Insta-Millard: Resuscitating Liberty after climate change hit


http://twitter.com/2NewEarth/status/464074434576654336

Resuscitating Liberty after she was hit by climate change. (Who made this image?)

Resuscitating Liberty after she was hit by climate change. (Who made this image?)

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2014 at 11:34 am and is filed under Climate change, climate_change, Icons of history, Liberty. 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.

90 Responses to Insta-Millard: Resuscitating Liberty after climate change hit

  1. Black Flag® says:
    May 29, 2014 at 8:09 am

    More on your weird thinking of Antarctica.

    IPCC report shows Antarctica has “negative contribution to sea level” over the 21st century

    The recent ridiculous and scientifically flawed media claims of large Antarctica related sea level rise impacts due to “unstoppable” glacier ice loss supposedly reflected in two recent scientific papers looks even more absurd when these made up claims are compared against the Antarctica scientific findings of the UN IPCC AR5 WGI climate report.

    Recapping your bizarre thinking about the Ice Sheet, you
    assert that these studies reflect that sea levels would rise by 13 feet over the next 100 years because of the glacier ice loss which was caused by global warming and is unstoppable. Virtually nothing you think was reflected in what was contained in the new studies.

    What you failed to understand that the two studies did not say anything about sea level rise projections, made no mention that man made global warming was driving these glacier ice loss results and additionally you appear to have ineptly borrowed your number from a newspaper article (The Guardian which claimed a 4 meter sea level rise) which managed to confuse “feet” with “meters”.

    Apparently you did not actually read and evaluated the studies which did not address sea level rise projections at all nor did they make any claims that man made global warming was driving the study results. One of these two studies mentioned that the amount of ice in these glaciers which represent about 1% to 2% of the total Antarctica ice mass is equivalent to about 4 feet of sea level. That information was not associated with a sea level rise projection estimate or any specific time period.

    The UN IPCC AR5 WGI report, which is often used as a source of climate information by the news media, deals extensively with climate issues regarding Antarctica including the continents contribution to sea level rise from climate change.

    Amazingly the UN IPCC AR5 report says this:

    “Taking all these considerations together, we have medium confidence in model projections of a future Antarctic SMB increase, implying a negative contribution to GMSL rise (see also Sections 13.4.4.1, 13.5.3 and 14.8.15).”

    That’s right – the IPCC says that its Surface Mass Balance (SBM) models for Antarctica show that its projected future climate behavior causes sea level to decline not increase!

    Furthermore it explains this finding by saying:

    “Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008).” (13.4.4.1)

    The IPCC AR5 report acknowledges that Antarctica is losing ice from some of its glaciers in West Antarctica and the Antarctica peninsula with the following findings:

    “The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades (high confidence). There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica, and high confidence that they result from the acceleration of outlet glaciers. {4.4.2, 4.4.3, Figures 4.14, 4.16, 4.17}”

    “There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. {4.4}”

    “The Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica is grounded significantly below sea level and is the region of Antarctica changing most rapidly at present. Pine Island Glacier has sped up 73% since 1974 (Rignot, 2008) and has thinned throughout 1995–2008 at increasing rates (Wingham et al., 2009) due to grounding line retreat. There is medium confidence that retreat was caused by the intrusion of warm ocean water into the sub-ice shelf cavity (Jenkins et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011; Steig et al., 2012).” (4.4.5)

    “There is low confidence that the rate of Antarctic ice loss has increased over the last two decades (Chen et al., 2009; Velicogna, 2009; Rignot et al., 2011c; Shepherd et al., 2012); (4.4.2.3)”

    “As with Antarctic sea ice, changes in Antarctic ice sheets have complex causes (Section 4.4.3). The observational record of Antarctic mass loss is short and the internal variability of the ice sheet is poorly understood. Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993. Possible future instabilities in the west Antarctic ice sheet cannot be ruled out, but projection of future climate changes over West Antarctica remains subject to considerable uncertainty (Steig and Orsi, 2013).” (10.5.2.1)

    “Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades. {4.3, 10.5}”

    The IPCC AR5 report addresses the West Antarctica and Antarctica peninsula glaciers in considerable detail showing that these glaciers have been experiencing ice loss for decades, that the reasons behind this ice loss are associated with warming oceans and ice sheet internal variability in the region and that the causes for this ice loss behavior are unidentified and uncertain. Furthermore the IPCC acknowledges that the total Antarctica ice loss has not increased in the last two decades.

    Additionally the IPCC AR5 WGI report also shows that the huge Eastern Antarctica area which is the largest ice mass region with 90% of the continents total ice mass, is in fact gaining ice mass by noting the following:

    “The recent IMBIE analysis (Shepherd et al., 2012) shows that the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula are losing mass at an increasing rate, but that East Antarctica gained an average of 21 ± 43 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2011. Zwally and Giovinetto (2011) also estimate a mass gain for East Antarctica (+16 Gt yr–1 between 1992 and 2001).” (4.4.2.3)

    The UN IPCC AR5 WGI report doesn’t support at all and in fact offers clear scientific evidence to the contrary which both refutes and embarrasses the alarmist, such as yourself, sea level rise claims made by the major news media and their “star” anchors concerning their ludicrous reporting on the latest Antarctica ice loss studies.

    Like

  2. Black Flag® says:
    May 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    More nonsense – as if an irrational judgement of what is a “good” amount or not has merit.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:
    May 22, 2014 at 2:51 am

    Resuscitation may not be possible:

    Like

  4. Black Flag® says:
    May 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    H. Conway et al, 1999. Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science 8 October 1999: Vol. 286 no. 5438 pp. 280-283
    DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5438.280

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5438/280.abstract

    Abstract

    The history of deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) gives clues about its future. Southward grounding-line migration was dated past three locations in the Ross Sea Embayment. Results indicate that most recession occurred during the middle to late Holocene in the absence of substantial sea level or climate forcing. Current grounding-line retreat may reflect ongoing ice recession that has been under way since the early Holocene. If so, the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    “Yes, I want documentation.”
    Gave it to you, but you won’t read it. You never have.

    “You claim the ice in Antarctica is healthy.”

    Rat-excrement, Ed. I made no stupid value judgement on Antarctica at all – that is your childish territory.

    You believe you can judge “health” of ice…. most bizarre.

    ” I give you a range of news articles and scientific papers pointing out your errors.”

    You pointed to no errors. The FACTS are not errors, Ed, your bizarre claims ARE THE ERRORS, Ed.

    The facts are: ice is growing larger “over here” then “over there” – that is a fact.

    “You then act as if Antarctica is just floating sea ice

    I am not acting, Ed. You can’t even get your metaphors straight.

    I made no claim about Antarctica being “just floating ice”. YOU MADE UP A STRAWMAN.

    “Cold due to elevation is “convection?” ”

    Yes, Ed. Get a brain and learn.
    Hot air rises.
    As it rises the pressure drops, causing it to cool.
    Cool air falls.

    Welcome to climate and weather Ed.

    What is astounding is you pontificate in an area where you have UTTERLY NO KNOWLEDGE, and replace it with obtuse comments, ad hominen, strawman, and sure bizarre zealotry.

    Go get a class in Meteorology, Ed, and avoid posting your nonsense until then

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:12 pm

    Earth to Ed, read the article.

    Look, Ed, I’m really tired of your ignorance = whether it is real or it is feigned.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Yes, I want documentation.

    You claim the ice in Antarctica is healthy. I give you a range of news articles and scientific papers pointing out your errors.

    You then act as if Antarctica is just floating sea ice, and you offer news articles on sea ice, ignoring the fact that the continental ice on Antarctica is different, and in trouble, and sea ice can’t make up for it.

    You’ve said some mighty silly things. I think if you’d try to provide documentation, you’d have much less time to say silly things.

    Cold due to elevation is “convection?”

    Oy.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    Wait a minute. Now you’re saying convection cools air as it rises?

    Did you read the article you sent?

    Like

  9. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    What is shocking is that you are asking about documentation about Antarctica – obviously you do not read very much.

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Did already, Ed – showed it was growing at records rates – but you can’t deal with it.

    Like

  11. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    “You sent a link to an article that explained temperatures drop with a rise in elevation.
    That was not a point of discussion we’ve ever had.”

    My God, Ed, are you so dense?

    You do not believe convection cools the air in the atmosphere – because you do not understand the mechanism.

    I demonstrate the mechanism, and you suddenly forget discussion.

    Temp. are not rising. You have NO FACT to demonstrate this. The fact, as I provided is “nothing going on here”.

    “. The trees and the mountains don’t lie.”

    You do not understand anything of them. They do not speak to you.

    You make up fantasy instead.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    You believe that air rising from 20C to -60C is warming.

    What in the hell are you talking about? I never said anything close to that.

    You sent a link to an article that explained temperatures drop with a rise in elevation.

    That was not a point of discussion we’ve ever had.

    And, though it’s common knowledge in atmospheric sciences and biology, those temperatures in the high atmosphere are rising, too, in those areas that most affect us. The tree lines are rising in the Rockies, Andes, Atlas, Alps, and every other mountain range on Earth.

    It’s a sign of global warming. The trees and the mountains don’t lie.

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    More on the West Antarctic ice sheet.

    Yes, Antarctica really is a continent, and there is a difference between sea ice and ice on land.

    http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/#.U3U1KShrQrU

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    “The issue with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is that it is moving quickly, and it is not being replenished at the upper end”

    Utter nonsense. It is growing by millions of tons faster. That is the FACT, Ed.

    Back in Missouri. Show me. Document the claim.

    While you scramble to discover you’re blowing smoke (I’m assuming you’re honest and didn’t know), you may want to look at these:

    1. Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater (a 2009 story)
    2. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt: Defending the Drama, The New Yorker, May 13, 2014
    3. “West Antarctic Ice Sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster,” J. H. Mercer, Nature, January 26, 1978

    Like

  15. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    “You’re confusing Antarctica with Arctic Ice.”

    No.

    “Antarctica is a continent.”

    Don’t be obtuse.

    “The issue with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is that it is moving quickly, and it is not being replenished at the upper end”

    Utter nonsense. It is growing by millions of tons faster. That is the FACT, Ed.

    It does not matter where the ice is growing, it is growing faster then it is losing it.

    “In a time of global cooling, such as we should be in now, that ice should be stable, and perhaps growing.”

    Utter nonsensical assertion.
    You have no science to make any claim about “what it should do”.

    “endangers polar bears in the opposite hemisphere.”

    What a load of horse manure – another empty-headed claim out of nowhere.

    You are a keen jingoist, Ed – but absolutely no scientist.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Antarctica grows and shrinks all the time. This amazes you it seems.

    You’re confusing Antarctica with Arctic Ice.

    Antarctica is a continent. Rock. It does not “grow and shrink all the time.” It’s been about the same size for several millions of years, and it remains so — growth from erosion has been rather stunted by the fact that it’s mostly covered in ice, so water erosion doesn’t grow it much, contrasted to the growth of the Mississippi Delta or the Nile Delta. Growth from volcanic action, as in Hawaii, isn’t significant.

    So Antarctica does not grow nor shrink appreciably nor significantly.

    Ice around Antarctica does grow and shrink, with the seasons.

    The issue with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is that it is moving quickly, and it is not being replenished at the upper end — miles distant in the interior of Antarctica. This ice does not grow and shrink with great variation except over massive periods of time.

    In a time of global cooling, such as we should be in now, that ice should be stable, and perhaps growing.

    Instead, it’s moving into the ocean at an alarming clip (to scientists and rational people).

    This is a problem because ice moving off the land into the ocean will raise ocean levels. In contrast, sea ice in the Arctic, and around Antarctica, does not move sea levels because it’s floating on the water, and as it melts, the volume decreases to keep its displacement about equal. When the water warms once it’s out of ice, it again increases in volume, and that is a problem, but mostly in warmer waters in temperate zones.

    Antarctic ice IS growing in a few places — lake effect snows from global warming putting more moisture in the air, which then falls as snow which becomes ice.

    BUT, that does not make up for the ice loss due to ocean warming which erodes the ice shelfs and has significantly decreased the thickness of annual ice, endangering the life of animals that depend on the ice much as the lack of ice endangers polar bears in the opposite hemisphere.

    Scientists are concerned about the destruction of this ice now because it was predicted to occur once we passed the point-of-no-return on runaway global warming, too late to save humanity.

    And, as always, you don’t give a damn about the human effects. Yes, the planet will survive. Humans may not.

    (Cue the Gaia cartoon)

    Like

  17. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 11:31 am

    That is the problem, Ed. You haven’t a clue how the climate system works, so you make up fantasy stories about it, and claim a fundamental component of the climate system has nothing to do with climate.

    And there you go asserting myth as if it was fact.

    There is absolutely no warming anomaly in the troposphere, Ed, which utterly contradicts your Co2 theory.
    “… little temperature trend has been observed since 1995….”

    As I repeat, your knowledge of the subject is zero, but your zealotry is over the top.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Antarctica grows and shrinks all the time. This amazes you it seems.

    Further, Antarctica is GROWING faster then its shrinking. The slight of hand you are trying to pull off is ignoring where it is growing and merely moaning where it is shrinking, then claiming this will raise sea levels – ignoring the fact that there is more net ice being created then melted.

    And hypothetically even if that sheet melted without any other increase in ice elsewhere, its rate of melting and raising the sea levels will take a thousand years.

    Wouldn’t even worry about your fantasy case at all, Ed. You won’t be around to worry about it.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 11:11 am

    BF, I fail to see any relevance to your link to an explanation for why air cools as it rises. It has zero to do with climate change, and zero to do with greenhouse effect — except, air at elevation ALSO heats up with excess CO2, and the mountains are particularly vulnerable to the damage.

    I’m giving you all the benefit of the doubt I can. I see no relationship to this conversation. Can you explain?

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Ed, try to learn something.

    You believe that air rising from 20C to -60C is warming.

    You are a shining example of the zealots.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:54 am

    A primer on the West Antarctic ice sheet (no, it’s not sea ice):

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:43 am

    Was this the link you were looking for?

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:33 am

    Check the link. Did you mean to link to something else?

    For global warming purposes, cooling with elevation increase is irrelevant. Warming occurs at elevation, too.

    Like

  24. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:15 am

    So your response to scientific fact is to leap into ad hominen.

    I expected nothing more from you.

    Like

  25. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:13 am

    ” It’s the source of the heat.”

    It is but 1/2 the system, Ed.

    If there is no greenhouse, there is no greenhouse effect, either.

    “Same with the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 functions as the glass in the greenhouse, letting heat radiate in, preventing it from reradiating out.”

    No C02 does not function as the glass – that’s the point. Glass absolutely allows heat out – CONDUCTIVE heat, Ed.

    What is NOT allowed out is CONVECTION.

    Because you do not understand this fundamental, you remain utterly confused about the topic.

    “Convection plays a role — not so large a role as you pretend.”

    It is a FUNDAMENTAL role, Ed, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

    “The Earth warms because of the greenhouse effect.”

    No, it doesn’t. The greenhouse effect suppresses CONVECTION.
    Water vapor, which represents 98% of the process and C02 suppresses RADIATE heat

    You pretend these are the same process – they are not.

    “Too much CO2”
    Who says? Baseless assertion and subjective value judgement.
    Who are you to declare what is too much and what is too little?

    “— and we’ve doubled it — makes too much warming, and that explains why we see global warming as the climate change today”

    Empty claim. How much of this “too much warming” comes for C02, Ed? Give me your scientific data.

    “But the natural cycles have been over-ridden by human pollution of the air. We’ve dumped too much garbage up there, and it’s killing us.”

    Baseless fear mongering from mere zealotry and ignorance.

    “And when you claim we don’t need to worry because the effects are logarithmic?”

    The effects ARE logarithmic! Any change in the concentration of C02, up or down, has an irrelevant affect on temperature!!

    ” I’m reminded of the dismissals of Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart. I fear you’re looking at the log scale backwards.”

    You should be. He, like you, make up statistical lies and pretend they are fact.

    I fear you do not understand at all the processes here.

    Do you know what has happened over the last 16 years?
    Nothing.

    “BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. ”

    Here’s the scientific fact about C02 and its contribution to warming the Earth

    0-100 ppmv: adds ~2.22°C to temperature/Total effect:~2.22°C

    100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2
    adds~0.29°C ~Total effect: 2.51°C of the ~

    200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level
    adds ~0.14°C Total Effect~2.65°C

    300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made adds +~0.06°C Total effect~2.71°C

    400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100
    adds +~0.08°C total effect~2.79°C

    From 100ppmv to 600ppmv only adds 0.57°C, Ed.

    Science, Ed, not myth.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Here Ed, learn something

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question186.htm

    So, you’re suffering from lack of oxygen because you’re at altitude? This is what explains denialism?

    No, Anthony Watts is barely above sea level. The Heartland Institute isn’t even 1,000 feet up.

    Other pathologies and syndromes mimic hypoxia. I don’t think altitude explains their fuzzy thinking.

    Yours? I don’t know.

    Like

  27. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:03 am

    ” the system. It’s the source of the heat.”

    It is but 1/2 the system, Ed.

    If there is no greenhouse, there is no greenhouse effect, either.

    “Same with the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 functions as the glass in the greenhouse, letting heat radiate in, preventing it from reradiating out.”

    No C02 does not funcition as the glass – that’s the point. Glass absolutely allows heat out – CONDUCTIVE heat, Ed.

    What is NOT allowed out is CONVECTION.

    Because you do not understand this fundamental, you remain utterly confused about the topic.

    “Convection plays a role — not so large a role as you pretend.”

    It is a FUNDAMENTAL role, Ed, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

    “The Earth warms because of the greenhouse effect.”

    No, it doesn’t. The greenhouse effect suppresses CONVECTION.
    C02 suppresses RADIATE heat

    You pretend these are the same process – they are not.

    “Too much CO2”
    Who says? Baseless assertion and subjective value judgement.
    Who are you to declare what is too much and what is too little?

    “— and we’ve doubled it — makes too much warming, and that explains why we see global warming as the climate change today”

    Empty claim. How much of this “too much warming” comes for C02, Ed? Give me your scientific data.

    “But the natural cycles have been over-ridden by human pollution of the air. We’ve dumped too much garbage up there, and it’s killing us.”

    Baseless fear mongering from mere zealotry and ignorance.

    “And when you claim we don’t need to worry because the effects are logarithmic?”

    The effects ARE logarithmic! Any change in the concentration of C02, up or down, has an irrelevant affect on temperature!!

    ” I’m reminded of the dismissals of Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart. I fear you’re looking at the log scale backwards.”

    You should be. He, like you, make up statistical lies and pretend they are fact.

    I fear you do not understand at all the processes here.

    Do you know what has happened over the last 16 years?
    Nothing.

    “BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. “

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:50 am

    It’s more than half the system. It’s the source of the heat.

    No heat, no greenhouse.

    Same with the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 functions as the glass in the greenhouse, letting heat radiate in, preventing it from reradiating out.

    Convection plays a role — not so large a role as you pretend. It’s not that you completely fail to understand science, so much as you twist science to your political agenda.

    The Earth warms because of the greenhouse effect. Too much CO2 — and we’ve doubled it — makes too much warming, and that explains why we see global warming as the climate change today.

    Natural cycles cause warming and cooling, in a given year, in a given decade, and over centuries.

    But the natural cycles have been over-ridden by human pollution of the air. We’ve dumped too much garbage up there, and it’s killing us.

    If you check the temperatures of the planet, on average, over the past 200 years, you see that warming rising almost lock-step with CO2.

    And when you claim we don’t need to worry because the effects are logarithmic? I’m reminded of the dismissals of Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart. I fear you’re looking at the log scale backwards.

    By the way, Mann’s chart from the 1990s was inaccurate compared to actual measurements. Warming was much more intense, and more widespread, than climatologists had feared.

    In 1998, denialists using your claims (your claims are not new) said that we would see global cooling begin any moment, that 1998 was the absolute peak, and that within a decade we’d be begging for global warming.

    Do you know what happened in that decade?

    Are you familiar with the parable of the boy who cried “no wolf?”

    Like

  29. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:43 am

    Here Ed, learn something

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question186.htm

    Like

  30. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:40 am

    “You keep making that claim.”
    No, its scientific fact – something you do not understand.

    “s that greenhouses work with radiated heat from the sun, as I had said.”

    And as I said.
    But that is only 1/2 of the system, Ed. You cannot understand that the difference between how the atmosphere works and how a GREENHOUSE works is dictated by the other 1/2

    “I pointed out that it’s not convection that heats the greenhouse, since there would be no way to heat one in the winter.”

    And I pointed out that greenhouses absolutely work in the winter since the sun still appears in the sky, still radiates energy, still warms the air in the greenhouse and the greenhouse still suppresses convection.

    The greenhouse you may have experience with that “doesn’t work” in winter only continues to support my claim, not yours.

    Since the material in YOUR greenhouse transfers CONDUCTIVE energy in winter from inside to outside, it STILL DOES THIS IN SUMMER TOO. Thus, whatever hotter greenhouse in summer can only exist due to suppression of CONVECTION.

    And of course it is “good enough” – since that is the process by which your greenhouse works.

    One of the ways the Earth COOLS is ABSOLUTELY by convection!

    Again, you lack the very basic fundamentals of weather and climate. Hot air rises and as it rises goes into a lower pressure – and by Boyle’s law, lower pressure lowers the temperature. Do you not know why as you climb in a jet to 30,000 feet, the air temperature falls to -40/-60C???

    The fact is, Ed, you are utterly ignorant about this science. Not a sin.

    The sin is you pretend your ignorance is a virtue and continue to spew nonsense as if it was fact.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:17 am

    You do not know how a greenhouse works.

    You keep making that claim.

    When I asked you to explain, you posted stuff (copied from another site?) that explains that greenhouses work with radiated heat from the sun, as I had said.

    I pointed out that it’s not convection that heats the greenhouse, since there would be no way to heat one in the winter.

    Prevention of convection? No, that’s not good enough. We’re talking about heating things up. The Earth doesn’t cool by convection, either, but by re-radiation into space. CO2 acts as the glass in the greenhouse.

    Wonderful. Lecture me again.

    You remind me of the wonderful cartoon Chan Lowe did of Sen. Marc Rubio explaining why global warming is no threat.

    Like

  32. Black Flag® says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:43 am

    You expect change, but then cry that it is happening.

    You claim it is man-made; yet, you have NO SCIENCE to demonstrate this, merely assertions based on gross misunderstanding of the basics of physics.

    You do not know how a greenhouse works.
    You do not know that Co2 effect is logarithmic.

    You pretend that your gross misunderstanding must be accepted, so reinforce your zealotry.

    Like

  33. Ed Darrell says:
    May 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    I expect change.

    In that, you disappoint me. You never change. No matter the science, you know better than the experts. No matter the good news in government, you know it’s the first stage of disaster.

    Still, I hope.

    Like

  34. Black Flag® says:
    May 12, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    Ed,

    What’s “ok”?
    It appears to me you believe as long as nothing changes, its good.

    Wake up and get some coffee into ya! The Earth is ALWAYS changing, and same here. It grows and shrinks all the time.

    Nuthin’ new under the sun except that some people, like you, who have little idea about the world around them, make believe everything is a problem and its mankind’s fault.

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:
    May 12, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    So, now you’re arguing that Antarctica is in okay shape, despite the collapsing of the shelf and the glacier on the west side?

    Like

  36. Black Flag® says:
    May 12, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Antarctic sea ice at record levels

    May 12, 2014 12:00AM

    ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

    The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

    ….
    That’s the problem, you think you have an answer when really you don’t even know what is going on and pretend your fantasy is a real problem.

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:
    May 12, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    The answers are out there.

    Like

  38. Black Flag® says:
    May 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Perfect!

    I show a video by a scientist/mathematician who actually works in the field and you post….

    …a fiction writer.

    Sums up your side perfectly.

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:
    May 12, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Maybe Isaac Asimov can explain it so you’ll understand:

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/annals-of-global-warming-al-gore-didnt-invent-it-isaac-asimov-explained-in-1989/

    Like

  40. Black Flag® says:
    May 12, 2014 at 9:45 am

    “It’s man that causes the greenhouse effect BEYOND the natural
    levels, which causes TOO MUCH solar radiation to be captured.”

    You have no science that shows this – as obvious by your confusion of how a greenhouse works.

    “That melts the glaciers, raises the sea levels, etc.”

    That has been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. To declare man is doing it now is utterly bizarre.

    “Global warming is, indeed, human caused. If you’re right, that solar radiation heats the greenhouse.”

    Solar provides the ENERGY, Ed, not the heat.
    The greenhouse effect is caused by suppressing convection.
    Co2 does not suppress convection.

    Since you do not understand the simple stuff, I know the more complex stuff is beyond you.

    Like

  41. Ed Darrell says:
    May 12, 2014 at 9:39 am

    It’s man that causes the greenhouse effect BEYOND the natural levels, which causes TOO MUCH solar radiation to be captured.

    That melts the glaciers, raises the sea levels, etc.

    Global warming is, indeed, human caused. If you’re right, that solar radiation heats the greenhouse.

    Like

  42. Black Flag® says:
    May 12, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Ed,

    It good to see that you finally admit Global Warming is caused by the sun, and not man.

    Like

  43. Ed Darrell says:
    May 12, 2014 at 3:15 am

    Once upon a time you admitted that radiation causes the heating of the green house. You keep trying to run away from that.

    You almost had the understanding. So close, but your denialism knocks it from your grasp.

    Like

  44. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    Think, Ed.

    Was does the interior of a close lunch box gets hotter in the sun than the outside?

    Do you know how a solar cooker works?

    “Simple solar cookers use the following basic principles:

    Concentrating sunlight: A reflective mirror of polished glass, metal or metallised film concentrates light and heat from the sun on a small cooking area, making the energy more concentrated and increasing its heating power.

    Converting light to heat: A black or low reflectivity surface on a food container or the inside of a solar cooker improves the effectiveness of turning light into heat. Light absorption converts the sun’s visible light into heat, substantially improving the effectiveness of the cooker.

    Trapping heat: It is important to REDUCE CONVECTION by isolating the air inside the cooker from the air outside the cooker. A plastic bag or tightly sealed glass cover traps the hot air inside. This makes it possible to reach temperatures on cold and windy days similar to those possible on hot days.”

    Like

  45. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    “Can you define “convection,” BF?”

    How about you look it up, Ed, and learn.

    “Your original claim was that greenhouse effect is a hoax, and that it’s convection that warms greenhouses.”

    No, Ed.
    Your big problem is you don’t read.

    I said it is the SUPPRESSION of convection that makes a greenhouse.

    You live in house built around obtuse notions.

    Do no assume, Ed. I’ve obviously done more physics then you.

    And, at least I read.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    Can you define “convection,” BF?

    Your original claim was that greenhouse effect is a hoax, and that it’s convection that warms greenhouses.

    In your more recent posts, you’ve gotten closer to the truth, admitting that it’s radiative heating that warms greenhouses.

    But you keep inserting “convection” where it’s inappropriate.

    I gather you’ve never done much work in physics, especially with large gases and heating and cooling, and thermodynamics.

    So I’m curious: Do you know what convection is? Can you explain what it is you think makes greenhouses warm, without the confession of your last explanation, that convection isn’t the tool?

    Like

  47. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    “Substitute CO2 for the glass, that’s the greenhouse effect by which CO2 warms the Earth.”

    Absolutely false, Ed.

    Co2 does not prevent convection.

    That’s the issue, Ed, you have utterly no idea what you are talking about.

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    BF said:

    What makes a greenhouse, Ed, is that the warm air rises and is stopped by the glass/plastic.

    WITHOUT THE PREVENTION OF CONVECTION, THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE.

    Substitute CO2 for the glass, that’s the greenhouse effect by which CO2 warms the Earth.

    You’re so close to understanding what you’ve been trying to deny.

    Like

  49. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    *blink*

    Yeah, that’s science fact.

    But that is not what makes a greenhouse a greenhouse, Ed, since radiation from the sun is the source of heat, period!

    What makes a greenhouse, Ed, is that the warm air rises and is stopped by the glass/plastic.

    WITHOUT THE PREVENTION OF CONVECTION, THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE.

    Like

  50. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Black Flag said:

    The heating is caused by radiation, as I said.

    Thank you.

    Confession really is good for the soul, isn’t it?

    Like

  51. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Here, get your heat “verbs” straight….

    Like

  52. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    http://www.thesustainabilityprinciple.org/definition_greenhouse.html

    Read and learn

    Like

  53. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    “A green house doesn’t block convection, except for the plants”

    You are utterly coo-coo. It ABSOLUTELY blocks convection, since without the glass, Ed, the greenhouse would not be a green house!!

    The heating is caused by radiation, as I said. You are simply brain boggling.

    Glass DOES NOT BLOCK THE RADIATION.

    Man! Not only do you not read the science, you make up stories.

    “As I noted, were convection the tool, green houses could not heat in temperate or cold climes in the winter. The air is not hot enough to heat the greenhouses.”

    Of course it is! The sun goes thru the glass, warms the ground, heats the air- the air cannot rise out of the greenhouse to cool.

    Like

  54. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    A green house doesn’t block convection, except for the plants. The heating is caused NOT by convection, but by radiative heating, exactly contrary to your statement. Glass allows heat from the Sun into the greenhouse, but blocks its being reradiated out at a slightly different wavelength.

    As I noted, were convection the tool, green houses could not heat in temperate or cold climes in the winter. The air is not hot enough to heat the greenhouses.

    You smash into the truth, then pick yourself up and run off as if nothing had happened. Astonishing.

    Like

  55. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    “Read your description. You note that the heating process is the greenhouse effect.”

    No, Ed. Raditive heating is NOT a greenhouse effect, otherwise the concept is moot.

    The greenhouse effect is the blocking of convection. Without that blocking, there is no greenhouse effect.

    “It’s not convection that warms a greenhouse. Otherwise, they could not work in winter.”

    It is because there is a blocking of convection is why a greenhouse works in winter.

    “Now, substitute CO2 for the glass, and the planet for the greenhouse, you’ve got worldwide greenhouse effect. Were it not so, the Earth would be a giant, supercold snowball.”

    Co2 is not substituted for the glass – that is your serious error.

    Where a greenhouse blocks convection, Co2 does not block convection.

    Again, you need to review your science. You are fraught with conceptual errors.

    “Our life depends on a balanced greenhouse effect Too much CO2 puts it out of balance.”

    Nonsense.

    You believe the Earth must contain a positive feedback loop. Yet, no where can such a thing be demonstrated.

    The Earth’s systems are negative feedback loops. It is self-balancing and has been this way for millions of years.

    Like

  56. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Read your description. You note that the heating process is the greenhouse effect.

    It’s not convection that warms a greenhouse. Otherwise, they could not work in winter.

    Now, substitute CO2 for the glass, and the planet for the greenhouse, you’ve got worldwide greenhouse effect. Were it not so, the Earth would be a giant, supercold snowball.

    Our life depends on a balanced greenhouse effect Too much CO2 puts it out of balance.

    Like

  57. Black Flag® says:
    May 11, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Greenhouse glass traps heat energy through light wave transformation and trapping the convection of the air inside the greenhouse.

    Solar radiation reaches the greenhouse, passes through the glass, and gets absorbed by the ground and plants.

    They convert it to heat energy, warming the air, which cannot escape through the glass.

    Warmer air near the ground rises, and is stopped by the glass. As the air near the ground continues to heat, it rises, and pushes the air at the top of the glass down, to be heated again.

    Because the glass keeps the air trapped inside, the convection process allows the air to absorb more and more heat each time it rises and falls.

    It works by suppressing convection and keeping the warmed air trapped.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:
    May 11, 2014 at 8:23 am

    Explain how a greenhouse works. You said it’s convection.

    I’ve got my popcorn ready. Explain away.

    Like

  59. Black Flag® says:
    May 10, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Ah, like the scientific facts regarding:

    How a greenhouse works, and how it doesn’t
    How C02 absorbtion is logarithmic.

    For two to start. I doubt you can deal with more until you get these two under your belt.

    Like

  60. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    The Great Barrier Reef has absolutely nothing to do with C02 in the air.

    Scientific fact.

    Like

  61. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Ed,

    I know its hard, but use your brain.

    Why does the inside of lunchbox get hot in the sun?

    Like

  62. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    “Greenhouses work because the glass allows heat in at one wavelength, but traps its reradiation out.”

    I can’t believe this.

    You absolutely do not know how a real green house works.

    It does not trap radiation.
    It prevents CONVECTION.

    Again, review the video and learn something, Ed.

    Like

  63. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    “The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.”

    No, the burden of proof lies upon those that declare this “climate change” – WHICH IS CONSTANTLY OCCURRING suddenly is the fault of man.

    This is the typical irrational thinking of dogmatist. They profess some bizarre claim, then demand that those that disagree must prove the contrary to their irrationalism, otherwise their irrationalism must be true.

    No, Ed.

    Use science.
    Prove your case.

    By the way, no one has, otherwise you’d be (or someone else) a millionaire.

    The money still hasn’t been claimed.

    Like

  64. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    The Great Barrier Reef is dying due to the effects of global warming.

    But you claim it’s fine.

    Do you have a television, and ever watch the news? A newspaper?

    Like

  65. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    As I noted, Essex’s arguments are based on grammar, not science.

    No, greenhouses don’t warm because of carbon in the glass (though there is carbon in autoglass, now, in the plastic sheets between the glass layers . . .).

    Greenhouses work because the glass allows heat in at one wavelength, but traps its reradiation out.

    That’s exactly what CO2 does in the air.

    You thought it was convection that heats a greenhouse?

    As I said, you have no common sense on such issues, no experience working with a greenhouse, and no science to back the claim.

    Essex is wrong, foolishly so — the “medical doctors” in the audience probably didn’t catch his error, and so find his bad and error-filled stand-up routine to be funny, and not the tragic waste of neurons and time that it is.

    Convection? You thought greenhouses heated through convection?

    That would be a laugh line at a meeting of nursery operators, or atmospheric scientists.

    Like

  66. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    Total idiocy.

    The SCIENTIFIC FACT is that C02 is:
    1) a very minor contributor to earth’s warming
    2) its effects are logarithmic.

    THOSE ARE FACTS.

    Your missive merely declares – outside of any scientific fact – that a very minor change in Co2 has some -YET TO BE DISCOVERED- feedback loop which influences the MAJOR WARMING FACTOR – that is, water vapor.

    No such feedback has been discovered. None, Nada, Zippo, Zero.

    To post a claim of mere ASSUMPTION of an existence of a feedback loop to be REALITY is wholly unscientific, Ed.

    The fact that the Earth, over 17 years, has not at all responded to the increase in C02 utterly demonstrates the folly of your baseless belief.

    Like

  67. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Laughable, Ed.

    There is utterly no evidence of “killing the oceans”. By simple observation, THE OCEANS ARE FINE.

    You are so tied up and bound by proclamations of expectations – expectations that have utterly no foundation of knowledge – that you confuse fiction to be fact.

    Ed, I know you are a smart man. Obviously, I read all your posts and many, if not most, are intelligent and genuine and often give me pause to contemplate.

    What utterly disappoints me is when you hitch your belief system to a wholly bizarre dogma of “man-made climate (fill in the blanks as it is constantly changing)”

    Somewhere, you got a virus into your brain. The virus made you think that man, somehow, is superior to nature.

    Yet, the man I’ve come to know from this blog is a naturalist at heart.

    How you can flip between the ultimate power of nature and then suddenly get trapped that puny man somehow has overwhelming power over nature just boggles me.

    Like

  68. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Oh, wait: You mean the log scale is the reverse of the way Essex claims it is? And the CO2 greenhouse effect gets worse the higher the CO2 concentration?

    Like this?

    GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming

    The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones).
    The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990�s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.)

    The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.

    But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 � 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).

    Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.

    James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA)
    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 � 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 � 1927).

    The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.

    More information on the greenhouse effect.

    Given this background, we next need to ask:

    How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities?

    Svante Arrhenius (Courtesy: http://www.nobel.se)
    First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.

    The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the �pre-industrial� value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a �transient�, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.

    Graph showing rise of CO2, from measurements in ice cores (Siple, Antarctica) and measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Keeling curve) since James Watt, inventor of the steam engine. (Pre-1990 data in: B. Moore & D. Schimel, 1992. Trace Gases and the Biosphere. UCAR, Boulder CO)
    In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.

    Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from �little� to �much� to �most�, with the latter answer being the more credible one.

    One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.

    Another way of stating the situation is this:

    There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.

    The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.

    Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO2 , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO2 forcing data from CO2 history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO2 doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)
    Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.

    We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk.

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/rotary/global_warming/03.shtml

    Like

  69. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    “But somehow, the El Nino dog ate the scientific paper? ”

    So you admit that natural variability vastly overwhelms whatever the effects of man.

    You are a man of many contradictions, Ed.

    Like

  70. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    P.S. Ocean acidity IS on a log scale, and we’re killing the oceans with CO2 that makes them acid.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

    Like

  71. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Ed, he is ABSOLUTELY correct in how a greenhouse works. There is absolutely NO DOUBT about this.

    But somehow, the El Nino dog ate the scientific paper?

    Show us, BF. Who wrote that paper. Where is it published? Who’s doing the work to replicate it?

    Like

  72. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    “I gather you’ve never had to use a greenhouse”

    *Blink*

    So, just to be clear, you think your greenhouse works because it has C02, and not because the glass prevents convection?

    “Well, if you think greenhouses heat logarithmically,”

    It heats based on the restriction of convection, Ed.

    You are so very confused within your zealotry, you cannot understand the basics.

    Like

  73. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    I gather you’ve never had to use a greenhouse, that you’ve never had a $200,000 experiment dependent on your knowledge.

    Well, if you think greenhouses heat logarithmically, despite all evidence to the contrary, what evidence could ever persuade you? You and Ken Ham, two porks in a pod.

    Like

  74. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    *He’s wrong about how a greenhouse works. *

    Speechless.

    Ed, he is ABSOLUTELY correct in how a greenhouse works. There is absolutely NO DOUBT about this.

    Obviously, you have NO IDEA about the science whatsoever.

    He picked some poor journalist who misspoke — temporary tongue*

    “CO2 functions like the auto glass, whether there’s carbon there or not. ”

    It absolutely DOES NOT. Your utter lack of understanding in this matter is incredible.

    A greenhouse prevents CONVECTION.
    Co2 is RADIATIVE.

    The whole point of his presentation is to expose the likes of you – who are absolutely utterly ignorant of SCIENTIFIC FACT.

    “You claim it’s a logarithmic effect, and that the effect is greatest at very low levels of CO2, and decreases as CO2 rises.

    There’s not a shred of evidence for that claim of yours”

    *Blink*
    This is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, Ed.

    My God, man. Has your dogma so overwhelmed your intellect that now you discard scientific proof?

    Like

  75. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    He’s wrong about how a greenhouse works. He picked some poor journalist who misspoke — temporary tongue tie? — and said it’s the carbon in the auto glass that makes the car warm, instead of just the greenhouse effect.

    CO2 functions like the auto glass, whether there’s carbon there or not. You claim it’s a logarithmic effect, and that the effect is greatest at very low levels of CO2, and decreases as CO2 rises.

    There’s not a shred of evidence for that claim of yours/Essex’s. It’s completely nonscientific, a WAG (“Wild-Ass Guess”). It would be wonderful were it true that CO2 stops acting as a blanket the thicker it gets. I notice Essex offered no experimental evidence, not observational evidence, and didn’t explain why he dismissed the 200-year old understanding of CO2.

    You won’t explain either?

    Like

  76. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Re-watch the video, Ed, and learn – at the minimum the difference between how a greenhouse works and how the atmosphere works.

    Like

  77. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    So, what science? Are you going to explain, or just pontificate?

    Like

  78. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    “What science?”

    Yes, I understand you don’t understand the science – that is no sin.

    But then pontificating about such science with such ignorance is simply idiotic.

    You do not understand much of anything about the climate system, so you seize upon others that make irrational claims about it …. but you cannot at all defend your position because of your ignorance.

    You do not understand what Essex said, and why the room laughed. You do not understand that IPCC -whilst acknowledging the depth of their ignorance still go and make utterly baseless claims and conclusions. “We know shit, but we know what will happen”

    “Well, he’s a mathematician, maybe divorced from physics and fluid dynamics.”

    Hohohoho! The guy presents the physics and the dynamics – what he actually does for a living – but you believe “he is divorced from it”.

    Ed, obviously you didn’t understand squat and are profoundly incapable of learning.

    Like

  79. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    What science?

    Essex complained that the IPCC warned that predictions of climate are difficult. There was much laughter. He spent nearly a minute milking the punch line.

    It’s bad stand-up comedy, but that doesn’t make it science, you know?

    Yes, IPCC issued all the standard warnings about the difficulty of predictions in dynamic systems. Essex doesn’t understand that? Well, he’s a mathematician, maybe divorced from physics and fluid dynamics.

    You didn’t understand his missing the science either?

    By all means, explain what the science was in that presentation, and how it’s relevant to global warming, and the research this guy relies on (who has not published on the issue in climate journals nor anywhere else that I’ve found).

    You think I missed something? What? I’m in Missouri this week looking at the spring that has advanced several weeks since 1920, looking at the drought conditions that may cause fire, and trying to figure out why the Mississippi flops from crippling floods to too little water to float a flat-bottomed boat, instead of behaving like it should. Show us.

    Yeah, if there was something other than hard crankery there, I missed it. Point it out and explain it.

    Like

  80. Black Flag® says:
    May 8, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    Hohohoho!

    So, Ed, you do not at all understand the science, yet you believe your irrational understanding of the topic has merit!

    Hohohoho!

    He is a mathematician who WORKED IN CREATING CLIMATE MODELS, but to you, he is an idiot.

    So Ed, you think you can take the Earth’s climate into a laboratory?
    Hohohoho!

    You do not even know how a greenhouse works, right?

    Like

  81. Ed Darrell says:
    May 8, 2014 at 3:45 am

    Crank presentation to a crank group.

    I thought it quite interesting how much of his rant involved grammar. He’s a mathematician, not trained in any climate-related science, and his rant depends on language complaints.

    Did you ever take science classes, BF? Do you know how labs work, and how to measure stuff on your own?

    Like

  82. Insta-Millard: Resuscitating Liberty after climate change hit | Gaia Gazette says:
    May 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    […] By Ed Darrell […]

    Like

  83. Black Flag® says:
    May 7, 2014 at 3:31 pm


    Believing 6 Impossible things before Breakfast

    Like

  84. Black Flag® says:
    May 7, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Utter scientific illiteracy, Ed. Co2 is but a very minor component to warming the Earth. And its effects are logarithmic. The vast most of its effect are in concentrations ~0-200ppm, after that it’s nearly irrelevant.

    But since this zealotry of yours has nothing to do with science, it has taken on a religion.

    Like

  85. Ed Darrell says:
    May 7, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Human-caused climate change, BF. It’s been happening, with CO2-caused warming, for about 200 years.

    Last week the concentration of CO2 in the air rose above 400 ppm for 168 hours, for the first time since . . . perhaps the Cambrian? Not since mammals started their rise, 65 million years ago.

    You fail to acknowledge causes that we now know to be creating the climate change contrary to natural cycles.

    Evidence. Science. They aren’t just for CSI TV shows any more.

    Like

  86. Black Flag® says:
    May 7, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Climate Change, Ed, Climate Change …. read the words… has been happening for millions of years.

    The idiocy of your ilk is to forget that and blame mankind for it.

    Like

  87. Ed Darrell says:
    May 7, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Human caused warming, contrary to the natural cycles, has not been happening for millions of years. Maybe 200 years.

    Natural cycles we can’t fight, much (we try). Human-caused disasters, we can prevent.

    Let’s act. Stop dumping garbage into the air.

    Like

  88. Black Flag® says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    But that’s the idiocy I speak of – you think people deny climate change is happening.

    It has been happening for millions of years, but very stupid think it -somehow- now is man-made.

    Like

  89. Ed Darrell says:
    May 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Not soon enough.

    When will the climate change deniers stop their idiocy?

    But we know from the reports out now, that their idiocy damages our national security.

    Like

  90. Black Flag® says:
    May 7, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Now the Climate Changes ends Freedom…!

    Gasp! When will the idiocy end?

    Like

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.