

    So you’ve answered your own question. When human-caused CO2 emissions put excess CO2 into the air, it stays there for 20,000 to 35,000 years, according to your source.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Man, Black Flag, you don’t even read your own posts — or if you do, you appear incapable of understanding the simple, lay explanations of the science contained in them, or unwilling to admit the facts they contain.

    As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up).

    Water vapor acts to cool the planet, too. There are other complexities, but this one of the two basic reasons water vapor cannot be the culprit in global warming. When there’s too much vapor and its warming would be a problem, it reverses its purpose, and it cools the planet.

    When the air warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans, and more precipitation which dispells the excess energy in the atmosphere; also, this excess precipitation often comes in the form of snow, which further increases the reflecting of heating solar rays, back through the atmosphere.

    Mark Twain said it’s too much work to lie, so stick to the facts. If one sticks to the facts, one does not need to recall the previous prevarications to remember not to contradict them.

    Like

  47. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Ed,

    When you flip the switch, do you get the electron that left the power plant, or the electron that happened to be sitting with the copper molecule in the wire next to your socket.

    A rare, excellent, analogy.

    We do not know what electron creates the “electricity”

    All electrons are the same – there is no means for humanity to “tell” whether the electron creating the electrical event is the one at the power plant or the one next on the copper atom.

    We are only surmising – guessing – hypothesizing on how this works, but really we know very little about “why” electricity exists even thou we know a lot about “how to use it”.

    Same with Co2, the atoms are the same – to claim that human co2 is “different” from other co2 is bizarre.

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Oy.

    I said: “30,000 to 35,000 years seems a lot longer than 4 years, to me.

    Perhaps you read it backwards, or something.”

    Alan said:

    What exactly are we arguing. Whether according to Yale it would take 30,000 or 35,000 years to get levels of CO2 down to pre industrial levels or how long any particular CO2 molecule that you or I emit right now by exhaling , driving our cars, or turning on an incandescent light bulb that a coal plant must now supply, remains in the atmosphere.

    I noted that CO2 floats around for a long time, about 200 years — much longer than particulates that may come out of the same smokestack at the same time. Consequently, the warming effect of air pollution lasts much longer than the cooling effect of the particulates and sulfates. You took issue, said the Yale Climate Form said it was much shorter, two to four years to settle out.

    Unable to find anything close to your claim at the Yale Climate Forum, I asked you for a link. You gave a link — but your link said CO2 floats for 35,000 years, not four years. So I pointed out the discrepancy.

    Your original sentence was ” Moreover, CO2 in the atmosphere generally takes about 200 years to settle out, if forests and oceans are healthy and can absorb it. ”

    Wow, was I ever wrong! I was off by more than 150 times — it takes much, much, much longer for the CO2 to come out, according to your source.

    What are you speaking about, levels or particular emitted molecules? Nothing you say makes any sense.

    I suppose one could make an argument that CO2 molecules are rather like electrons in a copper wire that carries electricity. When you flip the switch, do you get the electron that left the power plant, or the electron that happened to be sitting with the copper molecule in the wire next to your socket.

    CO2 probably has some substitutability like that.

    However, what we’re talking about is excess CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 is emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, it puts excess CO2 into the air, and that excess will be there for up to 35,000 years, according to your source. Your source not only doesn’t back your claim of 2 to 4 years, but your source goes much farther than I said.

    Does the carbon you and I are emitting right now stay in the atmosphere, 3 or 4 years, 200 years, or 30,000 to 35,000 years. You lack clarity in your arguments.

    It’s impossible to be clear to someone bent on misunderstanding anything presented to them. Still, I apologize. I hate to give you room to weasel around so.

    When you or I cause carbon to be emitted into the atmosphere, the excess sticks around for up to 35,000 years, according to your source. Whether it’s exactly the same molecules is quite beside the point. It’s the excess we need to worry about, and the excess we need to reduce.

    I merely used a left wing source to dispute your original claim because I knew if I used a real source you’d reject it. I do not believe anything they conclude at all . Like I will use the NY Times to make a point that Progressives can’t reject, yet I know they are frequently untruthful .

    I failed to see that left wing source. I only saw your post referring to the distinguished Yale Climate Forum. Their FAQ carries information that is consistent with other distinguished scientists in the area.

    You can trust the Yale Climate Forum. But they don’t agree with your figures at all — not the same ballpark, not the same planet.

    The point remains: Excess CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, much longer than particulates out of the same stack at the same time — so the warming effect of the CO2 has much greater longevity than the cooling effect of any particulates emitted at the same time.

    Like

  49. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    James,
    You, too, do not comprehend the difference between hypothesis and proof

    …nor the difference between designing a machine and modeling climate

    That is the problem – ignorant people trying to pretend they understand complex problems.

    And you screaming about “proof” is quite amusing

    Amusing to those who, in ignorance, do not understand science and the scientific method -which, sadly, dominates your ilk.

    claims that you and your side makes about all sorts of things with absolutely no backing.

    Utter demagoguery –

    Here’s one back at ya:
    “Your nose is too long”

    Like

  50. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Ed,

    Man, you don’t even read your own posts.

    or, maybe you do, and are incapable of understanding them.

    You have Pan’s disease (which seems fair, as he is suffering from yours)

    Read your own post
    However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.

    Like

  51. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Ed

    one of many, you know, though you don’t seem to be worried about sulfur hexafluoride, which is 22,000 times as powerful as CO2

    Nope, don’t worry about it at all.

    See, Ed, it is not what its effect — it is the concentration

    Something of some effect that is nearly immeasurable has an immeasurable effect.

    Simple math, Ed:
    (A really big number) X (nearly zero) = (nearly zero).

    This is why Co2 is irrelevant to climate change
    (a really small number) X (a minor effect) = (utter insignificant)

    I’d be looking at methane for its effect – the natural sources of methane are huge – and, hypothetically, could be enough to significantly change the concentrations in the atmosphere.

    But that is another story.

    including a great reflector of incoming solar radiation.

    We call those “clouds”, Ed.

    Yes, there are massive Negative feedback loops in climate – and not the bizarre Positive loops you believe exist.

    We’re talking albedo here, remember.

    Get around to reading the cosmic ray influences yet, Ed?

    However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization.

    Ah, Ed, when a text says “also considered to be” means we don’t know, but we are guessing

    This is an hypothesis – and, is not proof of anything.

    You treat every random hypothesis as a fact, which is why you fail.

    Like

  52. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Ed

    Show me to be wrong. Embarrass me.

    Done. Did.

    Cite Tyndall’s paper. Tell us what he said about water vapor. Describe his experiment

    Ask Pan – he is the one who raised him, not me.

    You -as you do- leaped before you learned, and got caught in the same snare as Pan.

    You get yourself out of your own entanglement, Ed, and if you do, bring Pan with you….

    Like

  53. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Ed,

    A computer model passes courtroom tests.

    You expose your mental confusion very well here.

    Science is not a courtroom

    There is no jury in Science.
    There is no judge in Science.

    There is only the TRUTH.

    I’m sure you are well enough aware that in a court room, Truth is not the goal. Many innocent men are convicted of crimes.

    To believe that because a “court” may succumb to applications of irrational understandings of models does not make science required to submit to the same irrational misunderstanding

    Models provide some of the most powerful evidence we have, being mathematical recreations of reality. Of course, there can be inaccuracies, and there is always work afoot to make models more accurate.

    This is why models are never proof in science (but often claimed to be proof with Junk Science advocates)

    You confused PROOF with HYPOTHESIS – thus, you fail.

    Why don’t you think models work? Where is the research to back your silly and extraordinary claim

    “Backwards” Ed, you have it backwards.

    You are claiming a model is “proof” – you need to prove it!

    LoL!

    I can just imagine an Ed-like personality building a computer model to prove a computer model…..

    Like

  54. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Pan

    I’m pretty sure that all weather forecasting is entirely reliant upon computer models at this point.

    Another insensible comment.
    Weather is not climate.

    Further, how good is their “guess” – often wrong.

    Forecasts are pretty reliable 5-10 days out depending upon the season.

    So, to you, can cast out a probability – but no certainty- 5 days to see if it rains on your house. If it does, you will cheer and advertise your “brilliance”, and when it doesn’t you’ll ignore your miss, and try again.

    From this, you believe you can cast out for decades and centuries with certainty over the whole globe and claim it valid.

    Pan, I suggest you sit down and take a breath, get some science courses behind you, then come back.

    You are speeding backwards in your demonstration of your argument – it is getting worse and worse.

    At this rate, you catch backwards up to Ed in a week.

    Tornado warnings are based upon computer models; after all we don’t send somebody into the tornado with an anemometer.

    No one forecasts a tornado to hit “here” in 2020, he would be laughed at as a fool.

    Every commercial jet aircraft built since 1980 was extensively computer modeled before they shaped the first piece of aluminum.Then they are built directly off the results of those models without modification.

    The typical “partial” story betraying your lie.

    That is not the whole story.
    They are then physically built to a smaller scale and tested in wind tunnels.
    They are then built as components and tested individually.
    They are then built to scale, then flight tested over many trials for airworthiness

    Each of these steps is an experiment

    And then and only then are they put into production.

    Every car built by a major car manufacturer for 20 years now has had it’s design extensively computer modeled before the first prototype was ever built.

    Yep, but before production, they go through the same rigor as planes

    One must also understand that a plane and a car design is infinitely simpler to model than the climate on the earth

    And that’s the point.
    Modeling provides the hypothesis

    The idiot insistence that computer models are not able to accurately predict real world conditions on an internet forum is so ironic you can stick magnets to it.

    It is the idiots and the ignorant who misunderstand modeling – as you do – that believe a model can predict anything

    In your ignorance, you do not understand that not any, ever, climate model models the Earth’s climate

    None – zero, nada, zilch – are capable of the myriad inputs required to model the Earth.

    All of them -no exceptions- take ‘short cuts’ and discard massive number of inputs so to simplify the task of coding and data.

    In fact,it is impossible to model the Earth climate as it is infinitely complex

    Am I sure you are clueless here, but I will put out the first seeds of your learning.

    Climate is chaotic (you can look that up to see what that means)

    Climate is one, massive, Navier-Stokes equation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

    The nuance of the equation is that the unknown value you apply the equation to solve creates a new, unknown value as part of the answer, which requires another Navier-Stokes equation to solve – hence the infinite chaotic nature of the equation – you can never achieve a definitive answer.

    Thus, Climate models estimate the value of the equations as a fixed static value – and therefore create conditions which cannot model the Earth as the Chaos theorem demonstrates that small “disturbances” in chaotic equations create massive dissonance in the outcomes.

    How do you think the chip that runs your machine was designed? By hand testing each one of it’s millions of integrated circuits? It was computer modeled.

    You confuse knowable mathematics theory, which such circuits are designed from being the same as infinitely unknowable physical environments which is why you are terribly confused.

    PS: I’ve been programming computers since before you were born

    Computers are NOT proof.
    They are used -at best- to offer an hypothesis

    Using them as climate junk science does as proof or worse as predictions is a fallacy and wholly anti-science.

    Like

  55. Alan Scott says:
    October 16, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Ed Darrell ,

    ” 30,000 to 35,000 years seems a lot longer than 4 years, to me.

    Perhaps you read it backwards, or something.”

    What exactly are we arguing. Whether according to Yale it would take 30,000 or 35,000 years to get levels of CO2 down to pre industrial levels or how long any particular CO2 molecule that you or I emit right now by exhaling , driving our cars, or turning on an incandescent light bulb that a coal plant must now supply, remains in the atmosphere.

    Your original sentence was ” Moreover, CO2 in the atmosphere generally takes about 200 years to settle out, if forests and oceans are healthy and can absorb it. ”

    What are you speaking about, levels or particular emitted molecules? Nothing you say makes any sense.

    Does the carbon you and I are emitting right now stay in the atmosphere, 3 or 4 years, 200 years, or 30,000 to 35,000 years. You lack clarity in your arguments.

    I merely used a left wing source to dispute your original claim because I knew if I used a real source you’d reject it. I do not believe anything they conclude at all . Like I will use the NY Times to make a point that Progressives can’t reject, yet I know they are frequently untruthful .

    Like

  56. James Kessler says:
    October 16, 2011 at 7:48 am

    To quote:

    You -again- reference COMPUTER MODELS, and that NOT proof.

    Care to guess one of the main ways they’re testing the design viability of the new class of aircraft carriers? That would be the Ford class of aircraft carriers that are currently in the works.

    you going to say our aircraft carriers aren’t viable?

    And you screaming about “proof” is quite amusing considering the sheer amount of pure bullsh– claims that you and your side makes about all sorts of things with absolutely no backing.

    Apparently you’re angling to have your picture be next to the definition of both “hypocrite” and “irony.”

    Like

  57. Pangolin says:
    October 16, 2011 at 6:35 am

    I’m pretty sure that all weather forecasting is entirely reliant upon computer models at this point. Forecasts are pretty reliable 5-10 days out depending upon the season. Tornado warnings are based upon computer models; after all we don’t send somebody into the tornado with an anemometer.

    Every commercial jet aircraft built since 1980 was extensively computer modeled before they shaped the first piece of aluminum. Then they are built directly off the results of those models without modification. Every car built by a major car manufacturer for 20 years now has had it’s design extensively computer modeled before the first prototype was ever built. Cars are more reliable, quieter, stable, safe, comfortable and efficient because of it.

    The idiot insistence that computer models are not able to accurately predict real world conditions on an internet forum is so ironic you can stick magnets to it. How do you think the chip that runs your machine was designed? By hand testing each one of it’s millions of integrated circuits? It was computer modeled.

    Sure, computer models don’t work; in a child’s view of the world. Provided that child was born in 1950; modern kids would look at you as if you were insane.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 3:35 am

    You -again- reference COMPUTER MODELS, and that NOT proof.

    A computer model passes courtroom tests. Even under tough federal guidelines for tort cases, computer models are known to be clear and correct, especially when the limitations are noted and accounted for in testimony.

    Models provide some of the most powerful evidence we have, being mathematical recreations of reality. Of course, there can be inaccuracies, and there is always work afoot to make models more accurate.

    But we went to the Moon with “models.” We made near-pinpoint landings of exploration vehicles on Mars with models.

    Your dismissal of models is a sign of defective thinking on your part, and not a disqualification of models.

    Why don’t you think models work? Where is the research to back your silly and extraordinary claim?

    Like

  59. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 3:31 am

    By experimental proof Tyndall concluded water vapor was the greater cause of the atmospheric warming – but since that puts a lie to your dogma, you throw it away.

    Show me to be wrong. Embarrass me.

    Cite Tyndall’s paper. Tell us what he said about water vapor. Describe his experiment.

    Then show us the modern research that verifies your claims.

    I think you err. NOAA’s site notes that water vapor is a greenhouse gas — one of many, you know, though you don’t seem to be worried about sulfur hexafluoride, which is 22,000 times as powerful as CO2 — but also notes what most researchers say: Water vapor plays a couple of roles, including a great reflector of incoming solar radiation. So as clouds get bigger, their warming effect is cancelled out and then some by their reflecting incoming solar radiation that would have warmed more, but was instead reflected into space. We’re talking albedo here, remember.

    Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

    As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

    Here’s another pragmatic explanation of why water vapor is not the forcing agent CO2 is.

    I think you’d do well to catch up on the modern science, with Spencer Weart’s piece for the American Physical Society explaining the chemistry and physics of global warming, focusing on H2O vapor and other, non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Among other things, Weart describes Tyndall’s work, though only briefly. His description doesn’t support your version here. See Weart’s description of the basics, including H2O, here.

    Please read it before continuing.

    Like

  60. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect.

    from your own article

    Like

  61. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:36 am

    Pan,

    You fail AGAIN

    Where is the experimental PROOF

    You -again- reference COMPUTER MODELS, and that NOT proof.

    That is a computer program.

    Like

  62. Pangolin says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:28 am

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html

    Like

  63. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:04 am

    Ed,

    LOL!

    Ok, now you really have crossed into insanity.

    By experimental proof Tyndall concluded water vapor was the greater cause of the atmospheric warming – but since that puts a lie to your dogma, you throw it away.

    You embarrass yourself, Ed.

    Like

  64. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 1:00 am

    Ed,

    You do not understand the scientific method at all.

    Observation
    Hypothesis
    Experiment
    Conclusion and Observation.

    Further, you do not know your science history.

    Wrote Einstein to Poincaré in 1906:


    Although the merely formal considerations, which we will need for the proof, are already mostly contained in a work by H. Poincaré2, for the sake of clarity I will not rely on that work.

    That is where your ilk fails, Ed.

    “Lack of Proof”

    Like

  65. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:55 am

    If Tyndall concluded water vapor was the greater cause of the greenhouse effect, he was in error.

    You, sir, are a cad.

    Don’t worry, Pangolin. Members of Trolls Local #417, as BF is, don’t get much traction with people who can tell excrement from shoe polish, or a burro from a burrow.

    Like

  66. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:51 am

    E=mc2 was experimentally proven

    Check your history books. Check your fission books.

    Einstein proposed the equation without doing a single experiment. It was a bit of a SWAG number at the time.

    Do you know when it was experimentally demonstrated? Do you know what the actual numbers proved to be? Was Einstein’s model borne out?

    You keep claiming others don’t know science, and you keep making grandiose gestures that turn out to be astonishingly far from the facts. E=mc² was not based on any experiment. It was pure modeling when published in 1905. Fission was not obtained prior to that, nor for several decades — so it was a model.

    Like

  67. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Pan,

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is NOT dead but actually has had more than enough evidence of its factual basis for dozens of years.

    False.

    Please provide your scientific proof.

    Like

  68. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Pan,

    As usual of your ilk, you leave out the vital important stuff – because you know it makes your case weak

    John Tyndall.

    He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.

    You, sir, are a cad.

    Like

  69. Black Flag® says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:30 am

    Ed,

    He was just modeling science

    No, Ed – he did science.

    E=mc2 was experimentally proven

    Same with his theory of relativity.
    He suggested an experiment – which used parallax of stars – and lo! he was right.

    Like

  70. Ed Darrell says:
    October 16, 2011 at 12:25 am

    Ed,

    A model

    Right there, you lost Ed.

    Show me science not some computer program.

    Science just bit you on the gluteals. You said it wasn’t science.

    Some people just won’t learn.

    Now it’s eating your lunch and burning up your future.

    E=mc² would be considered great science to most people. On the basis of that equation we get nuclear power.

    But what could Einstein know? He was just modeling science. That’s not real science, we now know. Black Flag pronounced models dead.

    Like

  71. Black Flag® says:
    October 15, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Ed,

    A model

    Right there, you lost Ed.

    Show me science not some computer program.

    Like

  72. Ed Darrell says:
    October 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Alan, this is a quote from that Yale Climate Change Forum which you claimed had argued that CO2 is filtered out of the atmosphere after less than a decade:

    It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

    That’s the second paragraph of the article.

    The article mentions a science journal paper on carbon sinks.

    Here: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625, 2005 [“kyr” means “thousands of years”]

    A model of the ocean and seafloor carbon cycle is subjected to injection of new CO2 pulses of varying sizes to estimate the resident atmospheric fraction over the coming 100 kyr. The model is used to separate the processes of air-sea equilibrium, an ocean temperature feedback, CaCO3 compensation, and silicate weathering on the residual anthropogenic pCO2 in the atmosphere at 1, 10, and 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 is dominated by the long tail, resulting in a range of 30–35 kyr. The long lifetime of fossil fuel carbon release implies that the anthropogenic climate perturbation may have time to interact with ice sheets, methane clathrate deposits, and glacial/interglacial climate dynamics.

    30,000 to 35,000 years seems a lot longer than 4 years, to me.

    Perhaps you read it backwards, or something.

    Like

  73. Alan Scott says:
    October 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Got a link the Yale Climate Change Forum saying what you claim, Alan? ”

    But of course I do. I do not support any of the conclusions they make which purport to make the average time for a CO2 molecule irrelevant, only that the case for that fact is made. You will notice that I am honest enough to include the part of the article which disputes what I say .

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

    ” Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

    Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed. “

    Like

  74. Black Flag® says:
    October 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Ed,

    PS: Apologize for the profanity. I will mitigate such use in the future.

    Like

  75. Black Flag® says:
    October 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Ed

    What are cosmic rays?

    Sorry, knew that answer when I was 9 years old – or about 45 years ago.

    What is solar wind?

    Knew that the same time as above.

    Got that? Different origins.

    You have to be among the most ignorant men I’ve ever indulged a blog.

    You do not read, nor do you comprehend.

    Did not say they were the same.

    Solar wind affects cosmic rays.

    They travel too fast to be much affected by the solar wind. Your premise is wildly in error.

    You are so absolutely ignorant of physical nature it astounds me.

    High Energy Cosmic Rays

    The sun does, however, also have an effect on high-energy cosmic rays.

    http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crsun.html

    Like

  76. Ed Darrell says:
    October 14, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Not to put too fine a point on your confusion here, BF, but in hopes you might figure it out — here, I’ve bought you a clue or two.

    What are cosmic rays? NASA answers:

    Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are the high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from far away in the Galaxy. GCRs are mostly pieces of atoms: protons, electrons, and atomic nuclei which have had all of the surrounding electrons stripped during their high-speed (almost the speed of light) passage through the Galaxy. Cosmic rays provide one of our few direct samples of matter from outside the solar system. The magnetic fields of the Galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth have scrambled the flight paths of these particles so much that we can no longer point back to their sources in the Galaxy. If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform. So we have to determine where cosmic rays come from by indirect means.

    Read more, here at NASA.

    What is solar wind? Northwestern University explains:

    The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, primarily electrons and protons, flowing outward from the Sun, through the solar system at speeds as high as 900 km/s and at a temperature of 1 million degrees (Celsius). It is made of plasma.

    Got that? Different origins. Cosmic rays are not solar wind. They travel too fast to be much affected by the solar wind. Your premise is wildly in error.

    And each step of your argument runs aground at least as badly as your start.

    Like

  77. Black Flag® says:
    October 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Ed

    Again, we know solar wind affects cosmic rays, but it does not effect them. Solar wind is not the sole cause, if it causes cosmic rays at all. There are several different forms of energy that qualify as cosmic rays, some of which are affected by solar “winds,” and some of which are not affected by them.

    Solar wind “affects” cosmic rays, but don’t, but do but don’t.

    Eeek, Ed.

    -that cosmic rays directly effects creation of clouds

    Maybe, but no great effect on warming. At least, the guy who did the research does not support your conclusion.

    Bull [bleep].

    You -as usual- blind yourself to experimental proof and marry yourself to mere assertion

    -that clouds change the earth’s albedo

    You’re stretching it here.

    Bull [bleep].

    This is proven by scientific experiment.

    There’s no link that suggests cosmic rays cause global warming on Earth, even indirectly. “No link between cosmic rays and global warming”

    Bull [bleep].

    This is proven by scientific experiment.

    At least, the link may not be the way you claim it to be: A Danish physicist has found evidence that cosmic rays greatly influence Earth’s climate, and may even trigger ice ages.

    I scratch my head.

    You claim that there is no link to cosmic ray causation of climate.

    You then post that cosmic rays greatly influence Earth’s climate.

    Ed, you are the definition of insanity.

    No, it wouldn’t negate the effects of CO2

    True – but as we’ve agreed, the effects of CO2 are so minor as to be immeasurable within the error of the instruments.

    Like

  78. Ed Darrell says:
    October 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Kin Hubbard day again. Kin Hubbard said, it ain’t what we don’t know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know, that ain’t so.

    BF said:

    We know by experimental proof
    -that sunspots activity directly alters the solar wind

    We know there is an effect, but it’s not the sole cause of such effects.

    -that the solar wind directly effects cosmic rays

    Again, we know solar wind affects cosmic rays, but it does not effect them. Solar wind is not the sole cause, if it causes cosmic rays at all. There are several different forms of energy that qualify as cosmic rays, some of which are affected by solar “winds,” and some of which are not affected by them.

    -that cosmic rays directly effects creation of clouds

    Maybe, but no great effect on warming. At least, the guy who did the research does not support your conclusion.

    Here’s the guy who did the research, Kirkby, in an interview. Listen carefully — he’s not giving you a leg to stand on:

    -that clouds change the earth’s albedo

    You’re stretching it here. There’s no link that suggests cosmic rays cause global warming on Earth, even indirectly. “No link between cosmic rays and global warming”

    At least, the link may not be the way you claim it to be: A Danish physicist has found evidence that cosmic rays greatly influence Earth’s climate, and may even trigger ice ages.

    -that changes in the albedo changes earth’s atmospheric temperatures

    Changes can change the albedo (reflectance of the surfaces), which may change atmospheric temperatures, depending on which way the reflectivity is changed, and the level in the atmosphere this change occurs.

    But that would completely put to lie the AGW hypothesis – which has no scientific proof to support it.

    No, it wouldn’t negate the effects of CO2, nor the elevated levels of CO2, nor does any research suggest that CO2 isn’t now overpowering those effects greatly.

    By the way, got a link? No, I guess you wouldn’t have a link if you’re plucking your claims from . . . thin air

    Like

  79. Black Flag® says:
    October 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Pag,

    I do not care about his or your credentials.

    I do not suffer the disease of “expertist” as you do.

    I am wholly capable of “figuring things out” by myself.

    I know math.
    I know physics.
    I know the scientific method.

    I do not think you know any of these things.

    I would urge that you -too- liberate yourself and think for yourself.

    Like

  80. Pangolin says:
    October 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Black Flag_ David Brin is a well known astrophysicist who writes in general science and science fiction. He makes a clear distinction between which is which in all of his writings. He also properly sources his material.

    http://www.davidbrin.com/biography.htm
    History
    1950: Born – Glendale, California.
    1973: Bachelor of Science – Caltech (astrophysics).
    1973-1977: Research Engineer – Hughes Aircraft Research Labs (semiconductors/CCDs).
    1975-1977: Masters in Electrical Engineering from UCSD (optics).
    1980-1981: Managing editor – Journal of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (UCSD)
    1981: Doctor of Philosophy, University of California – San Diego – UCSD (space physics).
    1982-1985: Teaching Physics & Writing @ San Diego State University. Technical consulting.
    1982-1985: Associate/Post-Doctoral Fellow – California Space Institute, UCSD, La Jolla, CA.
    1988-1990: Visiting Scholar: Center for Study of Evolution of Life, Jet Propulsion Lab, NASA NSCORT for Exobiology.
    1990-: Keynote speaker and consultant for more than 100 government and corporate groups. Member, board of advisors of several corporations and nonprofit institutions. Cast member, writer, participant in popular science television and radio shows. Author of fiction and nonfiction books, translated into more than 20 languages.

    Who the hell are you but a random loudmouth who can’t reference any of his claims.

    Like

  81. Black Flag® says:
    October 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Pag,

    The “one liners” of zealotry from your link are a joke.

    Number 1 – re:Sun “cooling” is a red herring.
    The question: “It’s the sun” gets the zealot misdirection that the sun and climate are going in opposite direction, with the further missive that the sun is “cooling”

    But red herring and all – its wrong.

    Sunspots equate to solar activity.

    In fact, in 1999/2000 solar cycle saw the end of the Maunder Maximum – and as I am sure you DO NOT KNOW, as science knowledge on this blog is nearly non-existent, sun spot observation is the longest, on going human experiment in history.

    Since 2000/2001, the Sun has transitioned from a Maunder Maximum into a Maunder Minimum.

    It is this correlation, which is far more superior to the non-existent correlation of CO2 to atmosphere temperature – that makes AGW a sick joke.

    We know by experimental proof
    -that sunspots activity directly alters the solar wind
    -that the solar wind directly effects cosmic rays
    -that cosmic rays directly effects creation of clouds
    -that clouds change the earth’s albedo
    -that changes in the albedo changes earth’s atmospheric temperatures

    But that would completely put to lie the AGW hypothesis – which has no scientific proof to support it.

    But to the point of Pag – the zealots of the AGW religion lie about the science, or -as here at this blog- utterly ignore it.

    Like

  82. Ed Darrell says:
    October 14, 2011 at 3:51 am

    ::sigh::

    Got a link the Yale Climate Change Forum saying what you claim, Alan?

    Like

  83. Pangolin says:
    October 14, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Relevant link: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/10/arguing-with-your-crazy-uncle-about.html

    It’s a very rare person who wins an argument with David Brin when he’s claiming a backing in fact.

    Alan Scott is still making crazy assertions without attribution.

    Like

  84. Alan Scott says:
    October 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Moreover, CO2 in the atmosphere generally takes about 200 years to settle out, if forests and oceans are healthy and can absorb it. ”

    According to the Yale climate change forum, the average CO2 molecule is only in the atmosphere 3 or 4 years .

    Like

  85. Pangolin says:
    October 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Black Flag still hasn’t answered any requests for links to original research. Because he has none.

    Like

  86. Black Flag® says:
    October 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Ed,
    Please explain -from this graph- the years beginning 2007

    Like

  87. Black Flag® says:
    October 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Ed,

    Funny about that Wegman report. It was false.

    That is funny, Ed, because that is not the case at all.

    These charges [plagarism] did not negate one of the Wegman Report’s premises, criticising the statistical methods used in MBH98 and MBH99

    That’s the one report that was retracted.

    No, it was not retracted for its statistical content, but by the charges that the social networking analysis was improperly credited.

    Turns out huge sections were plagiarized, except for the conclusions, which were the reverse of what the original data showed.

    The section under complaint was the “social networking analysis” which was completely incidental to the premise of the report on the statistical methodology itself.

    PS: Wegman did not “discover” the statistical crackpottery of Mann, but merely confirmed it.

    I hope you get better in your arguments then this….

    Like

  88. Ed Darrell says:
    October 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Warming is abating – demonstrable by your own documentation – while human Co2 production has increased, not decreased.

    I’d love to see your evidence. No one else on Earth has reached that conclusion on any evidence. I gather you are not a scientist — so what are you relying on for this conclusion?

    If I err, and you are a scientist, where are your data?

    Like

  89. Ed Darrell says:
    October 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Wegman ripped apart Mann’s statical foolery.

    Funny about that Wegman report. It was false.

    That’s the one report that was retracted. Turns out huge sections were plagiarized, except for the conclusions, which were the reverse of what the original data showed.

    So it’s been retracted, and investigations continue into whether there should be criminal charges against the climate change deniers.

    Are all your other data and claims similarly corrupt? That would explain why you can’t point to serious science articles in serious science journals to support your case.

    Like

  90. Black Flag® says:
    October 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    The Earth climate is dynamic.
    Only fools think it is static

    No one said climate is static.

    Sir, you do not understand “red herrings”.

    Any set of statements which example weather as if it was climate attempts by inference to state that extremes represent climate change – as if climate change is a “problem” that is under human control.

    It isn’t.

    Within the fluctuations in which life as we know it and love can prosper, however, never before has the climate warmed so greatly with no transitory cause.

    Utter falsehood.

    You obviously do not understand what an Interglacial Period at all.

    were fluctuations away from a norm,

    Exactly my point.
    By some means yet to be articulated, you have determined what is “normal”.

    The question: how did you determine what is normal? Over what time period? Why did you choose that particular time period instead of another?

    Global warming today is different. Instead of having CO2 follow the warming trend, and feeding warming trends a bit, CO2 is the chief driver of the warming trend.

    Prove it.

    Let’s see your experiment and data.

    Nope, it does not exist.

    The fact, sir is CO2 cannot be the “chief” driver of the warming trend – your “own” IPCC and RealClimate yahoos admit this.

    The fact that Co2 absorption is a logarithmic function – which is a scientific fact – makes your statement an utter falsehood – it is simply impossible for it to be the “chief” driver.

    On top of this, you have no historical geological example – each and every case of geological CO2/temperature correlation shows exactly opposite your claim

    You believe that in the face that scientific fact and geological evidence stand against you, you can proclaim an extraordinary hypothesis that the rest of the learned society must take at face value, without any scientific proof.

    A fantastic claim you make sir – and most certainly a claim rooted in fantasy.

    Moreover, CO2 in the atmosphere generally takes about 200 years to settle out, if forests and oceans are healthy and can absorb it.

    Utter nonsense.

    In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule CO2 is ~16 year

    If the excess CO2 is not absorbed, the physics of the molecule tell us that warming will get greater, and feedback on itself.

    First, you do not understand feedback loops at all.

    The earth has been struck by asteroids, faced explosions of super-volcanoes, etc. … and it is still here.

    If the Earth was as slightly sensitive to a minute increase in a trace gas of minute proportions in the atmosphere, the Earth would have been “toast” or an “ice cube” millions of years ago.

    But it isn’t.

    The Earth’s climate is a massive Negative feedback loop – not the hyper-sensitive Positive Feedback loop you think.

    Second, the physics of the molecule demonstrates your total misunderstanding of the effect – it’s logarithmic nature – which, to repeat, is a scientific fact, and again, undisputed even by the IPCC.

    Yes, Earth’s climate is dynamic. But there is nothing to suggest any reasonable brake on the current warming, if humans don’t act.

    You automatically hypothesis, that if humans did do something, it would be effective.

    Yet, even if humans did not exist, the impact to global climate would be insignificant – our effect would be lost in the natural variations. Our “signal” is completely lost in the natural “noise” of Mother Nature.

    Like

  91. Black Flag® says:
    October 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    “The correlation does match.”

    Arg, darn negations – adding them or missing inverts the sentence!

    The correlation doesNOT match.

    Like

  92. Black Flag® says:
    October 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    But alas, you have not offered any evidence that CO2 concentrations are dropping,

    You infer that one causes the other – that CO2 increase must mean Man-made Global Warming.

    Interesting hypothesis, but alas, observationally false. Thus your hypothesis is wrong

    Now, you can continue to hold that hypothesis in the face of physical fact against it – and be equivalent to a religious zealot, living on faith
    or
    re-evaluate your hypothesis.

    that warming is abating in any other way.

    Warming is abating – demonstrable by your own documentation – while human Co2 production has increased, not decreased.

    Thus, your problem.
    You have hypothesized a correlation.
    The correlation does match.
    Your hypothesis, therefore, is wrong

    Like

  93. Ed Darrell says:
    October 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    AGW myth is dead.

    So you keep zealously screaming. But alas, you have not offered any evidence that CO2 concentrations are dropping, or that warming is abating in any other way. Your hypothesis lacks any support.

    Like

← Older Comments

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.