NASA Just Changed Global Warming

NASA Just Changed Global Warming
  • 1001
  • 246
  • 12

My Recent Posts

November 13th, NASA publishes a video that should change the global warming debate.

 

Here

Download here

 

This video shows how the seasons change, globally, through the last 20 years.   I recommend downloading the video so you can move through the years manually and compare year to year the progress of global warming.  

 

I am a scientist and have tried to stay as neutral as possible on the global warming debate.  It's been difficult to stay neutral. 

 

On one hand, global warming has been massively politicized.  If there is one thing I know very well . . . politics is everything but truth or neutrality.  "Politics ain't science." There have been predictions made by the IPCC, NASA, and many government-funded institutions which have declared imminent doom for the planet.  These predictions, made since the 1980's, have spun the entire western world into a global warming, emotional frenzy.  Because this topic has been politicized this way,  I have been pushed into the skeptic community.  As well, knowing the complexity of this science, there was not enough compelling data to justify these predictions.   Certainly, I had seen the science converting to a religion as the debate moved into the 21st century.   Therefore, I have long discarded any hope of finding the truth on this topic . . . that is until November 13th.

 

On the other hand, humans are artificially dumping millions of kilos of carbon into the atmosphere each day.  Consequently, this activity certainly would have some impact . . . albeit climate or otherwise.  Humans also dump millions of kilos of garbage back into the earth daily but that doesn't seem to a global problem . . . yet.

 

So why is this short video important?  Why should it change global warming science?  Well, quite frankly, it shows that the impacts of global warming, for the last 20 years, are non-existent with one major exception (I'll get to that in a moment).

This video shows that all the predictions made by both politicians and climate "scientists" having been blown to hysterical proportions are non-resultant.  This video clearly demonstrates and contrasts hysteria with reality. 

This is what I see when I cycle the video through the years.  These are the predictions made during the last 20 years claiming what we should already be seeing:

 

No permanent retreat of the polar ice 

No expansion of the major deserts

No coastal intrusion (rising seas)

No retreat of the winter season (loss of winters)

No change in macroweather patterns

No change in weather pattern severity

 

I don't see ANY changes which have been predicted by the global warming religion.  You can see the data for yourself.   I do not need to tell you what to think.  This article is my own assessment.

 

This is twenty years of data which the global warming religion has declared should be starkly evident of catastrophe. Evidence showing that during the last two decades, in thousands of articles, we SHOULD be seeing drastic changes in the earth.   At least we should be seeing SOME evidence of global changes if catastrophe looms in our near future.

 

Nope.  Not seeing it.

 

However . . . there is one big change. 

I only noticed this change after cycling through the video a few times.  The earth is definitely turning greener.  That is the only significant change I see.  And isn't it remarkable that CO2, being a fertilizer, would actually be fertilizing the planet?   All that CO2 we humans dump into the atmosphere ends up in the ground just like all the other garbage we discard.  Yet, the beautiful part about this . . . the earth just becomes more luscious.  More food.  More plants.  More ecological diversity.

 

What I find more remarkable is how this religion has permanently altered people's rationality.  I have had to guard myself, with critical assessment, against this hysteria.  Adherence to logic.  Keeping dispassionate.  I would advise the reader to do the same.  Burning fossil fuels might just be the best thing that ever happened to our planet.

Comments

Kerem Oner Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:14am
AGW movement is a cult driven by Marxist ideology, fueled by trillions of dollars.
Rex Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:25am
William
I liked your assessment of the global warming debate. I am always amazed at how gullible people are.
 
If you look at some of the major proponents there is always a monetary and political agenda.
 
I was raised in the 1960's and was really tired of hearing about how we are destroying the earth. One good plague could wipe out the human race and the world would go on just fine without us.
Dino Manalis Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:48am
 We should stop making predictions and just reduce pollution and waste as much as possible without ruining the economy or our relations with other countries.  Stay sensible and healthy!
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:23am
William,
A few respectful polite questions please...
 
#1 - Would you say NASA is an American government agency?
 
#2 - Has NASA and does NASA -- to some degree(s) -- abide by what their current political administration/bosses dictates, to varying "political party" degrees, Democrat or Republican?
 
#3 - Or to ask another way, seeing that NASA are primarily or they are 90%-99% scientists or suppose to be (not politicians like Director Jim Bridenstine) and everyone wants to hang-on to their jobs first, sometimes over ethical-moral principles or safety, ala the O-rings and Challenger Space Shuttle disaster: costs over human lives, does NASA get or has NASA ever gotten heavily influenced by politics over science?
 
#4 - Is Jim Bridenstine a scientist or politician (i.e. with science degrees and experience in scientific R&D) supervised and employed by the White House? And finally...
 
#5 - How many "scientists" does NASA represent on climate change versus the scientists and doctors of the IPCC (120 different nations), in the U.S. the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. These are just the American organizations of scientists and doctors/doctorates. For the near 200 foreign organizations, go here:
 
Governor's Office of Planning & Research
 
Hence, how does an American (now Republican) government-led Bridenstine-led agency like NASA, with only about 1,800+/- employees, stack up to all these other highly qualified expert scientists here in the U.S. and all over the world?
 
I personally think these are questions to seriously consider. :)
Thank you William.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:29am
Apologies. Correction above on number of NASA employees. It should read 18,000... not 1,800. Missed an important zero there. LOL
Bill Bates Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:37am
Professor T
 
There is a simple answer to your final, unnumbered question: those "highly qualified" scientists you refer to ... aren't.
 
Either that, or you're selectively hearing their message to agree with your preconceived political notions.
 
You can't argue with the hard evidence that the writer and many scientists have presented: CO2 is helpful to global plant growth, more is better for the greening of the planet, and CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas. These are facts.
 
Whether mankind pollutes the planet into extinction will not depend on generation of CO2. This is the only point being discussed here.
Neil Lock Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:41am
Absolutely spot on, William. I've been a skeptic since, back in 2008, I spent a month or so of evenings going back and forth between the websites on opposite sides of the issue. Not being an expert in the detail of the subject, I sometimes couldn't tell which side was right on technical issues (although, having been trained long ago as a mathematician, I could pick up some of the worst bloopers). But eventually I came to realize that the tone of the debate was very different on the two sides. The skeptics argued the facts, while the alarmists, whenever it looked as if they would be out-argued, resorted to insinuations and ad hominems. At the risk of a pun, the alarmists preferred to play the Mann, not the Ball. That’s what initially made me come down on the skeptical side. And since then, when I hear the arguments on either side, I look at the tone as well as, and perhaps more than, the arguments. In all that time, I haven’t found any reason to change the basis of my view!
 
BTW, NASA has actually been publishing stuff like this for a while now. Have a look at https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/index.php.
 
Bill H. Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:15am
NASA has also published the following:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2651/greenland-melt-speeds-east-coast-sea-level-rise/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
And this one that pretty much states NASA's (and many other scientific organization's) position on climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It pretty much depends on the info the one wants to find, or the info that is most comfortable for one to believe.
 
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:34am
Bill H,  "It pretty much depends on the info the one wants to find, or the info that is most comfortable for one to believe."
 
Actually, that video has been circulated by the cult-left mainstream media recently stating it shows proof of global warming.
I happened to see the CNN and MSNBC tag and thought, OK.  Let's have it.  Perhaps there is something compelling here.
 
It was funny because these left wings hacks (like yourself) were saying how this video demonstrated a global warming trend but never realized that the retreating ice they were seeing was only a seasonal change.  LOL  They just assumed the video was on repeat showing retreating ice for 20 years.  Hillarious.
 
Talk about lame-stream media being so completely stupid.  I was amazed at how stupid they were at first but then realized how amazing that video really is . . . showing NO evidence of global warming for 20 years!
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:39am
Professor:
 
#1  Yes
#2  Democratic mostly
#3  Politics heavily influences NASA's objectives.  I think they have wrong far too many times.  I have an article here about this.
#4  I don't know
#5  You are asking a rhetorical question which you already have an answer. 
Science is not a voting contest.  When people start believing that, they have become part of the alt-science cult.
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:41am
Thanks, Neil.  Yes, I have been reluctant to go on NASA's website for the past 10 years.  So full of alt-science and publicity crap which I have no use.
I have been hugely critical of NASA (previous article about this).
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:43am
Thanks, Nancy.  I agree.  When some well-known scientists started calling people evil for being skeptical about AGW I knew we were no longer practicing science which at its precept invites skepticism.
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 11:44am
Yes Sir Kerem.  A cult it has become.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:25pm
Stockton - thanks for posting this article.  It still amazes me that so many people believe that all academics/government employees are incorruptible angels while everyone in the private sector is a crook.  Anyone who thinks that $26 BILLION/year in federal funding with the sole requirement for award being "confirmation of AGW" and we should expect objective results is a fool. 
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:32pm
@ Bill H. -- Those are great supporting links Sir. Thank you.
Phil's Personal Perspectives Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:37pm
I took the time to view the video.  Seeing the same video leads us to two different conclusions.  Regardless you state that the scientists who see global warming and also a human connection  “having been blown to hysterical proportions” is not something I have seen from scientists who agree with the research or oppose it.  Politicians and unfortunately some religious types have sought to discredit this research.  Neither of these are qualified to speak on the topic although both have the right to do so.  Thought and integrity in what we say is needed at this present time.  Could I respectfully request you view the video again?
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:37pm
@ William -- 
 
I do put some fluctuating validity and weight in cumulative scientific consensus. "Fluctuating" in that the Scientific Method and the Historical Method (just two examples) almost never make conclusions with 100% certainty. Doing so is naive given that all scientists, all politicians, and all other fields of occupation and "expertise" consist of imperfect human beings which are ever evolving -- hopefully for the better! Hahaha!
 
Thanks William for your reply Sir.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:41pm
@ Phil's Personal Perspective --
 
Good, valid points Sir. Thank you.
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:52pm
William - I respect your scientific training, which is why I must protest your misreading of this visualization. On just one point in your litany of observations that you gleaned from the video, you state:  No permanent retreat of the polar ice.
 
While I would have phrased your observation as no seasonal retreat of the polar ice after summer, I used a simple observational technique to monitor the video. After the second season, I placed my computer cursor on the blue / white dividing line just north of the Alaska/Canada border. I then let the video run, leaving the cursor in place. By the end of the 20 year cycle, the seasonal blue that appeared was several hundred kilometers north of where it was 20 years ago.
 
To me, that simple observational technique negates your simplistic analysis of the video.
 
I'm convinced that it is those who are opposed to climate science conclusions who are the religious fanatics, unable to face facts that would indicate that maybe, just maybe we are not good stewards of the environment, and it might not be a good idea to release back into the environment all of the carbon that had been sequestered through geological time within a few hundred year period.
Dave Volek Added Nov 29, 2017 - 12:54pm
William
 
Thanks for posting this video. Qualitatively I could not see any change in the snow/ice cover, which should be more apparent given the amount of fear mongering happening. It would be interesting to have some scientist(s) actually taking the maximum snow/ice cover areas of each year and conducting a statistical analysis. Our eyes may not be able to see a 5% or 10% decline.
 
Probably 20 years ago, I surmised that if CO2 levels are rising, the plants would be happier. But as someone not influential in these things and in the world of political correctness, this question was ignored. But I see other scientists are bringing up this point often.
 
 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 29, 2017 - 1:33pm
All these weather related anecdotes and superficial physical observations are moot. The RGHE theory is fundamentally flawed.
 
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Galileo Galilei

 
The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.
 
That delta 33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE "theory" in right behind it.
 
The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers' money. Maybe that's what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.
 
The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
 
Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don't apply.
 
The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That's hot. Sort of.
 
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
 
But an object's albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
 
The Earth's albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun's 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to "warm" the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
 
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
 
The Earth's albedo/atmosphere doesn't keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
 
Bring science, I did. (6,400 views and zero rebuttals.)
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
 
Mike Haluska Added Nov 29, 2017 - 1:56pm
For those of you who like to point at hurricanes and heat waves and cite them as "proof" of AGW, explain this:
 
https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2017-11-28-siberia-colder-than-minus-60-degrees-in-november
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 29, 2017 - 2:01pm
NSIDC and Climate4you show both polar ices well within historical variations. ZERO significant trend. BTW Antarctic sea ice goes from 3E6 km^2 to 18E6 km^2 and BACK - EVERY YEAR!!! Arctic sea ice accumulates because some gets trapped between the adjacent land masses. It's the tilted axis that causes the swings.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 2:04pm
@ Even A Broken Clock --
 
As you are a "retired chemical engineer," and know something about scientific protocols and methods, I would think (assume?) you have something to say about how climate change is measured and determined. Nevertheless and on that note, another good, valid comment IMO Sir. Well done.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 29, 2017 - 2:15pm
Taboo -
 
The very thought that some "scientist" has a thorough comprehension of the Earth's climate system is laughable.  Forget about CO2 - the energy output of the Sun, the Earth's orbit around the Sun, volcanic activity and other major contributors are random, unpredictable variables that have FAR more impact on climate than any trace atmospheric gas! 
 
If we can't determine what the energy output of the Sun will be in the year 2143 HOW IN THE HELL CAN WE PREDICT THE CLIMATE???
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 2:32pm
To Nicholas Shroeder --
 
You quoted Galileo Galilei:
 
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

A very nice quote. I'm a big fan of him, Copernicus, Kepler, and a number of others from centuries back. However, in the context of William Stockton's post here and the ongoing comments/discussion, I'd like to place ANOTHER lens on your Galileo quote...
 
I must agree with how Galileo meant and intended those words regarding forms of Orthodoxy. Galileo I think would agree that orthodoxy does NOT make something or certain paradigms and ideologies true. For example, look at the world's 5 major religions and their millions/billions of adherents. All five religions claim exclusive rights to absolute truth and divinity. But for many good, sound reasons under those claims, not all of them can all be inerrantly correct! Could there exist various forms and levels of truth scattered about, but not exclusively to one singular truth/religion? HAH! There might just be some (temporary) comfort and degrees of truth amongst many independent "expert" groups with orthodoxy or sound methods of investigation, scrutiny, critical-thinking to test and retest, & perpetual peer-review. Yet, what truly defines "independent" and what defines bias and partiality?
 
My final point is this. Though Galileo spoke those words quite reasonably, there is also a LOT to be said for the "humble reasoning of MANY a single individual," being part of a group of peer-reviewing experts on each other in order to more objectively hedge against human errors and bias. I would think so, but that's my personal anecdotal opinion among all the same here. LOL
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 2:48pm
@ Mike Haluska --
 
I think you are missing or misunderstanding my original point, my initial comment to William Stockton's post, and subsequent comments.
 
I am not at all claiming to be a climatologist, meteorologist, geologist, biologist, or any scientific discipline relavent to Earth's health. My field of expertise is in psychology (human nature), history, philosophy, and bibles (all holy manuscripts). I simply listen to and read all sides of an issue/debate, consider the cumulative consensus both past and present, the CV's of all those experts, then if there's sufficient consensus one way or the other, I'll make my current position based upon what humanity's experts -- outside of my own fields -- have determined, or not determined.
 
Perhaps your scientific-data comments need to be directed to someone they'd apply to and be appropriate for? I can't argue one way or the other about the content of your comment(s). Thank you Sir for your understanding in this.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 29, 2017 - 3:32pm
I wonder what the author thinks defines him as a scientist. I've debated this issue with him ad nauseum. If he's a scientist (lab assistant to a high school biology teacher maybe; works as a tech or engineer in some narrow field that involves some aspects of science, who knows?), I'm from another planet. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he fails completely to understand the most elementary high school science.
 
I'm not a scientist either. He uses the fact that I've been teaching music after I retired eleven years ago to pretend that means I don't know any science either (except he leaves out the "either", since he pretends to be one). However, I got the a substantial award in freshman physics for having the highest grade that year, competing against quite a few other straight A students. I worked in electronics for ten years. I keep up with all the latest scientific developments in a wide variety of fields. This guy can't because he doesn't understand any of it with any depth at all.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 29, 2017 - 3:58pm
I live in Chicago area where the time delay of winter and summer thermal resistance results in about a 6 month delay and a frost line that averages less then two feet.  To be save for construction three feet is used.   The ocean surface heated by the sun has a time constant for the currents like the gulf stream.  A quick look on the web put the recirculation time of water in the oceans at about 1000 years.  The land will have a time constant of at least one order of magnitude.   This is a big dampener for variations in the heat put out by the sun that is fluctuating and the effects of volcanos.   
 
The point is that twenty years is insignificant to determine anything about global temperature.  However the time constant of plants.  The ability to spread is measured in decades.  So the take back or loss of land by plants is measureable in two decades.  
Mike Haluska Added Nov 29, 2017 - 4:43pm
Taboo -
 
I apologize if you interpreted my comments as directed at you personally.  I meant to direct them at the group of people claiming to have knowledge that nobody can possess - the comprehension and subsequent means to control or "repair" the Earth's climate system.
 
As I have stated many times, it is not so much the conclusions the AGW proponents draw but their methodology.  In addition, the tactics of trying to stifle any debate on the subject with statements like:
 
- "the science is settled"
- "the debate is over"
- "97% of scientists agree"
 
and attempts to disparage and condemn skeptics with name-calling like "DENIER" or "FLAT EARTHER" is troubling and destroys their credibility.  The desperation of these frauds was never more evident than when the Obama Administration's Attorney General actually considered rounding up and criminally prosecuting "Climate Change Deniers"! 
 
In closing, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize winning scientist to recognize crappy science.  No legitimate scientist would make the above statements or accusations of skeptics.  No legitimate scientist would substitute "Consensus Science" for Scientific Method.  No legitimate scientist would substitute "correlation" for "causality".  No legitimate scientist would continue to support a theory whose forecast vs. reality record for the past 40 years has been abysmally and totally wrong.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 4:53pm
To Mike Haluska --
 
No problem Mike. No worries. I thought that since you address it to me "Taboo" you were speaking directly to me. I apologize for my confusion. LOL
 
Have a great day Sir.  :)
Robert Wendell Added Nov 29, 2017 - 5:08pm
Haluska said, "In closing, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize winning scientist to recognize crappy science."
 
But if you want to see some crappy "science", read this! It doesn't have anything to do with how CO(2) actually functions in the atmosphere. It ignores that CO(2) absorbs kinetic heat (thermal heat that has a temperature) and radiates it as infrared heat (electromagnetic energy that has no temperature and is fundamentally different from thermal heat).
 
This is high school physics. The article is based on total scientific ignorance of this simple fact, as is the author's 'piss in the ocean" attempt at an absurdly irrelevant metaphor that only appeals to others equally as ignorant.
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:16pm
Wendell,
LOL.  Ok so let's assume I don't meet your science requirements to be called a scientist.  And let's assume, according to you, this article is "piss in the ocean" science.
It wouldn't take a scientist to post a link to a NASA video while asking everyone else to download and view the NASA information themselves . . . draw their own conclusions.  Any non-scientist can and should do this themselves.  Moreso, that video doesn't require a math degree, a science degree, nor a scientist to find changes to our planet that is proposed to be caused by CO2 emissions.  It's as simple as "where's Waldo" Wendell . . . even a person as simple as yourself should be able to present a decent retort (as opposed to insults and abusive comments).
 
You are and always have been an abusive person here towards people with which you don't agree.  
Robert Wendell Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:19pm
OK, "...changes that is supposed to be caused..." Hmm, I see you're an English genius, too. Forget it, pal. I'm sick of messing around with absolute %$#*&^)!s
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:27pm
Dave,  "Qualitatively I could not see any change in the snow/ice cover, which should be more apparent given the amount of fear mongering happening"
 
Excellent summary.  (Qualitatively) And this being the full intent of the article.  The bigger picture.  The context.  I think NASA earned brownie points for posting it.  I hope this is a trend and they are becoming less political about these important science questions.
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:34pm
Thomas,  "The point is that twenty years is insignificant to determine anything about global temperature.  However the time constant of plants.  The ability to spread is measured in decades.  So the take back or loss of land by plants is measureable in two decades.  "
 
Great point.  I agree that two decades is long enough to see CO2 impact on flora.  I think NASA posted this for this very reason but may still have a political deficit for not explicitly stating as such.  Nowhere in their literature did they note the increase in flora relating to an increasing abundance of in CO2.
 
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:48pm
Clock,  "By the end of the 20 year cycle, the seasonal blue that appeared was several hundred kilometers north of where it was 20 years ago. 
To me, that simple observational technique negates your simplistic analysis of the video."
 
My review of this video was entirely qualitative.  Nowhere did I do a quantitative analysis.  This was a "big picture" look at our planet for the last 20 years (thanks to NASA).   If you find changes that you interpret as global warming induced . . . ok.  I don't see these big changes . . . other than the increase in flora.
 
I invited you (as I expect did NASA) to review the video and make your own conclusions.  
 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 29, 2017 - 9:55pm
Wendell, you were born a vulgar dick head and after all these years still have zero science.
William Stockton Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:28pm
Yes Mike,  "No legitimate scientist would make the above statements or accusations of skeptics."
 
If only people were to understand.  The very reason science is the only discipline that has successfully moved humans forward is solely because of the lonely skeptic . . . not the condensed majority of like-minded minions.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:30pm
For some needed perspective...
 
Writer Beat and those posters/authors which participate here are for the most part simple individuals with internet 1st Amendment rights:  everybody, including those with less-than a high school education or slightly higher can post their individual opinions and anecdotes.
 
In wide-open forums like this here it is common that a very high percentage of Writer Beat authors/participants have no credentials which warrant or demonstrate publication in specialized publications like scientific journals or reputable book publishers -- despite that even today a 5th grader can find some publishing company to print their work, not because it is necessarily exemplary, scholarly, literary work on the level of a Pulitzer Prize, but because it will garner them revenues and profits -- and thus, the high majority of Writer Beat participants have insufficient scholarly credentials to be labelled as "experts" unless they can adequately prove otherwise. So...
 
It should be remembered, particularly with subjects like this, there is honestly LITTLE expert scholarly posts and comments. One obvious reason the REAL scholarly experts (with provable credentials) do NOT participate here is because one, too many turn the subject & discussions into irrelavent personal attacks, opinions, and anecdotes... (a waste of time)
 
...which all of humanity is qualified to do and Americans -- with their 1st Amendment privilege -- like to take full advantage of that "open mic" whether their content is worthy, valid, and truthful or not. I guess they have that internet right. Personal opinions are a penny-a-dozen. Everybody has one, but it doesn't make what they're claiming or postulating as true.
 
IMHO, I think it's important to keep these things in proper perspective. But that's just MY personal opinion. Hahahaha!  :P
Robert Wendell Added Nov 29, 2017 - 10:58pm
Good post, Mr. Taboo. But remember, credentials aren't everything. I know people with stellar credentials who can't understand the most elementary principles of logic, science, or much of anything but rote information, much of which is actually disinformation. On the other hand, I know people with a high school education who know more about just about everything than 99.99% of our population does.
Simply Jews Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:46am
William, thank you for the pointed. I have looked at the video and made two snapshot: first and last winters available. I have been flipping back and forth between the two, and here are the results.
 
As you say, the vegetation expansion and density change are quite impressive. 
There is more snow cover in the southern parts of USA (Mexico too?)
The Northern China/Mongolia got less snow that last winter.
The Southern part of Western Europe got more snow.
The snow issue might be less significant than the following two:
The Antarctic ice/snow cover has grown, which is in accordance to most available data sources. Not explained so far, not to my knowledge.
 
But, and this is a significant but: there is a definite retreat of ice cover between Greenland and the North America. And there is even more significant retreat of ice starting with north Atlantic and into the Arctic ocean, north of Scandinavia and Russia. This retreat matches what is reported about much easier passage of ships through the Arctic Ocean.
 
A trivial non-scientific observation will be that the GW "favors" the Northern hemisphere. Not explained so far.
 
Oh, and by the way, the Russians, both in European and Asian parts of their little corner of the world, suffered one of the coldest summers on record and now into one of the coldest winters. Go figure..., but it is, of course, not proof of anything.
Simply Jews Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:47am
William, thank you for the pointed. Pointer, for crying out loud.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 7:06am
One only needs political science to see the AGE agenda for what it is. It was planned, to create a unifying ideology for world government. The writings of HG Wells from the 30's show this, The Report From Iron Mountain shows this, The Next Global Revolution shows this. It is about the creation of a communist world government, not about saving the earth. Never mind the physical sciences (evidence based) which show us the same thing- that AGW is phoney.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 7:09am
Professor Taboo: One can make a point and back it up fairly without permission from the scientific experts. Experts do not always work in humanities best interest. Experts do not know the difference between right and wrong any better than ordinary folks. You do not have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2 isn't 5.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 7:14am
also re: "In wide-open forums like this here it is common that a very high percentage of Writer Beat authors/participants have no credentials which warrant or demonstrate publication in specialized publications like scientific journals or reputable book publishers -"
 
These accredited intellectuals often like to swim in their own excrement and want everyone else to jump in based on only the credentials of those already in the pool.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:19am
To Robert Wendell --
 
Thanks Robert. I realize this will be a tangent not too related to William's post here so please bear with me.
 
I think you are also right Robert, there are usually "exceptions" to every rule if there is enough time allowed/given for it to (slightly?) modify or change or cease to exist -- pluralism vs. monism. The latter (monism) rarely exists (or not at all; never did) over a long period of time (century; millenia) because human sensory-receptors function primarily for/in quick, tiny, prioritized, short windows of time for its immediate and near-future survival. In those windows things, events, etc, in our small environment do not appear to change. But they do indeed every second, hour, day, month, year, decade, ad infinitum.
 
Therefore, "credentials" certainly don't tell the full, exhaustive story of a person's experience; they are a summary. Yes, there are also those individuals with above-average skills and savvy with enormous amounts of "knowledge" by comparisons, yet they have not been evaluated by a related panel of experts/peers giving them license to scholarly(?) knowledge, skills, or experience. In fact, Agnotology is a utterly fascinating new field of science I personally find extremely relavent in the evolution of knowledge/ignorance in which humanity is in dire need of much improved understanding! But that's an entirely different, lengthy topic not appropriate for this post & comments.
 
So Robert, we are still back to the purpose and function of what defines license, scholar, expert, and WHO is qualified to measure them? Someone or people no one has ever heard about before... or someone/those who have done exceptional exemplary legwork & homework, so to speak, demonstrating (published) to many they know what they're talking about and have verifiable proven track-record to support their views. We are ALL responsible for how we develope our own areas of expertise, as well as recognizing (and when to concede) when we don't have license or expertise in several/many fields of knowledge/ignorance. Writer Beat is certainly not the "internationally acclaimed" forum for discussions, for reasons you've pointed out Robert. IMPO it is similar to Facebook or Twitter. LOL
 
Thanks again for your thoughts and comment Sir.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:24am
@ Doug Plumb --
 
You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion Doug. No problems here with you speaking up with the rest of us.  :)
 
Btw, I'm curious about your personal profile here so I'll go peruse a bit. Thanks for sharing those links, email, and your Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering! Most/many WB members don't openly divulge any CV info. Thanks.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:42am
I noticed the NASA Logo is not in this "supposed" NASA produced video which it usually is. For the 1st Time, Trump appointed a Politician and Climate Change denier to head NASA.
 
target="_blank">Here's a real NASA video saying the exact opposite to the assertions in this article.
target="_blank">Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles
If anyone followed the link above to the real NASA website, there are significant differences in the page used to support this article. This is the Internet, and there is a lot of fake information being disseminated to sway thinking and perceptions.
 
target="_blank">Sudden changes at the EPA, USDA, and CDC under Trump, explained
Government scientists are being ordered not to talk about their research — and it’s only week one.
 
Trump's Budget Director appointed to be interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in the past, echoing the Banks, called for the Agency to be disbanded.
This fits the pattern of Trump appointing a big Pharma Executive salesman to head Health & Human Services. He's a Lawyer, not a Doctor.
 
Trump's outrageous tweets garner the news and distract, while his systemic deconstruction of the US government continues surreptitiously, below the Public radar.
Under Trump, the Constitutional wall between Church and State is being disassembled with the mindset of his Fundamentalist Christian appointees at all levels of government, especially in the  writing of Laws areas.
All Trump wants is unquestioned adoration. The Christian Fundamentalists who made it an article of the US Americanized Jesus Christian Faith to support Trump, provide that, and are using Trump as the back door to get control of government while the people don't notice or pay attention.
 
The Founding Fathers knew the evils of Europe when the Church was the State. Henry VIII, being the 1st king to break with the Pope of Rome, was head of State and head of the Church.
They did not want to discourage Genuine and True Faith in Christ and God.
They knew when the Church was the State, True Christians pointing out the hypocrisy and sins of the Church, were marked for Death. But from their recent experience, they knew how bad it could be, when  the Church has the power to silence dissenting voices.
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 9:49am
Ray,  I noticed the NASA Logo is not in this "supposed" NASA produced video which it usually is. For the 1st Time, Trump appointed a Politician and Climate Change denier to head NASA.
 
Check the URL of the video . . . do you see "NASA.gov" in there?
The data used to create the video spans multiple presidential eras.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:11am
Wendell - would you please give up on the "thermo questionnaire" as proof of anything?  You can't find fault with my exposition of the fraudulent scientific PRACTICES of the AGW, so you create a diversion that is irrelevant.  And rather than honestly acknowledge that your education, credentials and practical experience are no match for mine you try to demean and marginalize them.  Poor grasp of Scientific Method, invalid logic and overall intolerance make you a lousy debater.  
 
Maybe you should go and retire to one of the "Plastic Islands" in the Pacific Ocean you once claimed were a "scientific fact"?  Or maybe you can just be thankful that you haven't bet your 401k for the past 40 years on the accuracy of the AGW "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts"?  If your 401k portfolio value was linked to AGW "Imminent Doomsday Forecast" accuracy, you wouldn't be able to afford a computer, much less the $25/month internet connection charges.  
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:15am
Simply,
Good review.  As well, I saw differences from year to year.  Some areas had increased snowpack in one year and less in a subsequent year. 
 
 I looked for are global trending signals.  The increase in flora globally was a trend that was starkly evident and spanned multiple years.  I didn't see one year where flora did not have some increase from its previous.
I paid particular attention to Greenland.  There had been so many predictions of Greenland becoming ice-free by 2020.  When in fact, Greenland's glacier growth has increased.
 
http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/24/warming-defied-greenland-glacier-growth-over-past-5-years-polar-bears-leaving-early-for-ice/#sthash.LEvHI3QI.dpbs
Robert Wendell Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:22am
Haluska, if you don't even bother to look up information about the difference between thermal heat and radiant heat and their completely difference natures, you are a total fool. Never mind that you didn't even have such elementary knowledge in the first place. This is equivalent to claiming to be a literary critique, but one who can't even read and refuses to learn. That whole article is so stupid it's not funny!
Robert Wendell Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:23am
different natures
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:27am
Taboo,
. . . and thus, the high majority of Writer Beat participants have insufficient scholarly credentials to be labelled as "experts" unless they can adequately prove otherwise.
 
Who on writerbeat is calling themselves an expert?  Besides you posting off-topic, what makes you an expert to be able to judge whether or not a person is an expert? 
Ya . . . I'd say you could find other forums on the internet that enjoy petting their pedigrees while vigorously stroking their credentials.
You seem to be the type inclined to do so "Professor" . . . while hiding behind your alias.
 
Experts are everywhere.  Any good mother, having raised a family, should be a qualifier for your esteemed label.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:34am
Stockton - thanks for the supportive post.  My "Bullshit Alarm" is automatically triggered whenever someone tries to extinguish or avoid skepticism.  Legitimate science and engineering WELCOMES skepticism!
 
If I am designing a bridge that is supposed to safely transport millions of drivers per year 150 ft above a river or gorge, I WANT to know if someone sees a flaw in the design or something I didn't take into account.  Unlike the AGW frauds:
  
- I NEVER insult anyone pointing out a problem in my design and call them "DENIERS". 
- I NEVER start a design of ANYTHING with a pre-determined conclusion and then look only at data that fits my pre-determined design.
- If I run a computer load model and it disagrees with reality, I don't "fudge" the coefficient variables until I get my "pre-determined design".  ONE CASE where model doesn't agree with REALITY - then the entire design is under scrutiny . . . REALITY IS ALWAYS THE FINAL ARBITER, WE DON'T GET TO DISMISS 40 YEARS OF LOUSY FORECAST VS. REALITY RESULTS LIKE THE AGW FRAUDS!!!
- I would NEVER risk my professional reputation by fudging data and publishing studies that fit a "template" that secures additional research grant funding.  I don't care how many people are involved in a "Peer Review" - trusting "consensus" is NOT part of legitimate science. 
 
And if Wendell, Bill H, et al, think they "know better" I frankly couldn't care less.   
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:44am
Ya Mike.  I laughed my ass off reading Wendell's definition of "heat".
 
"kinetic heat (thermal heat that has a temperature)"
 
All heat is kinetic (molecules in motion).  However, Wendell enjoys using his "extra" words to sound more knowledgeable.  He has no clue that when he delves into disciplines in which he has no education or experience, his use of "extra" qualifiers reveals his ignorance.
He should stick to music topics. 
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:53am
To William Stockton --
 
I don't think there is any need for you to get hyper-sensitive on a social-media site slash OpEd forum. Challenges to a theory (like this post or comments) are very much needed (required?) for the advancement and evolution of knowledge and the decrease of ignorance, e.g. Agnotology. Challenging a theory or position isn't in and of itself an insult, IF the wording is tactful. It's when tactlessness or crassness enter that productive dialogue, learning, and humility wanes, unfortunately.
 
That said, it is probably recommended that people/posters who choose to participate on a platform such as Writer Beat have very thick skin for EXACTLY your type of response just now. Respectfully William, by this type of response from you you've only brought the integrity of your post/article lower. It wasn't necessary in my opinion. To reiterate the point of my later comments and this one, I was merely offering another lens on the subject and comments of the subject for the sake of broader perspective -- there is no such thing as monism, IMPO.  :)
 
I hope that brings more clarity and a return to some maturity here. Thanks William and enjoy your day.
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:57am
Taboo,  "by this type of response from you you've only brought the integrity of your post/article lower"
 
Should make it more convenient for you to jump off.  Cheers
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:13am
Mike, And if Wendell, Bill H, et al, think they "know better" I frankly couldn't care less.   
 
Guys like Wendell are the Trunk Monkeys of Writerbeat.  Anytime someone disagrees with their worldviews, they climb out of hiding and land their best blow on the person driving a differing opinion.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:21am
Stockton -
 
Where did you find the "Trunk Monkey" commercials?  Frakkin' hysterical!!!
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:24am
@ William Stockton --
 
Hahahaha! That was actually a good retort.  ;)
 
Thanks for the suggestion, but I can decide on my own when to leave WB, like anyone else can. It does, however, make me much less interested in what I thought might be a interesting educational post and dialogue. But I was wrong, huh? Nevertheless, all noted for future postings.
 
Cheers to you too Sir.
Bill H. Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:27am
 
Actually, the video makes the issue of disappearing pack ice north of Asia even more obvious. You (some) will see this in the video beginning about 2001.
Not saying I "know better". It is just something that is obvious to those who are open. I know exactly where you and a few others out here are planted. 
Robert Wendell Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:41am
The difference between electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum and sensible heat that has a temperature is not anyone's opinion or worldview. It is such basic science that it is taught in high school physics. Infrared radiation is exactly the same kind of phenomenon as radio waves or light in the ultraviolet spectrum. It is not heat until it strikes some kind of material, whether gas, liquid, or solid.
 
We call it heat because our skin is a material. When infrared radiation touches our skin, it instantly converts to molecular motion that has a temperature and that we can feel. Before that, it is just like any other kind of electromagnetic radiation. What makes it unique is that its wavelengths are a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is easily absorbed by material and converted into sensible heat. In the physical sciences this is distinguished by calling it thermal heat. Hot material also radiates heat as infrared, which again is electromagnetic radiation and not essentially different in character from radio waves, differing only in its wavelengths. But when you put your hand near the burner on an electric stove, this electromagnetic radiation emitted from the burner material turns back into sensible heat the instant it touches your skin. That's why it is called radiant heat, even though it is not really heat until it touches your skin, hence the terms radiant and thermal heat. 
 
Haluska's childish verbiage about "thermo-thermo bunk" does not hide his ignorance from any scientifically knowledgeable person, scientist or not. He is completely clueless about this elementary distinction. His article I provided a link for is based on this ignorance and is consequently completely irrelevant to climate change. You can't understand the first thing about climate change without understanding this distinction. To ignore this distinction is like pretending that your battery has light in it because when you hook it to a bulb, the bulb lights up.
 
That is an exactly parallel analogy for Haluska's ignorance and tht of anyone else who thinks his article has some relevance to climate change. Haluska will almost certainly attempt to "debunk" this analogy because it's different from what it is an analogy for. Of course, that blithely ignores that all analogies are different from what they are analogy for. The difference between infrared radiation and thermal heat is nevertheless just as fundamental as the difference between potential energy chemically stored in a battery and the light it produces when tapped to light up a bulb.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 12:11pm
Wendell - all of your "pontificating" doesn't change one iota regarding your inability to refute anything I stated regarding the crappy science practiced by the AGW proponents.  Attempting to disparage my argument with an "attack" on my knowledge of thermodynamics is irrelevant and you know it.
 
I don't pretend to be an "expert" on climatology and neither are you.  I have quite a bit of education and practical experience regarding the application of Scientific Method - more than enough to know if it is being practiced or ignored.  I'm not here to debate whether or not your ideas on thermodynamics are relevant or even valid.  All I have ever stated was:
 
1) AGW proponents do not practice Scientific Method
2) Their methods are highly suspect as are their conclusions
3) Their "forecasts" have NEVER been validated in reality
4) They have been repeatedly exposed for fraudulently manipulating data and placing equal value on Proxy data and direct data
5) Their refusal to debate and castigation of skeptics is indicative of people who are committing fraud and don't want to be exposed - NOT of legitimate scientists
 
Now I know you will reply with some "heat exchange" rationalization as to why everyone should just ignore what I have been saying.  Legitimate scientists will reject your argument and those who accept don't merit my consideration as worth worrying about.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 12:16pm
Bill H -
 
If technology permitted, you would see the EXACT SAME ice pack retreating and reappearing going on for hundreds of thousands of years.  What you ought to be questioning is why the literally THOUSANDS OF "Imminent Polar Ice Completely Melting" forecasts made that have never been even REMOTELY ACCURATE!!! 
Robert Wendell Added Nov 30, 2017 - 12:27pm
Haluska, your ignorance and a metaphorical part of your anatomy are showing. Heat exchange has only to do with thermal energy and nothing to do with the radiative transfer properties of CO(2). This is not only relevant, but essential to even the most broad understanding of the behavior of CO(2) in earth's atmosphere. All your clueless babbling about scientific method only ends up describing how utterly unscientific your own means of (dis)information gathering are.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 12:38pm
Willian Stocton writes, "Ray,  I noticed the NASA Logo is not in this "supposed" NASA produced video which it usually is. For the 1st Time, Trump appointed a Politician and Climate Change denier to head NASA.
 
Check the URL of the video . . . do you see "NASA.gov" in there?
 
Yes, I do see https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4596 in there, but you do not address my main point of contention, "https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles" directly contradicts the the video you are using from NASA as the premise for this article.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 30, 2017 - 1:45pm
Since your throwing AGW around and assuming everyone knows its meaning. AGW stood for: Anthropogenic Global Warming, Caused by humans Global Warming.  So how do scientist prove global warming in the first place and then how do they determine the cause?  I pointed out that the time constant of the planet and ocean are way beyond the time period we are collecting data since the start of the industrial revolution 1800s, basically 200 years. 
 
Air time constant is much lower but is effected by many things and can change quickly.  The weather models out forecast of  short term weather changes have been improving but the margin of error is still large quite often for predicting more then one day in advance.  The forecasters have multiple models and they disagree because the assumption for missing information are all different.   The longer term models are by extension built on similar assumptions and we can see that they are even less accurate and very even more between different models.  
 
It doesn't even take a scientist to know that in effect the models are guessing when predicting weather months in the future and really guessing for predictions measured in years.  For example the track of hurricanes a week or two in advance of land fall.  present a center track for multiple models.   And then a cone of high probability.   Let us be honest.  
 
Climate change has been measured using ice and tree rings and the remains of plants and animals and even the records of man.   The information shows that the climate changes when man was incapable of change it by burning carbon based fuels.    How would we separate non-human climate change from man made climate change when we can not present the reasons for the changes in the past?    The data for past climate changes is just not detail enough to know the cause.
 
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 1:46pm
To Stockton --
 
I've been busy juggling various important tasks this week and only now getting a chance to do some research and background checking. Your WB member-profile here has nothing at all but your name (alias); no details, links, etc. to gain some proper/fair pespective on your post's content. Is there another website or links for this type of information you'd be comfortable in sharing? Thanks.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 3:32pm
To Thomas Sutrina --
 
You wrote:  "Climate change has been measured using ice [-core samples] and tree rings and the remains of plants and animals and even the records of man.   The information shows that the climate changes when man was incapable of change it by burning carbon based fuels.    How would we separate non-human climate change from man made climate change when we can not present the reasons for the changes in the past?    The data for past climate changes is just not detail enough to know the cause."
 
That is a well-written paragraph Thomas followed by a valid question. I tip my hat to you there. As I've already mentioned here, pretending we know (even the good scientists) everything or potentially know everything with 100% certainty throughout all elapsed time, is naive and foolish, as you have alluded. Add to that reality that many, many disciplines and fields of science cross-over with each other and are interrelated -- e.g. neurology, endocrinology, cognitive psychology to name just three -- and in the case of knowledge/ignorance even neural sciences cross-over sometimes into social or Relational sciences.
 
Not to over state the obvious, but is it possible for a human to be an expert in ALL fields and disciplines? Of course not. That is why we should (must?) rely on others with their particular fields/disciplines of expertise. Doing so does NOT mean you accept or embrace hook, line, and sinker a posture or position; that's naive and foolish as well. However, in the evolution of knowledge/ignorance it is very wise to consider all data, their sources, and possible/probable biases, and sometimes we must simply conclude (temporarily) that an issue, question, or theory is "To be determined" or "Insufficient data at this time" while also being cognizant of intentional misdirections or partiality or manufactured doubt in results... as was the case with nicotine and the mega-tobacco industry's interference in the 1970's - 1980's.
 
That said, is 200-300 years of weather-climate data rendered useless? Of course not. But some 1,700 qualified scientists in over 120 different nations all agree, based on many studies of ice-core samples and tree-rings, since the Industrial Revolution, the climate temperature trends are sky-rocketing out of ranges of 10, 20, and 50,000 years. That is their data from many various deep ice-core samples around the world.
 
Any thoughts Thomas about other studies and methodology in light of politicized science and Agnotology? Thank you.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 3:40pm
Wendell - if nothing else, you're consistent.  Problem is you're consistently IRRELEVANT.  It is NOT my responsibility to make the case for effects of CO2 on climate.  Even that is not the issue - it is the effect (if any) on HUMAN generated CO2 on temperature.  Less than 1.5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to human activity - it is quantifiable and verifiable by anyone using commonly available data.  So even if there was some significant effect, the impact of our contribution is NEGLIBLE.
 
Despite your ravings about the properties of CO2, you know as well as I do that NO CAUSAL LINK between CO2 and temperature has ever been established.  All that is ever presented is the TOTAL CO2 volume in relation to Earth temperature, and the correlation between the two has been lowering in the past 20 years.  Despite a rise in CO2, no discernible impact has been made on the Earth's temperature.  You also ASSUME that any change in temperature is directly attributable SOLELY to human generated CO2 - which is just bullshit!
 
You know, I could understand your debating with me if even half of the ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" materialized.  40 years and thousands of ridiculously WRONG forecasts later, you remain solidly in your corner.  The basis of your argument may have been based in intellectual curiosity in the beginning years ago, but it has long since deteriorated into a matter of pride - you can't admit you were duped.  
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 3:43pm
Thomas - thanks for re-enforcing the problem of relying on Proxy Data.  Anyone with half a lick of common sense knows that measuring a tree ring with calipers and claiming that the Earth's Average Temperature that year was 67.8643 degrees Fahrenheit is ludicrous. 
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 3:57pm
Ray -
The very fact you are seeing conflicting data coming from NASA ought to set off your bullshit alarm!  Instead of questioning ALL of the data, you arbitrarily choose the data set that fits your paradigm.  NASA is FAR from being open and objective about their "Climate Change" activity.  The NASA guy who was the "initiator" of their crap was James Hansen - and he has been thoroughly discredited and has walked back one ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecast" after another. 
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:02pm
Wendell - if there was a Pulitzer Prize for gobbledeegook, this would win hands down:
 
"Haluska will almost certainly attempt to "debunk" this analogy because it's different from what it is an analogy for. Of course, that blithely ignores that all analogies are different from what they are analogy for."
 
ANALOGY:
- a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:
                            the analogy between the heart and a pump.
 
SYNONYMS:
- comparison, likeness, resemblance, similitude, affinity
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:06pm
Wendell - why should I (or anyone) bother to "debunk" anything you write when make statements like the one above?  They have the advantage (from my perspective) of being irrational and having the seeds of their own destruction already within.  There's no need to defuse a bomb and then set it off when it pops out of your head primed and armed.
Dave Volek Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:10pm
In wide-open forums like this here it is common that a very high percentage of Writer Beat authors/participants have no credentials which warrant or demonstrate publication in specialized publications like scientific journals or reputable book publishers
 
The trouble is that experts are seldom united in the viewpoints as well. And even when are fairly united, the flock too can be wrong. This "wrongness" is not necessarily bad. Professionals make their best guess with the education, experience, and data they have at hand.
 
I liken this to your favorite car mechanic. Your car has problems; he makes a diagnosis; he does the repair. If the car runs better, that is good. If not, he has to try something else. Hopefully he is making more correct diagnosis than wrong ones. If so, I will keep using him to repair my car. I cannot expect perfection from my mechanic.
 
I believe in AGW and that we should be making a change away from fossil fuels. Whatever my vote and voice are worth, it will go in that direction. In the end, democracy will try its best to find the right answer and/or strike the right balance. But democracy too is not infallible.
 
And I'm not 100% convinced, so I will accept new data and perspectives as it comes in. This NASA shot looks interesting.
 
If anyone says they are 100% convinced in either direction, they must be infallible.
 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:14pm
Wendell - I question your "expertise" when you make silly statements like:
 
"But when you put your hand near the burner on an electric stove, this electromagnetic radiation emitted from the burner material turns back into sensible heat the instant it touches your skin."
 
No - they don't "turn into sensible heat"!  First of all, Latent and sensible heat are types of energy released or absorbed in the atmosphere.  Sensible heat is related to changes in temperature of a gas or object with no change in phase.  The infrared waves strike the water molecules in our flesh and cause them to increase their vibration, thus heat.  A microwave oven works on the exact same principle - the radiation cause the water molecules in the food to vibrate and the food warms up. 
 
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:32pm
Mike, for those not familiar with Dr. Hanson. He has not been discredited, but silenced. For those truly interested in climate science, here is a YouTube video of Dr. Hanson unfiltered in presenting the evidence.

Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming.
 
While Dr. Hansen's scientific standing is unquestionable—he was described by CBS' 60 Minutes as "arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming"¹—administration officials found some of his conclusions politically inconvenient. In a lecture at the December 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Hansen argued that the earth will become "a different planet" without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.² This position conflicted with the Bush administration's policy of opposing mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In January 2006, NASA publicized data showing that 2005 was likely the warmest year in over a century.
 
In January 2006, Dr. Hansen told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that he was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to make similar statements. Revkin reported that George Deutsch, a public affairs officer appointed by the White House, denied a request from National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, calling NPR the country's "most liberal" media outlet and arguing that his job was "to make the president look good."4 Mr. Deutsch later resigned after it was revealed that he had fabricated his own academic credentials.
 
Arguing that his loyalty was to NASA's mission statement, which then read in part "to understand and protect our home planet," Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced. ''Communicating with the public seems to be essential,'' the Times reported him as saying, ''because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."
 
You say to me, "Instead of questioning ALL of the data, you arbitrarily choose the data set that fits your paradigm."
 
So here we have 2 NASA videos. One used as the basis for this article shows there is no discernible loss of the ice shelf at the poles.
 
The one I posted from the same NASA, shows there is record loss of the ice shelf at the poles. 
 
Did William chose the one that arbitrarily chooses data that fits his paradigm?
 
I have read a lot of comments here, but no discussion of which of the 2 NASA video presents the Truth and Reality. They can't both be right.
James E. Unekis Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:38pm
Professor Taboo:
 
My brother works at NASA but on the IT portion of it.    He warned me a year or so ago to watch NASA's  comments on its own data.  It turned out that the year had shown no global warming.  NASA's spin is was that there was a mass faulty reporting problem with the thousands of sensors used to study the problem.
 
Their solution?
 
Since the "science is settled" they decided to alter the sensor data in mass to prove that man-made global warming is continuing.
 
We thought we had is bad with McCarthyism.
 
Uggghhh, the pain of idiot liberals in motion.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:50pm
@ the Professor re "Yes, there are also those individuals with above-average skills and savvy with enormous amounts of "knowledge" by comparisons, yet they have not been evaluated by a related panel of experts/peers giving them license to scholarly(?) knowledge, skills, or experience. "
 
Holy licentiousness Batman!
 
  The grand point that I didn't adequately communicate is that professionals with scholarly credentials are just as likely to be liars as anyone else. There is no reason to assume pro AGW scientists should be trusted because of their credentials.
  It doesn't take a mathematical genius to compare the predictions of AGW science with the actual facts. When you do this you see that its an unsubstantiated science.  Also notice that being pro AGW is partly how a lot of people in the business of intellectualism keep their jobs. Speaking openly about being anti AGW is career suicide. That's not because the crowd is so honest, because honestly implies openness to questions.
  Lots of money for being green. Nestle up to a green politician and you just might get a green grant. That's been true since I was in school in the nineties.
  Common horse sense tells not to be blindly trusting of anyone. You don't need a piece of paper to see the wisdom in that, especially when theories fly into the face of fact. People are afraid of contradictions to their views when they are hiding something.
  Professor, don't forget to get your flu vaccination for the season.
 
 
 
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 4:51pm
Licentiousness is a real word. I didn't just make that up.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 30, 2017 - 5:00pm
re "Ya Mike.  I laughed my ass off reading Wendell's definition of "heat"."
 
The professor has some problematic statements too.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 5:25pm
To Dave Volek --
 
That is an excellent, wise posture/position Dave and I agree with you...
and at least approx. 95% to 97.6372% of what you wrote.  ;)
 
Best regards Dave.  :D
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 5:30pm
To James E. Unekis --
 
That is an interesting comment and report from your brother. I guess it is a very good thing that NASA are not the only "experts" on the subject, eh? The more independent qualified assessments the better!
 
Thanks James.
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 5:47pm
To Doug Plumb --
 
You wrote:  "The grand point that I didn't adequately communicate is that professionals with scholarly credentials are just as likely to be liars as anyone else."
 
That is one personal viewpoint that I won't argue against -- absolutely ANYONE or ANY group/organization are capable under specific conditions to be fraudulent overtly and/or covertly. Bernie Madoff is one prime example and he had no legitimate credentials whatsoever either. LOL
 
Hahahaha, "Licentiousness"... a good word, sure.
 
But I'd much rather you be absolutely blunt, direct, and wide-open to what you REALLY think/feel rather than being vague with "The professor has some problematic statements too." Spell it out precisely what you truly want to say -- this is only the internet and I have no intention of biting anyone. I've worked and helped way too many psych/A&D patients in my life to be rattled or bothered by harmless words, opinions, or feelings. LOL  I'm offering a Carte Blanche invitation to you Doug. Take it away!  ;)
Professor Taboo Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:00pm
Also Doug Plumb --
 
I Googled "Dr. Treekensein" and this is what came back from Google:
 
"Your search - Dr. Treekensein - did not match any documents."
 
Suggestions?
I did manage to locate your blog:  www.dougplumb.blogspot.com
That will require more time to peruse as my time becomes available. Any facts, information, or links you can provide for me to warrant further examination of your personal viewpoints on commentary here would help. Thanks Doug.
mark henry smith Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:25pm
Stockdom, skepticism doesn't make fact either. Some Bush idiot showed me pictures of sea ice and said, see, it's still there, but of course it is, it's just thinner. As ice melts it doesn't magically disappear, it slowly thins, particularly if it is hundreds of feet thick.
 
And the thick headed can't understand that global warming isn't a right now everything heats up phenomenon. It's not as if the world is a toaster oven. The cold radiating out of the polar regions because the circular winds rising to over 20,000 feet, trapping the cold in the dark polar regions during winter are breaking, as warmer polar seas prevent to formation of powerful high pressure systems. The cold leaks down into southern regions.
 
The predictions say that as cold areas melt, the cold water will cool the coasts, but the interior regions will warm dramatically.
 
None of the things you cite mean there isn't global warming. Sea rise is also something you wouldn't see on images from space. We're not talking feet here, we're talking inches, but those inches have had dramatic consequences in ocean front communities around the world. And Alaska is seeing a dramatic change in the seasons. Spring comes a month sooner, fall comes a month later in just forty years.
 
For a scientist, your arguments show a political agenda, not a keen mind for interpreting the data and images you see. But if you begin to be skeptical of both sides and not just a hack, there's hope for you, maybe. Thanks. Anyone who wants lots of comments just throws out the words global warming. Cheap.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:27pm
Robert Wendell notes: I've debated this issue with him ad nauseum. If he's a scientist (lab assistant to a high school biology teacher maybe; works as a tech or engineer in some narrow field that involves some aspects of science,-Wow, just going over this thread, it's the same old crap from the WB climate scientists, all talking around it, condemning anyone who does adopt and applaud like a seal at their crap.  Even "The Moon Shots never happened" conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier Plumb Doug stuck his foot in the sewer. Doug Plumb is hardly a scientist, but bet he does love Alex Jones.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 6:52pm
So all the informed experts here on climate change can't make up their minds.
 
Is this NASA video depicting no shrinkage of the polar ice caps correct?
Is this NASA video depicting record shrinkage of the polar ice caps correct?
 
Time to watch both again and make a choice.
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 30, 2017 - 7:04pm


The whole global warming theory is based on extrapolation from a relatively narrow time period and full of statistical noise, for example temperature data is effected by change in the build up the area.  So city temperature data is skewed.  I lived in Midland Michigan that experience a multi county wide ice storm that took down electric power lines for fifteen to thirty miles around Midland but not one power line fell in Midland.  Why?  Dow Chemical thermal plum created a warm air bubble.  So temperature data collected in Midland would be skewed.  Two years of data would contain a century of no Dow Chemical and then the slow build up of the business over about 70 years.  Further the city know has a nuclear power plant within view of Midland.
 
 In actuality, AGW is the cover story for a political program of increasing the central government power over every day life by controlling all energy generation and consumption.  The global warming enthusiasts base all of their hysteria on the last 50 to 100 years of temperature data.
 
Human activities in the North Atlantic include the settling of Ice Land, Green Land, and stepping foot on North America. during the Medieval Warm Period (950 CE to 1250 CE).   The end of those activities ended during the Little Ice Age (1300 CE to 1850 CE).    This time frame for observations isn't long enough to get a statistically viable pattern.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Bill H. Added Nov 30, 2017 - 7:33pm
 
Correct, Mark-
Sea ice melts from the bottom-up due to increasing ocean temps, so the video doesn't tell most of the story. but the rate of sea level rise certainly does.
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:24pm
Ray,  "Did William chose the one that arbitrarily chooses data that fits his paradigm?"
 
Repeating what I had written to Bill H who also accused me of selection bias . . . 
 
Actually, that video has been circulated by the cult-left mainstream media recently stating it shows proof of global warming.
I happened to see the CNN and MSNBC tag and thought, OK.  Let's have it.  Perhaps there is something compelling here.
 
It was funny because these left wings hacks were saying how this video demonstrated a global warming trend but never realized that the retreating ice they were seeing was only a seasonal change.  LOL  They just assumed the video was on repeat showing retreating ice for 20 years.  Hillarious.
 
Talk about lame-stream media being so completely stupid.  I was amazed at how stupid they were but then realized how amazing that video really is . . . showing NO evidence of global warming for 20 years!
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:36pm
William you are avoiding the issue. The NASA video you chose showing no global warming for the last 20 years, and the graphics show the polar ice caps unchanged from where they were 20 years ago.
 
The other NASA video shows record shrinkage of the ice caps in the same period of Time. They can't both be True. It is one or the other.
 
To speak in terms of left or right on Climate Change politicizes the issue. That is personal inclination not based on science. Did you watch the video of Dr. Henson, formerly the Chief Climate Scientist at NASA? I trust his experience more than yours, mine, or anyone else opinionating here.
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:38pm
mark,  Anyone who wants lots of comments just throws out the words global warming. Cheap.
 
No mark.  Even I am concerned about what we may be doing to our planet by artificially pumping millions of kilos of carbon into the atmosphere each day.  There has to be some impact on the planet.
 
This video is NOT saying there are no impacts.  I have concluded here that the impacts along with the hysteria, which the alt-science has predicted, are not happening like they say.  There is no catastrophe looming.  The video does not show this.
 
You can believe what you want.  But perhaps you can critique the NASA video instead of slamming the messenger.  That sounds appropriate . . . instead, you have been trained very well in the attack dog mentality of the cult left whenever an alternative viewpoint is raised.  Looks more like cult-religious brainwashing to me.
 
This article's goal is to spread new information.  People can decide for themselves.
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:53pm
By the way mark, the ice melting (only) from the bottom up is ridiculous.  The top of the ice is the warmest due to exposure. 
 
There is also something called sublimation (from the top).   The sides are also melting.  The bottom is the last "side" to melt as it is the most protected from the atmosphere and the sun.
 
What we should see from that video is a very visible retraction of the sides of ice sheets as the ice thins.  See Greenland in the video for example.
IPCC had predicted that by 2020, most of Greenland would be ice-free.  LOL
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:58pm
The acceleration is making some scientists fear that Antarctica’s ice sheet may have entered the early stages of an unstoppable disintegration.

Because the collapse of vulnerable parts of the ice sheet could raise the sea level dramatically, the continued existence of the world’s great coastal cities — Miami, New York, Shanghai and many more — is tied to Antarctica’s fate.


Four New York Times journalists joined a Columbia University team in Antarctica late last year to fly across the world’s largest chunk of floating ice in an American military cargo plane loaded with the latest scientific gear.


Inside the cargo hold, an engineer with a shock of white hair directed younger scientists as they threw switches. Gravity meters jumped to life. Radar pulses and laser beams fired toward the ice below.


On computer screens inside the plane, in ghostly traces of data, the broad white surface of the Ross Ice Shelf began to yield the secrets hiding beneath.


“We are 9,000 miles from New York,” said the white-haired engineer, Nicholas Frearson of Columbia. “But we are connected by the ocean.”
 
Miles of Ice Collapsing Into the Sea
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 8:58pm
Ray,  ". . . where they were 20 years ago."
 
geeez!  Did you read the NASA article???  I posted it in this article just so you could read it yourself.  OMG
 
"This Mollweide projected data visualization shows 20 years of Earth's biosphere starting in September 1997 going through September 2017. Data for this visualization was collected from multiple satellites over the past twenty years."
 
Good lord
Dan Pangburn Added Nov 30, 2017 - 9:06pm
Failure to acknowledge that CO2 is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is science incompetence.
Changing measured data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice.
NASA has been misguided.
 
The EPA got GWP wrong (bad logic)
The consensus is blaming the wrong thing for the planet warming (“because this is the only way we can explain the phenomenon, it must be true.”)
The irony is: harming humanity by reducing something, the increase of which has been and is helping humanity.
Meanwhile, the real issue, with potential for disaster, is being ignored.
 
http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
 
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 9:06pm
geeez!  Did you read the NASA article I posted???  I posted it in the comments just so you could read it yourself.  OMG
Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles


Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.
And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.
 
On Feb. 13, the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice numbers were at their lowest point since satellites began to continuously measure sea ice in 1979. Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 – the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico.

William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 9:07pm
Ray, I trust his experience more than yours, mine, or anyone else opinionating here.
 
That's great Ray.  So what are you doing about it?  Has it changed your life?  Are you living energy free?  Pollutionless?  
Your beliefs have done absolutely nothing to change anything . . . much like the global warming hysteria which is starkly contrasted with this new NASA information.
 
I believe we don't need to change a damn thing until the data shows it.  I don't need to "trust" anyone.  
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 30, 2017 - 9:28pm
Comment on Doyle Rice in USA Today comparing calving ice berg in Antarctica to Delaware.
As BIG as Delaware!!! As big as DELAWARE!!! AS big AS DeLaWaRe!!!
Ahhhh, run away, run away!!!
Is this comparison supposed to frighten us into accepting the fake news connection between natural variation and evil CAGW?
How about some FACTS!!!
Delaware 6,452 km^2
Antarctica 14,000,000 km^2
0.046%
Not so SCARY after all.
More of those pesky FACTS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_sea_ice
"The Antarctic sea ice cover is highly seasonal, with very little ice in the austral summer, expanding to an area roughly equal to that of Antarctica in winter. It peaks (~18 — 10^6 km^2) during September, which marks the end of austral winter, and retreats to a minimum (~3 — 10^6 km^2) in February.[1][2] Consequently, most Antarctic sea ice is first year ice, a few meters thick, but the exact thickness is not known. The mass of 18 million km^2 of ice, for each meter of thickness, is 18,000 km^3 and roughly 16 gigatonnes (billion metric tons)."
"Since the ocean off the Antarctic coast is almost always much warmer than the air over it, the extent of the sea ice is largely controlled by the winds and currents that push it northwards. If it is pushed quickly, the ice can travel much further north before it melts. Most ice is formed along the coast, as the northward-moving ice leaves areas of open water (coastal latent heat polynyas), which rapidly freeze."
"The net change is a slight increase in the area of sea ice in the Antarctic seas (unlike the Arctic Ocean, which is showing a much stronger decrease in the area of sea ice)."
Uhhh, no it's absolutely NOT! DMI, NSIDC and Climate4you data show a minimally decreasing trend in the Arctic and virtually zero trend when not cherry picked by beginning in 1979.
And, of course, there is the recent "discovery" of significant volcanic activity under the Antarctic cap which was old news five years past.
 
Seems to me the more clueless and uninformed someone is about an issue the more likely their panties will be in a giant indignant knot, be quacking nonsense out their butts and come unhinged when challenged with facts.
After decades of "climate" scientists (Oz Wizards) predicting the end of polar ice caps, NSIDC reports that the Arctic sea ice is the highest since 2006, Antarctica is gradually adding snow & ice and Greenland is bigly adding snow and ice.
After decades of being so consistently wrong why does the MSM still consider these frauds credible, why are they even still employed?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-expanding-faster-than-normal/
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/11/navy-arctic-ice-free-by-2013/
 
(Ray, you're full of crap.)
Bill H. Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:01pm
William Stockton Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:14pm
Nice post Bill.  haha
When warmer oceans meet cold air, the ice melts from below AND the sides.
That is what the article said.
 
gawd.  Next time read the article before you post trying to make the argument that "ice melts only from the bottom".
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:21pm
There is something mysterious and hot lurking beneath the surface of the Antarctic ice.
Now NASA says that it might have found the source of that strange heating – a “mantle plume” – or upwelling of abnormally hot rock, that lies deep beneath the surface.
The heat is causing the surface of the ice to melt and crack, resulting in rivers and other disruption to Antarctica.
Around 30 years ago, a scientist at the University of Colorado Denver said that there might be a mantle plume under a region of the continent known as Marie Byrd Land. That hypothesis helped explain some strange features seen on the ice, like volcanic activity and a dome.
Antarctica is being rapidly melted from below says Nasa, and it thinks it knows why
Bill H. Added Nov 30, 2017 - 10:45pm
 
William - You show me where I said "ice melts only from the bottom".
I said "ice melts from the bottom-up"
Yes, I'm sure it would include the sides which are in contact with the warmer water, which I neglected to mention (Got me! Got me! Got me!)
 
Robert Wendell Added Nov 30, 2017 - 11:57pm
Quoting from a comment to me by Haluska:
 
Wendell - I question your "expertise" when you make silly statements like:
 
"But when you put your hand near the burner on an electric stove, this electromagnetic radiation emitted from the burner material turns back into sensible heat the instant it touches your skin."
 
No - they don't "turn into sensible heat"!  First of all, Latent and sensible heat are types of energy released or absorbed in the atmosphere.  Sensible heat is related to changes in temperature of a gas or object with no change in phase.  The infrared waves strike the water molecules in our flesh and cause them to increase their vibration, thus heat.  A microwave oven works on the exact same principle - the radiation cause the water molecules in the food to vibrate and the food warms up. 
---- End of quote from Haluska
 
Sensible heat means it has a temperature, just as you finished stating. Infrared is just like microwave heat in that neither the infrared radiation nor the microwave radiation are sensible heat. Sensible heat has nothing to do with latent heat, which is a term strictly associated with phase change as you state.
 
However, in neither the case of microwave radiation or infrared radiation is there any relevance of phase change. And just as you said AND just as I said, the contact of the infrared radiating from the burner element on a stove only turns into sensible heat when it strikes the material that constitutes you skin.
 
So exactly what was it that I said that you think is so "silly"? You basically repeated everything I said, apparently as an intended correction that was very condescending without any justification except your low level of reading comprehension. The only thing you said that was different from what I said was the irrelevant introduction of latent heat, which has nothing to do with anything I said or with radiative transfer.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 1, 2017 - 12:11am
Read my last previous comment and Haluska's reply to it in order to understand the following:
 
Oh, by the way, Haluska, you're crossing up microwaves and infrared, both of which are electromagnetic radiation. However, neither is sensible heat that has a temperature anyone can feel until it converts to thermal heat by striking some gaseous, liquid, or solid material such as skin.
 
It is microwave radiation with a narrow 15 cm wavelength, the resonant wavelength of hydrogen, that excites the hydrogen in water molecules, This shakes them violently to covert their energy to thermal (sensible) heat. Infrared radiation has much shorter wavelengths of a very broad spectrum and excites all kinds of solid, liquid, and gaseous material.
 
Chalk up another of Haluska's miserable and totally misinformed attempts to debunk perfectly clear and simple science any scientifically literate amateur should be able to understand. He probably thinks I had to look this stuff up like he does (but usually misunderstands). No, it's basic knowledge I've had since I was a kid.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2017 - 9:07am
Prof Taboo, re "Dr. Treekenstein" Try spelling it right next time you do a google search.
  Your use of "thermal" was wrong.
  I don't box with shadows. I'm not here for verbal boxing. Your profile says everything I need to know about you. You are just here to be an asshole.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 1, 2017 - 10:17am
Wendell - How clueless are you?  YOU made the statement I highlighted:
 
""But when you put your hand near the burner on an electric stove, this electromagnetic radiation emitted from the burner material turns back into sensible heat the instant it touches your skin."
 
And true to form - NOTHING in your thermo diatribe has ANYTHING to do with the shitty science practiced by the AGW proponents!  You're not fooling anyone with this piss-poor attempt to discredit me.  You just said in a hundred words what I explained in a dozen, thinking yours would sound more "technical" and therefore correct.  You're the worst kind of bamboozler because you're too pompous to admit it!
 
 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 1, 2017 - 11:21am
So sad, Haluska, that your reading comprehension is so utterly pathetic. You don't understand anything, so you pretend it's all nonsense. The electromagnetic radiation from the burner is infrared radiation. When it touches your skin, its energy is converted to thermal heat (sensible heat that has a temperature).
 
That's because your hand is physical material that has molecules that radiation stimulates. So the molecules wiggle (thermal or kinetic heat). If it's strong enough, they even get torn apart (burnt).
 
So, again, what exactly are you finding wrong with what you quote once more from me? And why did you say infrared works via the water molecules in your skin. That's microwave that does that by tuning to the resonant wavelength of hydrogen atoms (15 cm, which is in the radar spectrum and NOT infrared). That's why it also heats plastic (organic hydrocarbon molecules), which you shouldn't use in a microwave oven.
 
Finally, why does your ridiculous article I referenced above with a link pretend that CO(2) acts only on kinetic heat (as in your other goofy metaphor "pissing in the ocean") Both account only for diluting kinetic heat. That incredibly false assumption is the only way that what your stupid article says could ever make any sense at all.
mark henry smith Added Dec 1, 2017 - 12:09pm
Wendell, love your explanations of science.
 
Unfortunately people like Mike and Stockdom are not interested in scientific fact and sound argument, but in belittling the people who make them. Everything gets twisted to support a preconceived notion and experiential evidence is ignored. I was in Alaska. I've talked to the people there. I've looked at the data on seasonal temperature variations. The changes are shocking, not just to me, but to the people who live there. They don't complain, because Alaska is a harsh environment and a warmer climate will make it more hospitable to human life, but the consequences to the wildlife that they feel a bond to worries them. As does the rise in oceans in waterfront communities.
 
Mike and Stockdom, you must have noticed that I agree with you when you say something sensible. I am not an ideologue who judges people by their politics. I believe there are honest, thinking people with good arguments on both sides and I include both of you amongst those. I do not hate you or think you are stupid, but in this case I must view you as sophists and your views on this issue are not only unfounded, but dangerous.     
Dave Volek Added Dec 1, 2017 - 12:28pm
Professor Taboo
 
I read a book by Dr. Steven Pinker, an evolutionary biologist. He said our hunter/gatherer ancestors had developed a risk-averse gene. Those hunter/gatherers who stuck with the "known ways" were likely to live longer than those who took chances. So the risk-averse gene dominates humanity.
 
But in our modern world, we can venture off into many unknown waters and not suffer for it (most of the time). But the risks of the modern world and our risk-averse genes do match very well. According to Dr. Pinker, modern humans really can't evaluate risk very well in modern situations. 
 
This AGW debate is a good example. Either it is 100% happening or it is  0% happening.  No middle ground is allowed. I have tried before on WB to explain a 50/50 scenario, and no one got it.
 
 
 
Professor Taboo Added Dec 1, 2017 - 12:55pm
@ Douglas Plumb --
 
I copied/pasted your title from your own profile here. Perhaps you should correct your spelling on your WB profile. I eventually found it and your other Science Fiction book and read reviews, what little there were. I found your Facebook profile as well since it's so difficult to know who you really are -- which isn't a huge issue due to incessant internet bullying and playground name-calling, e.g. "asshole" LOL -- and found there you "studied" at Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada. Since "studied" isn't the same thing as graduated (with any honors?), did you finish and receive a 4-year degree? That's a very simple, genuine yes or no question. Thanks.
 
Thermal? In all of my comments here I did not use the word thermal as my own words. Are you confusing that with quotes of others here using it? Go back and double-check.
 
Boxing shadows? Hahahaha, now THAT is funny. Kudos Douglas. But I'm not Muhammed Ali or the like, although my career as a pro and semi-pro soccer/futebol goalkeeper, many a sports analysis, opponents, head coaches, teammates, did describe me in many similar ways... so I guess I could thank you for coming up with another one?  ;)
 
Relax Douglas, I'm just keeping things here light -- no need to get your drawers or jock-strap in a wad. Hah, that goes for a few others here too. Have a great day and weekend. Btw, I am still interested in whether you received a Bachelor's degree!
 
Regards.
 
 
Professor Taboo Added Dec 1, 2017 - 1:02pm
To Dave Volek --
 
Dr. Steven Pinker sounds worthy of a look and possible/probable read. Thanks!
 
AGW 50/50 debate? I can definitely understand your point, however, I'd postulate that it isn't really (or shouldn't be) one of three choices:  100%, 0%, or 50%. Why could it not (presently? temporarily?) be MORE than just those three? Or somewhere in between, even fluctuating every decade or century, or NOT anything but 100% and rising?
 
Thank you Dave.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2017 - 1:50pm
re " Since "studied" isn't the same thing as graduated (with any honors?), did you finish and receive a 4-year degree? That's a very simple, genuine yes or no question."
 
Yes. Did you?
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2017 - 1:55pm
Either mankind is a significant factor in causing global warming (ie his activities can curb or accentuate it - or not). You can argue that an ant farting puts methane into the air which causes global warming, but its a pointless and foolish argument (supposing that ants fart).
  The whole AGW boondoggle states that man must curb certain activities to prevent global warming. Its either true or it isn't.
 
wsucram15 Added Dec 1, 2017 - 2:24pm
Katharine..
I liked your scenario, will check it out to see if you..OR William are correct. I also forwarded this to a friend who showed me why climate change is real...
Ill take his word on the video since studying the environment is what he does. 
Thanks..WM nice article.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 1, 2017 - 2:50pm
Humanity is having an effect on climate. It just has nothing to do with CO2.
Leroy Added Dec 1, 2017 - 3:19pm
Another excellent article, William.  I'm not surprised by the video.  I bought into global warming until they started browbeating people.  I figured that if they had to browbeat people into believing, there was a problem with the science.  Sure enough; it's shoddy science.   Wendell exemplifies its.
Ian Thorpe Added Dec 1, 2017 - 4:34pm
"But when you put your hand near the burner on an electric stove, this electromagnetic radiation emitted from the burner material turns back into sensible heat the instant it touches your skin."
Fuck me, I never knew there was sensible heat and silly heat.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 1, 2017 - 4:38pm
Wendell - your statement:
 
"So sad, Haluska, that your reading comprehension is so utterly pathetic."
 
is more misdirection and irrelevant arguing.  You refuse to address my critique of the AGW proponents crappy science methods and substitute what you think is a "winning argument" - which it isn't !!!  Besides, all you did is repeat my explanation of microwave electromagnetic radiation causing the water molecules if food to vibrate.  And there are many "microwave safe" plastics - so your claim that all plastics can't be used in a microwave oven is bullshit!
 
You're a piss-poor amateur scientist and even worse debater.     
Mike Haluska Added Dec 1, 2017 - 4:53pm
Dave -
 
Legitimate science is not a "debate" or "consensus" or "voted on" or "negotiated" to 50/50 to make everyone happy, even if you personally have a problem with that.  There is also the issue of "significance" in evaluation the impact of something on a phenomena.  If you just look at equations, then anything is "true".  Whether it is significant toward the overall impact is another matter.  Theoretically, I could urinate into 65 degree Fahrenheit Pacific Ocean water and thermo equations say the Pacific Ocean temperature increases - but is it even measurable and significant?  Of course not!
 
As far as CO2 impact on the Earth's climate, fools and morons like Wendell show "thermal equations" as "undeniable proof" that CO2 is a so-called "Greenhouse Gas".  What these frauds fail to point out is that CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere and compared to the predominant "greenhouse gas" - water vapor - it is insignificant!  That is why NOBODY has established ANY CAUSALITY between CO2 and Earth temperature.
 
To top if off, the amount of CO2 that is attributable to HUMAN ACTIVITY IS LESS THAN 1.5% OF THE TOTAL!  Even IF you somehow eliminated ALL HUMAN CO2, the current CO2 concentration would only fall from 400ppm to 396ppm!!!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 1, 2017 - 5:05pm
wsucram (Jeanne) - your statement:
 
"I also forwarded this to a friend who showed me why climate change is real..."
 
is one of the favorite ploys of the AGW gang.  They attempt to "paint" anyone who disagrees with them as "Deniers" of "Climate Change" - which is a false equivalency.  NOBODY thinks the climate isn't changing!  The question is whether or not HUMAN GENERATED CO2 has a significant impact on the Earth's temperature.  Do you understand the critical difference???
 
So your "forwarding to a friend who showed you why climate change is real" illustrates your misconception of the issue.  Of course climate change is real - the climate has ALWAYS been "changing".  The question is whether or not HUMAN CO2 is directly responsible.  Mind you, a "correlation" between variables is NOT causality - which these frauds conveniently hope you don't know or don't care to know.
 
So I suggest you "forward" this to your friend:
"Please provide CAUSAL PROOF that the CO2 produced by human activity is solely and significantly responsible for climate change"   
 
If you get a response that "the science is settled", "the debate is over", a "graph that shows a high correlation" . . . everything but what matters - CAUSAL PROOF - you know they're bullshitting you. 
 
 
Leroy Added Dec 1, 2017 - 9:06pm
"The question is whether or not HUMAN GENERATED CO2 has a significant impact on the Earth's temperature.  Do you understand the critical difference???"
 
To me, it is a matter of whether or not it is catastrophic.  Man has had a significant impact.  The world is a greener place.  The growing season may be a little longer.  Maybe fewer people die from cold.  Most objective people would have to admit that so far the CO2 impact has been positive.  It could someday be a net negative, but we have not reached that point.  Even if it is a net negative, it doesn't mean that it is catastrophic.
 
The real issue is pollution.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 1, 2017 - 10:03pm
Haluska: "You're a piss-poor amateur scientist and even worse debater."
 
Wonderful self-description, Haluska! You don't seem to notice that the evidence against what you're saying is in our posts. It's crystal clear to anyone with a little common sense and the ability to read what the texts really say. You just twist it all around. You probably don't notice that Trump does the same thing. He can't even read as well as you do, so he looks at Fox Fake News for his info and calls the rest fake, just like you. Neither of you know how to think your way out of a wild bear's john.
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:05am
Lol!  With Wendell, all things become clearer.  We have learned about microwave ovens and how touching hot things feels hot.  Which of course all explain "global warming".  
 
Mike, keep him going.  I enjoy reading his 7th-grade explanation of heat transfer!  This would explain why guys like mark "love" his explanations.   Unfortunately, Wendell's explanation is far from accurate.
 
The electromagnetic radiation from the burner is infrared radiation.
No.  There is also heat energy in that burner material.  good lord
 
When it touches your skin, its energy is converted to thermal heat (sensible heat that has a temperature).
What heat doesn't have a temperature.  Latent heat also has a temperature.  gawd.
Secondly, radiation never "touches" your skin.  OMG this is too funny.  Google "conduction" Wendell.

That's because your hand is physical material that has molecules that radiation stimulates. So the molecules wiggle (thermal or kinetic heat). If it's strong enough, they even get torn apart (burnt).
Thermal heat IS just heat.  Scientists and engineers don't use the term "kinetic heat" because heat implies kinetic energy.  It's just stupid that you keep saying this.  It's like saying "wet water".  
 
If it's strong enough, they even get torn apart (burnt).
If you had any clue about combustion reactions and materials having an ignition temperature you would never say something like "molecules being torn apart" equating this to "burnt".  
 
Get a clue, Wendell.  I could go all day with you.  Unfortunately, I feel much more stupid doing so.  I usually ignore your dumbass science.  Debunking your inept explanation of basic heat transfer is like batting big fat softballs.  Too easy. 
Mark Hunter Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:34am
Maybe more CO2 is why in the last few years I've been able to keep plants alive in my house. Laugh if you want, but before then bringing them into my home was a death sentence.
Yes, I jest, and data can be messed with by either side. From a personal standpoint, all I can say is that our weather overall has been a lot better the last several years, and better weather in winter is definitely unusual.
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:41am
Thanks, Leroy.  And thanks for your comments.
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:44am
Mark,  Maybe more CO2 is why in the last few years I've been able to keep plants alive in my house.
 
Pretty funny as we have had the same experience.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:55am
Stockton, you ignorant &^^%%$! I never explained "...how touching hot things feels hot." I explained how radiant energy from a hot burner makes your skin feel hot when your skin absorbs the radiant energy, thereby converting it back into thermal (sensible, i.e. you can feel it) heat, which is kinetic energy in atoms and molecules jostling around as a result.
 
If you touched the burner, that would involve no conversion, since the burner is already loaded with thermal heat. But thermally hot objects emit infrared radiation, as the army well knows. Material objects also convert it back to thermal heat when infrared radiation strikes them.
 
So there doesn't have to be any touching for heat to transfer from the burner to your skin. It just burns a lot less. It radiates across the gap to your skin unless your above it and getting thermal heat by convection through contact with heated air. That is thermal to thermal.
 
You guys are completely clueless about all this and it shows in every stupid thing you write. But how do you think you can even begin to have a clue about climate change and remain so ignorant. All you know is what your paid puppet master heroes pawn off on you.
 
You boobs are so out of it; incompetent to even notice. CO(2) is neither good nor bad. All this nonsense about life needing it is true. What makes your clueless arguments nonsense is that you believe that means any amount of it in the atmosphere is good. Water is essential for life on earth, but you can drown in it.
 
It's all about upsetting balance. I'm so sick of this stupid, indiscriminate "logic" that it reminds me of puking, but I'm too used to it for that. There are a lot of you in the world and you're screwing it up with your nutty politics and your zero aptitude for grade school science.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:56am
Correction: you're above it.
Bill H. Added Dec 2, 2017 - 1:19am
Many growers have related this to recent changes in specific humidity, along with changes in average growing season temperatures.
In a particular plant hardiness zone, certain plants are now doing better, as other plants are doing worse compared to years back. This animation will give you an idea. Plant hardiness zone maps were modified in 2012. They are normally modified every 30 years, but with the recent rapid changes, they were again modified in 2012 from the last version that was released in 1990.
Studies have found that increased CO2 does not necessarily mean that plants will do better.
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 1:27am
Don't fault us, Wendell, for you not being able to explain science for which you have very little education and zero professional experience.
 
You do a great disservice to science with your arrogant ignorance.  It is a fucking shame guys like you would have that much of a lack of appreciation for science and for people like Mike and Leroy who have made careers in the sciences.  These guys have had to make decisions based on science and physics which have fatal implications if they get it wrong.
All you have done is play in science like its a 3rd-grade educational toy.  Yet you think you can compete with life-long professionals.
 
Get a clue man.  You are past the age where we would tolerate your naivete.
wsucram15 Added Dec 2, 2017 - 8:37am
Yeah I think you had better research the main researcher, Alex Kekesi and his perspective. He is one of the NASA researchers that has been working in the Antarctic for years about the thinning and breaking off of Ice along the shelves of ice that have been there for a very long time. Not seasonal type stuff. Watch this..(same guy) https://archive.org/details/Antarcti2001
Yeah I know the year..but I saw him on a program last year about this with the researchers in the Antarctic, and talked about it on here.
 
HERE IS YOUR DATA(ARTICLE) broken down the way he meant it to be... The idea is the green shows more often and therefore the ice is receding. What do they call that? 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-map-earth-20-years-impact-climate-change-global-warming-life-environment-a8062221.html
 
Now I didnt see anything that showed in your research data that showed climate change is NOT a thing.  Just that green area is more abundant longer in some areas.   But we have a problem at the basic foundation of life, the ocean.   You guys need to understand what you are talking about before you write and sign off on it.    Now Im not an expert...but I did ask an expert about this who has spoken to this guy.  He laughed.   Kekesi's phone number is listed on his profile and he has a LinkedIn..ASK HIM!
Now that is research, you ARE writers.
wsucram15 Added Dec 2, 2017 - 8:39am
PS congrats on the tax bill..lol.
 
 
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:01pm
Thanks for the review Jeanne.
"The idea is the green shows more often and therefore the ice is receding. What do they call that? " . . . excuses
 
I did see that video.  But it is misleading.
The easy way to know this is to look at an area on the map which never has ice . . . along the equator.  It shows the same greening trend as other areas.  The greening has nothing to do with ice.
It has everything to do with flora having more food (CO2).
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:21pm
Jeanne,  Now I didn't see anything that showed in your research data that showed climate change is NOT a thing.
 
The climate is changing.  Every day. Every year.  There are natural cycles of climate change having occurred for billions of years.  We are currently climbing toward a peak in the Interglacial Period.  This could explain some of the increase in global temperatures.  Are we at the peak?  Who knows.  These are the big questions which still have to be answered by science.  The science is not settled. 
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Dec 2, 2017 - 12:39pm
Professor Taboo Added Dec 2, 2017 - 2:58pm
@ Douglas Plumb --
 
re " Since "studied" isn't the same thing as graduated (with any honors?), did you finish and receive a 4-year degree? That's a very simple, genuine yes or no question."
 
Yes. Did you?
--------------------------------------
Congrats.
 
Yes I did. Will soon be finishing my Master's degree. Thanks for asking.  ;)
Professor Taboo Added Dec 2, 2017 - 3:06pm
To Leroy --
 
You wrote:  "The real issue is pollution."
 
Thank you for redirecting some of the comment threads BACK onto the proper path! "CO2" wasn't really the singular linchpin of the debate from AGW. I would even add to your clarifying, reframing-recentering statement...
 
The real issue is man-made/civilization's pollution.
 
Thanks Leroy for your insight here.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 2, 2017 - 4:45pm
Poor insulted Stockton said, "Don't fault us, Wendell, for you not being able to explain science for which you have very little education and zero professional experience."
 
First, it's stuff you should have already understood, but don't have a clue even after someone explains it to you. Scientifically literate people, lay or professional, have no trouble understanding such simple explanations.
 
Also, my education is considerable. Much of it was formal through two years of university physics and mathematics (award for highest grade among several A students). The there were ten years working in the electronics field doing work based on a lot of scientific understanding, and the rest informal. I was not just some tech guy who can only fix stuff s/he's worked on a lot. I understood deeply how it all worked, theory and practice.
 
That's why I was my company's top troubleshooter. The others were hacks who just did one thing. Even with all their specialized experience they couldn't fix the really tough stuff I could because they didn't really understand the theory or the logic based on it necessary for locating the problems.
 
Now, I really do have "very little" formal education in Spanish: one year of high school Spanish. Yet I speak Spanish so fluently native speakers mistake me for one of them all the time. Some have even become angry when I told them I'm not, believing I was another Latin trying to deny my heritage because of the bigots in this country.
 
A couple of weeks ago I got an emergency call from a nationally known voice over production firm with multiple top awards to translate a script into Spanish with a two-day deadline. They didn't care, like you do, you silly @$$, that I have "very little education" in Spanish. I delivered a top quality final draft on time and got $260 dollars for five pages of text done in my spare time in the evening. So I guess for you that "very little education" (other than my informal self-education) disqualifies me to do that kind of professional translation work?
 
By the way, I've used my knowledge of science and math countless times in both professional and informal circumstances. That came in extremely handy at those times. What does it matter that the job description didn't include that?
 
You just pontificate on the basis of pure BS and political agendas. Whatever work you've ever done in science, if any, has been routine hackwork that required virtually no deeper knowledge of what you were doing. How do I know that? You tell me every time you put your horse dung on this page. Then you turn around and attempt to dump your own crap on me. You don't have any credibility with anyone except other ignoramuses like you and Haluska.
Leroy Added Dec 2, 2017 - 6:09pm
For once, you are right, Wendell.  It was pure BS, pure Bachelor of Science, that is, and perhaps even a Masters or Ph.D.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 2, 2017 - 6:23pm
Robert Wendell sez: Then you turn around and attempt to dump your own crap on me. You don't have any credibility with anyone except other ignoramuses like you and Haluska.-AH, so you had enough from Willy Stockpot, eh?  They do all play the same tune, it seems.  How many times has climate change been a topic in the last year?  Any minds get changed?
William Stockton Added Dec 2, 2017 - 6:39pm
Wendell, we are making progress! 
In your 468 word whinefest, I didn't read one incorrect statement you had made about science.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 2, 2017 - 10:14pm
That's billions of galaxies more than I can say for you, Stockton. And where are the incorrect statements you have found from me before? Have you made that clear for anyone else but you and your psychologically stuck peers with a rebuttal that was not political or pathetic nonsense?
 
You and others say we're stuck; that no one changes their opinion. But I have many times. You just weren't around when that happened. But I don't change my opinion on scientific issues until someone provides a solid scientific reason to do so. You and Haluska are so scientifically incompetent you're incompetent to recognize your incompetence (Dunning-Kruger Effect).
 
Have you ever seen those tone-deaf types who get on The Voice, American Idol, or whatever other similar show and croak like frogs? They got on the show thinking they could win and they can't sing well enough to sound better than the noise of your flatulence. How is it that they don't know they can't sing worth a flying piece of bat poop?
 
It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You, Haluska, and others here are in the same boat, but in science instead of music. It's the same true story. Only the names have changed.
mark henry smith Added Dec 3, 2017 - 3:26pm
Well said Mr. Wendell, I hope you don't mind that in my novel about a distant relative of Alexander Hamilton, that I wrote four years ago, before all the Hamilton hoopla, that from what I heard was a load of rap, I named the Hamilton family religion after you, the Wendellites. They believe in science and I'd like to let you know that you do inspire some people to think harder and more clearly. I've met people with intellectual inferiority complexes before, they're a dinosaur a dozen. Oh wait, Mike and Stockdom might not believe in dinosaurs, because they haven't been bitten by one.
 
Thanks for sticking with us. 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 3, 2017 - 3:52pm
These guys are hopeless, Mark...but there's always a tiny little chance for hope, isn't there? It could be even after the world is starting to really deal with climate change, they'll finally get it. But these types are the same ones who would never admit what they used to believe about these things. 
 
However, the most likely scenario is that they will still believe it's all natural, even when the world is full of climate refugees. These people are virtually immune to admitting they were ever wrong. If they think political refugees are a problem, wait until a big chunk of the world population starts to move into their neighborhoods.
 
Imagine all the Latinos, I mean long-time U.S.. citizens, in the south Florida area when they start to flood the non-coastal areas of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. How are people there going to like "them apples"? The high-density bigotry there will find themselves surrounded by those they love to hate. Over time, the whites there could easily become a minority.
 
That's what the really fear. That "Trumps" their worries about their economic situation. That's also why Trump lovers hang on and vote against their own economic interests, even if they don't admit they're doing that. The bottom line is they fear "otherness" and care more about staying a white Christian culture than they do about their paychecks.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 3, 2017 - 4:57pm
Rob - The really big shock is when you and the rest of the 'warmers' begin to realize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but the steadily rising water vapor does (its rising about twice as fast as it should be as calculated from the temperature increase in the liquid water).
 
You are worrying about something that is not a problem and ignoring something that is increasing risk of precipitation related flooding. The small accompanying warming is welcome and is countering the cooling that would otherwise be occurring. The rising CO2 is also welcome. It is food for plants, the start of the food chain for all life. The planet is still impoverished for CO2. 
 
All life becomes extinct if CO2 level drops below 150 ppmv. The planet came perilously close at about 190 ppmv at the end of the last glaciation. There is more at 
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
 
 
 
William Stockton Added Dec 3, 2017 - 5:11pm
"The bottom line is they fear "otherness" and care more about staying a white Christian culture than they do about their paychecks."
 
Ok, Now we are racists if we don't agree with everything the global warming crowd claims.
I have had enough of the insults Wendell & mark.  Go somewhere else.  You can make a point without the insults. 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 11:40am
Stockton -
Who are we to question the technical credentials of a guy who won an 8th grade math ribbon? 
 
Wendell -  your boasting:
"A couple of weeks ago I got an emergency call from a nationally known voice over production firm with multiple top awards to translate a script into Spanish with a two-day deadline. They didn't care, like you do, you silly @$$, that I have "very little education" in Spanish. I delivered a top quality final draft on time and got $260 dollars for five pages of text done in my spare time in the evening."
 
Certainly translates into an astonishing feat!  During my first year as a Construction Engineer at Inland Steel I worked with a Mexican Labor Foreman nicknamed "Tex" with an 8th grade education.  He was also fluent in Spanish, and used to mutter "Mas dinero que sesos" whenever he saw supposedly "educated" people doing/saying something stupid.  Your pontificating often reminds me of  "Tex" - you would have Tex muttering all day at you!  
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 11:50am
Wendell - your childish "threat":
"Imagine all the Latinos, I mean long-time U.S.. citizens, in the south Florida area when they start to flood the non-coastal areas of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. How are people there going to like "them apples"? The high-density bigotry there will find themselves surrounded by those they love to hate. Over time, the whites there could easily become a minority."
 
Displays your actual purpose for advocating AGW - a desire to feel "Morally Superior" to the rest of us.  Well, you and your AGW pseudo-scientists have been making thousands of such "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" (threats) for the past 40 years and we're still here.  NYC is still above water, the Miami beachfront hotel lobbies aren't flooded with sea water, Polar Ice annually recedes and expands . . . and the one constant we can rely on is MORE RIDICULOUS "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY FORECASTS" and demands for more taxpayer funded research grants and TWO TRILLION DOLLAR TRANSFERS TO THE "PARIS ACCORD"!
 
I guess when shitty science fails to sway Stockton and Haluska you can always give "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" another shot???
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 12:09pm
wsucram - I clicked on the article and saw an "animation".  I have a few very simple questions for you:
 
1) What makes you believe that anything "unnatural" or previously unobserved is going on?
2) Where is the evidence of any CAUSALITY (dammit - those engineers and scientists just won't accept innuendo or correlation) of this phenomena being influence by human generated CO2?
3) Humans have been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years - how do you explain the climate changing from tropical (Dinosaurs) to Ice Age when there was NO INDUSTRY but also NO HUMANS???
4) Are you aware that climate isn't weather - we're talking tens of thousands of year intervals - NOT 20 years!  To put this in perspective, consider this analogy:
Suppose I took you to the movies and instead of watching the 2 hour movie on the screen, I took you to the Projection Room and showed you 3 frames in the middle of the movie reel.  Then I said "just figure out how the movie ends based on those 3 frames"!!!  Now keep in mind that movies are 24 frames per second and a 2 hour movie has over 172,000 frames.
 
If the movie was "Goldfinger" and the 3 frames showed James Bond tied to a table with a Laser pointed at him, would you say "No, Mr. Bond I expect you to die"???
 
William Stockton Added Dec 4, 2017 - 12:27pm
Ya, Mike.  Climate science is now a religion.  How dare we challenge!
 
For example: 
The earth's temperature has risen 1C since 1880 <image link>.  Half of that rise occurring from 1880 to 1940 according to the IPCC.  How did that happen???  We barely began using petroleum products before 1940.  Most people were burning wood and crap to survive up until 1940.  After 1940, industry in the USA and some parts of Europe exploded with petroleum use.
However, for the next 20+ years, the rest of the non-industrialised world STILL were farming with livestock (mules and horses).  Motorized vehicles were unheard in the vast parts of the globe.  The non-industrialized world, up until the 1970's accounted for 90% of the world's population.
 
95% of the petroleum we have used to date has been since 1940 <image link>.  What?  So how could 5% of the petroleum use contribute to almost half of the rise in earth's temperature up to 1940?  And now we see the global temperature climb flattening for the last 15 years.
 
If someone can explain these conflicts in the AGW theories, I would be happy to agree.  Then we engineers/scientists can begin solving the problem of cold and hungry people needing to feed their families . . . without using petroleum products.
 
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Dec 4, 2017 - 12:39pm
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
William Stockton Added Dec 4, 2017 - 1:07pm
Ya, Ray.  It is quite apparent nobody has even any data from either IPCC or NASA which we can agree upon.
The IPCC says 1C.  Nasa says 0.8C  Only 20% difference between these two AWG camps.
 
On that website you posted you should see that from 1910 to 1940 there was a 0.5C climb, why?  Half a degree in 30 years?  And what happened from 1880 to 1910 with the 0.25C drop?
Come on.  Until they can explain a half a degree rise in temp when petroleum use was very small (5%), then they would have any hope of explaining the other 0.5C rise from 1940 to 2010.
 
This ain't science man.  This is politics.  Opinion polls.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:27pm
Stockton -
 
First of all, I have yet to get a satisfactory, consistent, universally applied explanation of just HOW the Earth's Average Temperature is determined!!!  I would find it statistically daunting just to get an AVERAGE RANGE much less 4 decimal point accuracy shown on the "fancy graphs" the AGW frauds claim as infallible! 
 
I am also quite CERTAIN that the methods, instruments, number of data collection points, analytical process, etc. have CHANGED DRAMATICALLY over the past 100 years.  To say with any degree of certainty that the Earth's temperature rose 0.8C or 1.0C in the past 100 years is statistically invalid on its surface. 
 
Take into consideration the VAST differences in how Earth temperature is determined today vs 100 (or more) years ago:
 
1) Today's temperature data methods incorporates high-tech satellite measurement and worldwide supercomputer data gathering and analysis.  
2) A hundred years ago they used a thermometer read by humans, recorded by hand in a scant few locations with no worldwide communications system and no automated means to conduct an analysis.
3) Before the mercury thermometer was invented (1714 AD) TEMPERATURE WAS UNMEASURABLE!  ALL of the data set used by the pseudo-scientists for thousands of years of data before 1714 is PROXY DATA!  ANYONE who says that the Earth's Average Temperature in 544 BC was 68.6539F based on the width of a Tree Ring Width is full of crap.  ANYONE who says that the Earth's CO2 worldwide concentration in 9854 BC was 765ppm based on a Polar Ice Core Sample is even more full of crap.
 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:34pm
Why, Haluska? Why don't you understand that some things can be extrapolated scientifically by looking at proxies now and proxies then? Science has multiple proxies for such things that have a high degree of accuracy when cross-checked with each other and against known data that is precise now.
 
There's no reason to assume they're only precise now and suddenly quit being precise when we go back to earlier technologies. That assumption is invalid, but you seem to have a need to believe it's not. There's no reason for it, but you do indeed seem to have a strong need for it.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:45pm
Ray -
 
If you want to compare anything, you need to be able to measure the "thing" using the same methods with accurate instruments calibrated to a common standard. 
 
Do you think the meteorological instruments of 1902 are comparable to those of today?  We know for certain they certainly weren't calibrated to the same standard as today.  For example, if I told you that the "average" adult human weighed 153.8735 lbs. in 1902 would you trust the 4 decimal point accuracy?  How reliable would you consider that measurement compared to today's digitally calibrated weight scales??? 
 
Have you ever read an old style mercury thermometer?  Do you know what a "meniscus" is in a graduated cylinder?  Do you remember how close together the graduation marks are on an old style mercury thermometer?  Did the methods exist in 1902 to calibrate every thermometer to a single standard? 
 
You intuitively know the answers to the above questions.  Back in 1902 you could put 10 thermometers side by side in a room and get 10 different readings - which one is "correct"???  So - if you're lucky to get an accuracy of plus/minus 2 degrees back then . . .
 
HOW THE HELL DO YOU "KNOW" THE EARTH WAS 0.8C COOLER BACK IN 1902?????
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:54pm
Stockton - I used your methodology to explain how much human CO2 is generated.  Basic chemistry gives us the equations of combustion, we know how much fossil fuel is extracted, therefore we know the maximum amount of CO2 generated by burning fossils fuels.  We know the volume of the Earth's atmosphere (basic geometry) and know the CO2 concentration (direct measurement).  If you take the total amount of human generated CO2 and divide it by the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere - you get approximately 1.5%.  EVEN THE IPCC USES THIS STATISTIC!!!!
 
That is how we KNOW that EVEN IF we somehow eliminated ALL HUMAN CO2, the total CO2 concentration would only fall from 400ppm down to about 395 ppm!!!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:58pm
Stockton - your statement:
"Then we engineers/scientists can begin solving the problem of cold and hungry people needing to feed their families . . . without using petroleum products."

The Third World farmers have already started farming without using "petroleum products"!!!  It's called BACKBRAKING LABOR!  Fortunately for the "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists they will never have to get a dose of their own medicine.
mark henry smith Added Dec 4, 2017 - 2:58pm
Hey, I've heard from some people here that Hitler was a nice guy, just misunderstood. Geez. But he does have a point about Jewish influence in the US political process, so I won't thrown out the baby with the gas chamber.
 
I've heard that water vapor is the culprit, as if water vapor was this thing that just happens, a cause, not an effect. I've looked at the empirical data. The rise in water vapor relates to rise in temperature, particularly since the oceans are warming.
 
What I don't understand is why CO2 wouldn't be a problem? Do you believe in ocean acidification or is that not happening? Do you not believe coral reefs are suffering from ocean warming? Or is that junk science? How the hell do you allow yourselves to pick and choose these ridiculous arguments your making? As seen from space, has to be the explanation. 
Bill H. Added Dec 4, 2017 - 3:28pm
MHS - They have been spinned that "CO2 is good for plants and other living things" by the Big Oil "scientists. Here's a study that shows too much of a "good thing" may be a bad thing.
Water vapor is also a culprit, so as we warm up, we get more water vapor, and the spiral continues.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 4, 2017 - 3:46pm
Haluska, you said, "Do you think the meteorological instruments of 1902 are comparable to those of today?"
 
Again, you miss the point entirely. How did I know you would do that, even right down to what issue you would probably take with it. That's how well I know your weaselly little mind now. You don't have to have data as accurate as it is today. So naïve!
 
You only need the accuracy we have today and measure that against the proxies to understand how to use the latter to accurately calculate the former. Then you can use that to project backwards in time before we had such accuracy. That was already implied by what I said, but you missed that. Am I surprised by that. Not quite!
 
The proxies and the way they cross-check against each other and the precision instruments we have today yield valid information on how to calculate what happened before instruments were so precise. Too complicated for you? Of course, if the earlier instruments roughly yield the same results, that's just further confirmation that what you're doing works.
 
You don't have to depend on that to know what was happening before. Of course, if you think all scientific calculations of this type are fudged, then you can always use your tired old out by falling back on the good old hoax speculation you're so fond of. The simple truth is that science uses such things all the time or science would be so hamstrung we couldn't know anything about much of anything.
 
Just about everything we do in science uses principles we understand and calculations based on them to precisely predict their effects. Science has been doing this very successfully for a very long time. But suddenly you flat-earther equivalents want to call that fudging.
 
Well, you know, if I see snow on the ground in the morning and it was dry, warm and snowless last night, I conclude that it snowed during the night even though I didn't actually see it snow. I'm not fudging because I didn't actually see it snowing.
 
Science is much more complex than that, but you silly geese want to make subject to suspicion anything that is not right now and obvious. You're like the fundamentalist Christian right. They ask anyone who understands that evolution is real questions like, "Were you there?" (But evolution doesn't justify the conclusion that God doesn't exist unless people who pretend it does do what you're doing.)
 
You're doing the same with the issue of measurement. It's truly dumb. We could hardly do any science at all without such extrapolations. When they all cross-check to confirm each other, we know we've got it right. You just don't want to know the truth. It's as simple as that.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 4, 2017 - 3:53pm
Mark, Haluska hand others in WB have said that human technology is too powerless to affect mother nature that much (and cause AGW). Well, the hydrogen bomb blows that stupid hypothesis to pieces. How can anyone believe there are no consequences from worldwide deforestation (vast reduction of CO(2) sinks) combined with massive energy production that never existed before the industrial revolution and that has accelerated enormously ever since? This is just huge mounds of deep stuff piled very high in shallow little minds.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 4, 2017 - 3:53pm
and others
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 4:21pm
Wendell - your stupid statement:
 
"You only need the accuracy we have today and measure that against the proxies to understand how to use the latter to accurately calculate the former."
 
amazes me as the most incredible pile of bullshit and misunderstanding of science, math and statistics I have ever read in so few words!!!
 
So please - give me the "instructions" on just how you would accomplish what you easily stated.  Tell us how you (or anyone, for that matter) "accurately" determine the conversion coefficient between the width of a single tree ring from single location and the "average Earth temperature".
       Just how do you "cross check" 3,000 year old "Proxy Data"? 
 
You just "project backward in time"????  Really - do you want to reconsider this abominably stupid statement?  How do you "project backward in time"  to get the Proxy Data from the billions of trees that AREN'T in the vicinity?  What about areas barren of trees - say the Frakkin OCEANS that cover 70% of the surface of the Earth???  The width of a tree ring is influenced by length of growing season and temperature - how do you distinguish between a short, hot growing season and a long, cool growing season?  YOU CAN'T!!!
 
10,000 year old CO2 Proxy Data from core samples at the Earth's poles may give an indication of CO2 presence (not accurate concentration amount). But they tell you nothing about the CO2 concentration elsewhere where vegetation flourished. 
 
And finally - don't use statements like:
 
"Just about everything we do in science uses principles we understand and calculations based on them to precisely predict their effects."
 
There is no "WE" - you're neither a scientist, nor a practitioner of science, nor experienced in science, nor have the education in science.  You think you can "proclaim your way" to credibility - like the stupid statement you made that I quoted in the beginning of this post.  YOU don't get to "proclaim" anything.  YOU don't get to "legitimize" anything.  Extrapolation is simply assuming linearity - something seldom found in the natural universe.  "Projecting backward" in time using extrapolation is even more ridiculous.
 
 
   
 
   
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 4:38pm
mark henry -
 
I don't wish to embarrass you, but every phenomena you describe has appeared before.  Just the appearance of something doesn't provide ANY EVIDENCE that human activity had anything to do with it. "It must be caused by humans" just doesn't logically and scientifically jump from an observation like "Look - the Ice Caps are melting"!
 
If humans were truly responsible for "Global Warming", than how do you explain the melting of the Ice Age thousands of years before humans - much less the industrial age???? 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 4, 2017 - 4:41pm
mark henry -
 
A little advice from someone who knows and practices the application of science - don't toss around statements like:
 
"I've looked at the empirical data."
 
because if you really understood what "empirical data" meant, you wouldn't use it as "proof " of anything.  But hey - if you think it makes you appear intelligent and chicks dig it, what the hell?
William Stockton Added Dec 4, 2017 - 10:52pm
Mike,  So - if you're lucky to get an accuracy of plus/minus 2 degrees back then . . .
 
That was a very good point.  It would be interesting to read the papers on these numbers to see what accuracy they are publishing and how they justify the repeatability of the accuracy.  This is the buried facts they are hiding and which make all the difference.
 
I just assumed they were being honest about the accuracy (+/- 0.1C).
William Stockton Added Dec 4, 2017 - 10:58pm
Mike,
" Basic chemistry gives us the equations of combustion, we know how much fossil fuel is extracted, therefore we know the maximum amount of CO2 generated by burning fossils fuels."
 
Regarding the amount of fuel extracted, are you using all of the fuel extracted to date?  If so, this may not be a correct assumption because much of the fuel burned to date has been already recycled into the earth/ocean.  Could you expound on your assumptions please?
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 10:44am
Stockton -
for the reason you cited, annual output is used.  My point was to show that the majority of the CO2 concentration increase from 260ppm to 400ppm could not have possibly come from human generated CO2.  If you read the IPCC papers they acknowledge this as well.  The AGW pseudo-scientists love to release "alarming" sounding statistics like "ABC Corporation releases 500,000 tons of CO2" without putting it in perspective of how much that is in relation to the volume of the Earth's atmosphere.  
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 10:56am
Stockton -
the abuse of "data collection" and "data interpretation" by the AGW pseudo-scientists is criminal.  Just try and get a straight answer on how the "Earth Average Temperature" is calculated!  That shouldn't be so difficult for legitimate "scientists" - but the AGW pseudo-scientists deliberately hide their methodology, calculations, models, etc.
 
For example, ask them where they got their temperature data for the year 1943.  Mind you, in order to get global temperature you need global data.  Almost all of it came from newspapers that publish the daily weather report.  Did they use standard instrumentation that was calibrated to an international standard - NOPE!  Some newspaper flunky just read an ordinary "Pepsi-Cola thermometer" outside the window and wrote it down. 
 
And don't even get me started about their temperature "assumptions" for 70% of the surface of the Earth (the oceans) where there are NO TEMPERATURE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS!  They simply GUESS what they think it "should be"!!!
William Stockton Added Dec 5, 2017 - 11:18am
Mike, If I had more time, I would love to do more research into the accuracy of the satellites collecting the temperature data.  Of the little research I have done, the temperature measuring devices aboard those satellites have an accuracy of +/- 1.7C.  As they are small, these remote sensing devices are more susceptible to its own temperature.
To increase the accuracy, more shielding and mass is required.  
The typical accuracy of a thermocouple is about +/- 1C used in most labs.  Some of the best temperature measurement devices in a lab can be +/- 0.1C but these are immersion probes (not remote detection).  They are also much larger than devices made to fly in a satellite.
This is very intriguing and I am interested if you have read any of the scientific papers on the actual devices NASA is using to measure planetary temperature surface from space.  
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 11:20am
Stockton - I would like to expound on your excellent point:
 
"It would be interesting to read the papers on these numbers to see what accuracy they are publishing and how they justify the repeatability of the accuracy."
 
When a legitimate scientists is relying on many data sets that:
 
1) were collected by others (many not scientists)
2) produced Proxy Data
3) have varying degrees of statistical significance
 
they must always use the lowest statistical significance in their conclusion of the analysis.  I may have 3 decimal point accuracy in current data but only plus/minus 5 units in historical data - then my conclusions can be NO GREATER than plus/minus 5 units! 
 
Tree ring and ice core data is Proxy Data and extrapolated based on an ASSUMPTION of the conversion coefficient -
                            (e.g. 1 mm tree ring width = 23.356 degree F).
                                 conversion coefficient ------^
You could have 10 technicians measure the same tree ring and you'd be lucky to have 3 common measurements!  And just WHERE did they get the "23.356 Conversion Coefficient"?  
- The "Conversion Coefficient Store"? 
- The "Department of Conversion Coefficients"? 
- Amazon Prime?
 
Ice Core samples have even worse reliability being tens of thousands of years old.  You're stretching it to claim plus/minus 10F accuracy range on tree rings or ice core!  So when the AGW pseudo-scientists state that the "Average Earth Temperature" in 4567 BC was 78.7623F you know they're full of crap!!!   
Bill H. Added Dec 5, 2017 - 11:27am
The usual group can go on and on denying that man is responsible for our recent climate change event and just write it off as "normal". The fact is that this event is occurring at a rate at least 10 times faster than past events.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Many other obvious factors that most of us are aware of come along with this:
https://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html
Surprisingly, the first two links have not been censored by the new administration (yet), as they have done on the EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html
Here is a snapshot of the original page:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange_.html
 
Many other sites have been censored, as this article shows:
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-action-reports-disappeared-2017-1
Yes, I suspect NASA and most other government-controlled websites and sources of information to be censored and removed over the next few months. Thankfully, all of them will be archived and still available for use as educational tools and true data references.
Just yesterday, Trump is now in the process of working to eliminate and shrink National Monuments all over the US to allow more oil and gas drilling and mining operations.
Just yesterday he was able to bamboozle a crowd of supporters in Utah with the following line: 
“Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” Mr. Trump said, speaking at Utah’s State Capitol beneath a painting of Mormon pioneers. “And guess what? They’re wrong.”


“Together,” he continued, “we will usher in a bright new future of wonder and wealth.”
I'll bet you boys are as happy as a clam!

Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 11:47am
Bill H - you're posting the same tired old bullshit:
 
"The fact is that this event is occurring at a rate at least 10 times faster than past events."
 
Do I need to school you every time you make this stupid claim?  Go back to every post where you made this claim and re-read my dismantling of it.  Besides - EVEN IF it were true, there is no valid scientific reason to assume it is caused by humans! 
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 11:56am
Bill H - President Trump's statement:
 
“Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” Mr. Trump said, speaking at Utah’s State Capitol beneath a painting of Mormon pioneers. “And guess what? They’re wrong.”
 
is Constitutionally correct and until Obama illegally seized the land, it was much smaller.  These so-called "monuments" are actually a couple of Indian burial grounds and stone images in the side of cliffs that nobody outside a handful of people even knew existed.  The idea that these "monuments" need millions of square miles around them sealed off for their "protection" is ludicrous.  You can bet your ass that Arlington National Cemetery, Gettysburg, etc. don't have millions of acres of surrounding land dedicated to them.
 
And by the way, what do you call it when Indians use their land to build Casino Resorts and Hotels???  Or is "exploitation" restricted to capitalists?
   
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 12:01pm
Bill H - President Trump's conclusion:
 
“Together,” he continued, “we will usher in a bright new future of wonder and wealth.”
 
Is a welcome departure from the misery and suffering being imposed by the Welfare State.  Why don't you get your ass off your East Coast sofa and take a drive to the "fly-over states" and ask the residents of cities and industries wiped out by liberal Democratic policies if they think "wonder and wealth" is preferred by them??? 
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 12:07pm
Stockton -
 
Great post!  Yes, I have read about the satellites used to collect temperature data.  The biggest problem is not the accuracy of these systems, it's the fact that the Earth is a constant state of flux!  Half daylight/half night, north/south hemispheres, ground temp/high altitude temp, prevailing winds/jet streams, etc.  You have to collect it ALL at the SAME INSTANT and then somehow analyze it to make any sense of it.  By the time that's done, the system is no longer what you analyzed! 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 12:10pm
Bill H -
 
As far as all of the "snapshots" you refer to, you keep pointing to current local weather events as "proof" of radical, imminent CLIMATE CHANGE.  Climate does NOT change significantly or permanently over a 10 or 20 year interval!!!  We are talking ten thousand year time frames for climate.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 12:19pm
Bill H - I have a question regarding:
 
"Many other sites have been censored, as this article shows:"
 
Where was your concern about "censorship" when university professors who dared challenge the "Climate Change" gang lost their jobs?  How about your indignation and outrage for basic human right to think and speak when the Obama Administration was seriously considering "Rounding Up the Usual Suspects" and CRIMINALLY ARRESTING, PROSECUTING AND IMPRISONING "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS"???
 
It seems censorship only applies when your side is being exposed!
Bill H. Added Dec 5, 2017 - 12:25pm
 
Mike - I know that even if you did read the information on those links, you have been well conditioned and will continue to disbelieve anything that counters your hopes and wishes.
Believe me, I totally understand. Just a few months back, I was showing and old schoolmate a portion of a sidewalk inside of a local bay that we used to ride our bicycles on when we were in elementary school. It was then about 4 inches above the highest tides at times. It now regularly gets covered up a couple inches at times. Pretty obvious to me, but he is also a skeptic and refused to see the truth.
 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 5, 2017 - 1:11pm
Why delete my reply to Haluska about my use of "collective we"? To say we had a bad economic downturn in 2008 doesn't mean I think I'm a professional economist or that I had anything to do with it or that I even personally experienced a downturn.
 
Stupid distraction about my use of "we". About your comment, Haluska, saying, "Tree ring and ice core data is Proxy Data and extrapolated based on an ASSUMPTION of the conversion coefficient -
                            "(e.g. 1 mm tree ring width = 23.356 degree F).
                                 conversion coefficient ------^"
 
What assumption? Do you really believe they pull conversion coefficients like that out of a rabbit hat? Just how stupid are you? It's empirically derived from data known to be accurate. Proxy data is all over science. There is tons of science you can't do without it. It works in the industrial world all the time to do very practical engineering. So why is it suddenly suspect when scientists apply it to something you don't want to know or understand correctly?
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 2:48pm
Bill H -
I can find literally thousands of examples of such temporary flooding.  So what?  Why do you assume that the period of low water level is "normal"?  You go back far enough you'll find something else.  The Earth is constantly changing - humans have had very little impact.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 2:58pm
Wendell - your claim:
 
"Do you really believe they pull conversion coefficients like that out of a rabbit hat? Just how stupid are you? It's empirically derived from data known to be accurate."
 
Of course the AGW frauds just don't "pull them out of a hat".  They "adjust" them until they get the pre-determined conclusion they're looking for.  So, explain HOW - stop just "declaring" - they came up with the one and only "correct" conversion coefficient for tree rings.  You know - the one that determines without question that the Average Earth Temperature in 1425AD was 87.6234F!!! 
 
Here's a tip - just because you can load numbers that you pull out of your ass into a spreadsheet doesn't endow them with any magical scientific legitimacy.  And your mindless attempt to compare the direct measurement of the diameter of a bearing made yesterday with measurement of a single 500 year old tree ring and then using a "conversion coefficient" to determine the entire Earth's Average Temperature completes the proof that you don't know what the hell you're talking about!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 3:03pm
(cont)
In Wendell-World, if you measure the diameter of an 18th century canon ball you can "empirically derive" the diameter of all canon balls made in the 18th century.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 5, 2017 - 3:13pm
Wendell - please explain:
 
" It's empirically derived from data known to be accurate. "
 
when the data is hundreds or thousands of years old, you have limited local (not global) samples and have NO data on what you're attempting to proxy?  IF you had the actual temperature readings from 1425AD and THEN developed some range of conversion coefficients, I might listen.  BUT YOU DON'T - which is why your comparison is NOT valid.
 
ALL you can tell from a tree ring is that the temperature was between 33F and 211F (liquid water) making photosynthesis possible - PERIOD!!!  You don't have a clue how trees on another continents were faring.  You don't know if it was a long, mild growing season or a short, hot growing season.    
Bill H. Added Dec 5, 2017 - 5:14pm
Mike - As I stated.
Excuses, excuses!
Robert Wendell Added Dec 5, 2017 - 5:52pm
Haluska: "Of course the AGW frauds just don't 'pull them out of a hat'.  They "adjust" them until they get the pre-determined conclusion they're looking for."  
 
How do you pretend to know that? It's easy to decide that it's all a hoax, but your arguments fail miserably to support that, aside from being so frequently and fundamentally flawed scientifically. Every time anyone cites something that contradicts your hoax hypothesis, you just say it's another part of the hoax.
 
"So, explain HOW..."
 
Do some research, but you won't be able to understand it anyway. You will simply once again say anything that contradicts you is just another piece of your hoax hypothesis. I've given explanations that are crystal clear and unarguable for anyone who knows anything about the most basic science. What good did that do for you? Your brain is immune to solid scientific principles no matter how elementary.
Bill H. Added Dec 5, 2017 - 7:38pm
 
Jeff - You know the syndrome.
If it is uncomfortable or doesn't fit one's point of view or political platform "belief" commandments, IT MUST BE FAKE NEWS!
Robert Wendell Added Dec 5, 2017 - 8:47pm
Right, Bill. People like that are brainwashed by the fake news that calls any contradictory parts of reality (pretty much everything that's actually going on) fake news.
Bill H. Added Dec 5, 2017 - 10:26pm
 
Reality is uncomfortable to many. One can only hide from it or pretend it is not "real" for so long.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 6, 2017 - 1:00am
Discomfort with reality is the result of a fear-based approach to life, Bill. We can only do so much to alter reality. After that, the only leverage we have in dealing with reality is how we react to it. Note that AGW deniers slap the "alarmist" label on those of us who accept it and wish to deal with it productively. They project that onto us.
 
I'm personally not alarmed by AGW. I'm very optimistic because I track and understand what's happening in the alternative energy world. I see multiple breakthroughs on the verge of scaling up and bearing good fruit in a few years.
 
This is very disruptive to the fossil fuel industry, of course. Even they know AGW is real, but crank out tons of propaganda in a desperate attempt to delay alternative energy development. They want to keep making huge profits as long as possible. They really don't care what happens after they're gone. That's the operative definition of a sociopath.
 
The gap between the rich and even the mid to high middle class is huge. It's the result of a winner-loser, zero-sum-game mentality personified in the "winners and losers" rhetoric of Trump. It's a simplistic way of looking at things that limited minds easily tune into.
 
Those of us who have had some contact with the super-rich know that many of them, including even some relatively wealthy small business owners, have at least a touch, if not much more, of sociopath in them. We've all experienced how even everyday folks on the street get weird double standards when money is involved. They'll try to pull stuff on you that would have them screaming bloody murder if anyone tried that on them. But they convince themselves they're being fair.
 
Previously people who were apparently nice folks can suddenly turn vicious and amazingly, self-blindingly unfair when even medium large sums of money are involved. The super-rich. with notable exceptions, are most often even worse. Money is power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..." - Lord  John Dalberg-Acton.
 
The sociopath cares only for himself. S/he willingly sacrifices others for their own benefit. So the connection is clear. Marx's ideas were also based on zero-sum-game economics. That has doomed the attempts to structure Marxist economies from the start. Many here think that's what I mean when I use the word fair: "Take my money from me and give it to someone else." No, I just mean a level, yes, fair playing field.
 
Industry is full of this, but the reverse. I once worked in a firm representing high-ticket technical products to other businesses. It was a startup that a large national competitor bought out for quite a few million that went to the two partners who owned it. I had quit several months before that because they kept paying their reps only our draw against commissions even after we were selling way past that. They also paid all office workers pathetic wages and worked them hard.
 
They owed me $5,000 when I quit. When they sold the firm, they tried to get away without paying me that. Their very honest head of accounting wouldn't hear of it or I wouldn't have gotten a penny of it. Later, someone told me that the two owners were infuriated by rumors that they had financed their firm on the backs of their employees. "None are so blind as those who will not see."
 
So, "take my money and give it to someone else" really upsets the zero-sum-game, conservative winner-versus-losers mindset. Well, that's exactly what insurance does. "Oh, but that's voluntary." Hmmm, but, auto liability isn't. It would never work if it were. It's a huge business that most conservatives have no problem with. But they want the health industry to be even more completely privatized.
 
They want money to rule so client health goes to hell on a freight train. They're getting rid of the health insurance mandate. Try that with auto liability and see what happens. It's already far too real in the healthcare sector, even with the mandate.
 
Most of what's wrong with "Obamacare" is a result of the constraints Republicans insisted on in their negotiations, especially in the states that refused to cooperate with it. They put in it as much that would make it fail as they could. Many of those who hate it are getting it and don't even know it. They don't like it only because "that n-word's" name is on it. Republicans cynically planned it that way when they labeled it.
 
So these people work hard to deceive themselves. They unconsciously feel they have to justify their fear-based way of life. The wall, the immigrants, all Muslims are bad, guns protect more than they kill, etc. are all full of and driven by fear-based emotion. They
Robert Wendell Added Dec 6, 2017 - 1:05am
They like Trump despite all his idiotic reversals and crazy tweeting because, even if they don't like that part, they feel a cultural affinity with him. He's one of them. So they're irrationally loyal to this incompetent, narcissistic sociopath because that's essentially who they are.
Bill H. Added Dec 6, 2017 - 1:15am
Correct, Robert
The boys at Koch and others control the party, which therefore controls the loyal followers.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:07am
Wendell & Bill H - you two are comical.  Your minds hop around like rabbits in heat.
 
"How do you pretend to know that? It's easy to decide that it's all a hoax, but your arguments fail miserably to support that, aside from being so frequently and fundamentally flawed scientifically."
 
I "KNOW" because there is NO WAY TO GO BACK IN TIME AND GET COMPARATIVE DATA TO THAT DEGREE OF ACCURACY!  Your "explanations" are simply bullshit - "just trust them because they're scientists" is NOT very "scientific"! 
 
I am NOT presenting any "hypothesis" you dumb-ass.  I am pointing out obvious "flaws" (to be polite) in their data collection, extrapolation, manipulation and fudging.  Your explanations are NOT scientific and refute nothing!  They are all based in the rationalization "don't question them because they know more than you do".
 
As far as someone not accepting reality, you are the "Crown Prince" of self delusion.  No matter how many decades of ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" pass, you cling to your "AGW religion".  So - let's finally set the limit:
 
At what point do you finally admit that "X" decades of ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" is sufficient to conclude there is no AGW???  Come on - "solve for X" since you're a self-proclaimed math whiz!    
William Stockton Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:35am
It's funny Mike.  If the cult-left had only figured, before oil was a thing, that CO2 would green the planet.  If so, they would have turned burning fossil fuel into another religion mandating its use as a moral judgment.
 
Go Green!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:41am
Stockton -
Wendell & Bill H have the most muddled brains I have ever seen.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:41am
Wendell - your search for:
 
"I just mean a level, yes, fair playing field."
 
is as pointless and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE as the pseudo-science practiced by the AGW frauds.  You don't want a "Fair Playing Field" - you want a "Playing Field Tilted by Government Bureaucrats" so that music teachers get compensated the same as professional engineers!  You claim to trash Karl Marx but adore "Free Stuff" Bernie Sanders. 
 
You admonish economic power concentrated in the hands of publicly held "corporations" but: 
 
- You have NO PROBLEM with concentrating absolute power in the hands of a bunch of liberal arts majors who never held a real job or had to meet a payroll! 
- You indulge in the mental masturbation of a Music Teacher getting even with those "greedy capitalist pigs" that only pretend to have the intelligence and scientific "gravitas" as you. 
- You fantasize about the "enlightened" liberal arts majors finally getting their due - deciding what is "fair" and the best way to "redistribute" those ill-gotten profits resulting from talent, innovation, risk taking and hard work!
 
Your politics, economics and "science" are all just a muddled mess that you can't distinguish from reality, nor do you care to!
Bill H. Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:55am
So if someone doesn't agree with you guys, they are automatically members of the "Cult Left"!
With "Muddled Brains", no less.
You guys are classics!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 6, 2017 - 12:20pm
Bill H -
 
I NEVER get on you because you disagree with me - I couldn't care less if people agree with me!  I point out where you are factually and logically wrong - just like I do with Wendell.  It's getting to be like shooting fish in a barrel because you both repeatedly raise the same misinformation.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 6, 2017 - 1:39pm
"I point out where you are factually and logically wrong - just like I do with Wendell."
 
Haluska, good grief! How would you even know how to do that? You're so stupidly self-blinded it's not funny. Sad.
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 6, 2017 - 2:16pm
Wendell -
 
You're the one who believes that ignoring 40 years of ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" is scientifically valid and I'm the one that's "self-blinded"????  I suggest you go out in the yard and "level the playing field so its fair".
Robert Wendell Added Dec 6, 2017 - 5:42pm
You don't understand the most basic science, Haluska. So you counter with political opinions and alternative facts. The emperor is wearing no clothes. The only ones here who don't know that already are as intellectually deficient as you are.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Dec 6, 2017 - 9:39pm
Global Warming Is Worse Than Most Models Predict, Data-driven New Study Warns
 
Global warming will be even worse than we presently think, scientists warn in a new paper published in Nature on Wednesday. How much worse? In all scenarios of greenhouse-gas emissions, the estimates of temperature increase by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are about 15 percent too low.
 
This result is based on a new model, based on picking from dozens of previously published climate models that successfully simulated the recent past, plus actual observations. The key concept is that the models best at simulating the past would likely be best at projecting future warming too.
 
The conclusion of Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute for Science that, if anything, science has been too optimistic, applies whether we stop emitting greenhouse gases today or continue on our present trajectory: projections have been too optimistic across the board.
 
If greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise throughout the century (the “business-as-usual” scenario – also known as “the worst case scenario”), existing climate models predict the global mean temperature will rise by 3.2 degrees to 5.9 degrees Celsius (5.8 degrees to 10.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 6, 2017 - 11:32pm
Hi, Ray. Welcome to this "discussion", if we can pretend to call it that. Haluska et al don't know and are unwilling to ever believe:
 
1) That you can devise models with output that tracks recent real data. (They truly think that calibrating these models so they do track accurately is fudging.)
 
2) They don't know or want to know that such models are then tested forward to accurately project what indeed did happen later.
 
Even worse:
 
1) They do know that many past models did not work well.
 
2) They don't want to know that they are not being used for precisely that reason.
 
3) They don't want to know that trying models and rejecting the ones that don't work well is how you get to the ones that do.
 
4) They do look at articles that show all the models, lousy and good together, in one graphic that shows how wildly they vary from each other in a feckless attempt to "prove" that models don't work.
 
5) They don't want to notice or admit even after you show them that some of them were incredibly accurate. (And that's still using the same stupid article that lumped them all into one graphic.
 
So the same article ranting against global warming models with the author pulling his hair out over how lousy they are uses a graphic that includes good ones that work amazingly well. The result of all the ensuing discussion was this:
 
1) Somehow, even when you point that out, they can't see it,
 
2) but somehow, in their minds, we're the stupid ones.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:22am
Wendell - stand back while I torpedo your scientific ignorance!!!
 
1) That you can devise models with output that tracks recent real data. (They truly think that calibrating these models so they do track accurately is fudging.)
 
It doesn't take a supercomputer to model "recent data" - just graph paper and a straightedge!  Do you know what "recent data" is, dumbass? - it's called the WEATHER - NOT CLIMATE!!!

2) They don't know or want to know that such models are then tested forward to accurately project what indeed did happen later.
 
So you think being allowed to make thousands of GUESSES and when one comes out correct THAT'S SCIENCE???  Remember all the "computer models" that predicted 40 YEARS OF "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY FORECASTS"???  In LEGITIMATE SCIENCE once reality doesn't align with your hypothesis you DISCARD THE HYPOTHESIS - NOT FIDDLE WITH THE DATA & COEFICIENTS UNTIL YOU GET THE "RIGHT ANSWER"!!! 

1) They do know that many past models did not work well.
 
Yes - first thing you've gotten right on this topic!

 2) They don't want to know that they are not being used for precisely that reason.
 
What a PROFOUND STATEMENTThe pseudo-scientists aren't going back to their RIDICULOUS "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" they swore were SCIENTIFICALLY VALID - maybe because they would like everyone to forget they made them??? 

3) They don't want to know that trying models and rejecting the ones that don't work well is how you get to the ones that do.
 
This statement is the ULTIMATE PROOF THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE IS - you have mistaken "After the Fact trial and error then fudge the data to make the error go away" with Legitimate Science!!!
 
 4) They do look at articles that show all the models, lousy and good together, in one graphic that shows how wildly they vary from each other in a feckless attempt to "prove" that models don't work.
 
NO, the pseudo-scientists use wildly scattered data because they think it impresses people like you who are ignorant of basic statistics and experimental error.  The "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists are like a gang of lousy marksmen who fire thousands of shots all over the place and when one lucky shot hits the target they all believe they accomplished something!  TOTALLY MORONIC to even present the above statement!!!

5) They don't want to notice or admit even after you show them that some of them were incredibly accurate. (And that's still using the same stupid article that lumped them all into one graphic.
 
See my comments to 4 - it gets repetitive slamming your bullshit into atoms!!!
 
Here is what the IPCC CURRENT MODELS have produced:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-19-climate-change-science-implodes-as-ipcc-climate-models-found-to-be-totally-wrong-temperatures-arent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:40am
Stockton -
 
Please comment on this reply extracted from my recent post.  I think Wendell brilliantly exposed his scientific ignorance in a manner that astounded even me: 
 
Wendell:
3) They (you and I) don't want to know that trying models and rejecting the ones that don't work well is how you get to the ones that do.
 
Haluska:
This statement is the ULTIMATE PROOF THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE IS - you have mistaken "After the Fact trial and error then fudge the data to make the error go away" with Legitimate Science!!!
 
He thinks that "trial and error" is legitimate science!  Guess what happens when you "assume" the single correct guess applies to a future data set?  The Earth's climate isn't the same as Thomas Edison trying thousands of filaments to find one that works! 
 
I would LOVE to see Wendell as a Purdue Engineering Undergrad submit an Undergrad Physics Class lab report where he plotted 987 WRONG and ONE lucky data set of
                                                    "E = IR"     
and then get humiliated by the Prof in front of 1,300 students as a dunce!!!  There is no doubt in my mind that Wendell did one smart thing in his career choice - stay the hell away from science and engineering!!!
William Stockton Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:51am
Hey Mike,
 
We are arguing with people who think the environment is their religion.  Perhaps native Americans were the same way and respected nature but these clowns are entirely different. 
 
These hypocrites would accuse us of all kinds of human indignities but will continue to live the exact same lifestyles as you and I (ruining their environment).
They will wake up today in their petroleum heated houses, drive somewhere in the petroleum-fueled and built vehicles and eat petroleum grown food.
 
One thing is true, however.  They will viciously attack anyone who is different than them.  If Wendell had his way, he would put a stake through our hearts while we sleep (I have deleted many, many nasty posts already).  He is a political activist, not a naturalist nor a person that understands science.
 
These nutjobs have no solutions nor do they do as they say.  Throttling petroleum would only have one huge result . . . people would die.  And not the rich and shameless (them), the people that would first die would be weak and poor.
 
I cant help them, Mike.  Arguing is pointless.  These guys are arguing politics not principle.
William Stockton Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:12pm
Mike,  Principled living is living the way I want.   Politics is wanting others to live the way I want.  
 
There are no principles on the left.  It is all about wanting someone else to carry the burden and responsibility and pain for their religious mandates.  It is a "better than you", "I know better" elitists mentality that is destroying both science and our culture.
 
Guys like Wendell and Bill H are arguing for political power.  If there some principle in their words, they would be living it.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:34pm
Obviously, William, watching the exchanges between both sides, you haven't noticed these words of yours, "They will viciously attack anyone who is different than them" you and your side do too!
mark henry smith Added Dec 7, 2017 - 1:48pm
William, you are wrong. Many of us have made changes. I gave up my car and now ride or use mass transit. I pick up trash. I live frugally, attempting to make as little waste as possible since it does not appear that people understand the relationship between plastics and petrochemicals, just as some people ... sorry, I am done casting dispersions.
 
Why not treat the environment as a religion? What better thing is there for us to believe in if we hope for long term survival in a manner remnant to the style to which we've become accustomed?   
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:52pm
Stockton -
 
The post above just cemented what you have been saying all along. 
 
mark henry writes:
. . . Why not treat the environment as a religion? 
 
Not much point debating religion, is there?  So let's isolate and protect our beliefs from reason by making them unassailable axioms that can't be discussed or debated.  "Principled Living" is abolished and replaced with subjugation by those with political connections who "Know what's best for you".  The very essence of "insidious" isn't it???     
Robert Wendell Added Dec 7, 2017 - 4:46pm
Ray and Mark, these people do exactly all that I accuse them of and have no clue how stupid it all is. They reverse and pretend they actually know what they're talking about. It's such a pathetic mentality that it's hopeless to deal with. It reminds me of a guy who started voice lessons with me and couldn't match a pitch that was smack in the middle of the pitch range he speaks in.
 
My approach goes straight to getting fundamentals right before going on to anything more complicated. People like this guy can't do the most basic things anyone who can even carry a tune can do, not to mention anyone who knows how to sing with a voice decent sound. Since he couldn't do the most basic things, he got frustrated with what I was trying to help him do and asked if he could show me a youtube video of his singing with his rock band.
 
His message was clear. He didn't like to know that he couldn't what in his mind was dumb stuff that doesn't matter. He decided to show me how good he actually was with this youtube video. Well, as you might suspect, it was truly awful, but he was obviously very proud of it. He asked me what I thought of it and I didn't respond the way he would have liked me to. So he quit.
 
Now my teaching techniques are powerful enough to help people like him to sing on pitch. He blew it by quitting, because hardly anyone in the music world bothers with folks like him. I do as long as they're motivated because the most challenging students are the ones who teach me the most about how to help people. I use the same techniques with talented people and they go like a rocket. Working with folks like him have made me a better teacher for anyone, no matter how talented.
 
So it was his loss because his ego and his total incompetence to recognize his own incompetence blew his best chance at learning to do what he wanted to think he already could do. 
 
Haluska and Stockton are in the same mindset as that silly guy who quit singing lessons. Haluska said:
 
"I would LOVE to see Wendell as a Purdue Engineering Undergrad submit an Undergrad Physics Class lab report where he plotted 987 WRONG and ONE lucky data set of
                                                    "E = IR"     
and then get humiliated by the Prof in front of 1,300 students as a dunce!!!"
 
This is apparently based on the extremely naïve assumption that everything in the sciences is subject to precise calculation with mathematical formulas. He apparently has never heard of concepts like first order approximations or calibration of measuring devices. Optics is a branch of physics. There is all kinds of first order approximation going on in that discipline.
 
Haluska also tried to convince me that hurricane prediction models are legitimate because they are based on scientific measurements while climate change models are not. Such abysmal ignorance is hard to conceive. The time scale is much shorter for hurricanes, the but basic methodology for modeling hurricanes is the same as for climate models. Climate models are inherently easier to get accuracy with because they deal with long term moving averages instead of extremely quirky short-term, local phenomena.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 7, 2017 - 5:03pm
Then Haluska quote me here, followed by his own comments.
Begin quote:
Wendell:
3) They (you and I) don't want to know that trying models and rejecting the ones that don't work well is how you get to the ones that do.
 
Haluska:
This statement is the ULTIMATE PROOF THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE IS - you have mistaken "After the Fact trial and error then fudge the data to make the error go away" with Legitimate Science!!!
 
He thinks that "trial and error" is legitimate science!  Guess what happens when you "assume" the single correct guess applies to a future data set?
----
This is such insane ignorance of how modeling works, including hurricane models, which are often life savers. You can only approximate the behavior of large, complex systems. All kinds of science are full of this. Engineering uses this even more.
 
Here's essentially how modeling works in the sciences as well as engineering:
 
1) You use your best guess at what factors are most important to get an approximation of the some physical behavior.
 
2) Since some of the true factors are inevitably missing, you have to include parameters to fill the gap.
 
3) You adjust those parameters so they fit a significant period past data. This is called calibration.
 
4) If it doesn't fit with enough precision, you repeat the process to refine your model.
 
5) After a few iterations, if the fit is now good, you test the model for a significant period of time into the future.
 
6) If it is accurate, you use it.
 
7) If it is not, you go back and try a different model.
 
Hurricane and climate models use this kind of methodology, which is vastly aided by the use of supercomputers. Hurricane models are more difficult, since climate models use the smoother, long-term average data. The underlying methodologies are identical. 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 7, 2017 - 5:06pm
Haluska's statement: 
"you have mistaken 'After the Fact trial and error then fudge the data to make the error go away' with Legitimate Science!!!"
 
This is a gross and apparently deliberately deceptive distortion and total mischaracterization of the process I just outlined. That should be absolutely obvious to anyone with a few marbles left upstairs.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:30pm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712?via%3Dihub
 
WITHDRAWN: Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres
 
"This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause."
 
Bet there's a story here.
 
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
 
Using Earth’s Moon as a Testbed for Quantifying the Effect of the Terrestrial Atmosphere
 
“In both cases, the effective radiation temperature is Te≅266.4 KTe≅266.4 K , because the computed global albedo is αE≅0.178αE≅0.178 . Thus, the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
 
“These values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures. It is well known from physics that the mean temperature of a system is the mean of the size-weighted temperatures of its sub-systems. Temperature is an intensive quantity. It is not conserved. On the contrary, energy is an extensive quantity. Energies are additive and governed by a conservation law. Thus, one has to conclude that concept of the effective radiation temperature oversimplifies the physical processes as it ignores the impact of local temperatures on the fluxes in the planetary radiative balance.”
 
You can’t put 15C/288 K in the S-B equation and get 390 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR from the surface.
 
Take that RGHE theory and pitch it straight in the TRASH!!
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:06pm
Wendell - when you write things like:
 
"5) After a few iterations, if the fit is now good, you test the model for a significant period of time into the future.
 
6) If it is accurate, you use it."
 
do you ever THINK before you do it???  In terms of CLIMATE, what do you consider "a significant time in the future"???  12 months?  2 years?  How do you conclude that a computer model is "accurate" for the year 2100?  Because it worked for a 2 year interval???  I CAN PREDICT THE CLIMATE without a computer for the next 2 years!!!  Here is my 2 year "climate forecast":
                            NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE 
 
In your growing desperation you're getting sloppier and sloppier.  You have now joined two new religions - climate change and computer modeling! 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:12pm
Nicholas - brilliant post!
Robert Wendell Added Dec 8, 2017 - 2:35pm
Dear Mr. Haluska,
 
There are models that have been extremely accurate for over fifteen years. That's not a hundred years. Nonetheless, if you think that betting against what it predicts for the next 50 years is a good idea, you're nuts.
 
Further, if you think betting against very rigorous statistical analysis that shows the probability that global warming is human caused is about 100,000 to one, your nuts. If you are going to insist that all this is just another part of a politically motivated hoax; if no matter how much strong evidence comes out in the future that global warming is real and human caused you're going to continue believing that it's still more propaganda promoting a hoax, you're nuts.
 
Much love,
 
Robert
 
mark henry smith Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:15pm
Roberts, nuts eventually come out of their shells if you hit them enough times with a hammer. These guys are paid to do this. You meet people all over the internet and in life. People paid to discredit arguments or people. No one who expresses sound opinion in other areas could be this ignorant and derogatory towards other opinions. It's as if I'm arguing with my sister and brother in law. Who say they're so much smarter than me and then when asked to prove it, talk about their degrees. 
William Stockton Added Dec 9, 2017 - 12:39pm
mark,  "nuts eventually come out of their shells if you hit them enough times with a hammer."
 
People will tell you anything you want to hear if you "hit them enough".  Sad that you think this is in anyway a rational position worth noting.
 
As I have said many times in this article, people can view the video and draw their own conclusions.  I have respect for the vast majority of people in this way.  If I did not believe that, I would be like you (and a couple of others here) who would use metaphorical violence to subdue intellectualism.
 
I respect whatever conclusions you may draw from the NASA video.  
Yet, your comments have never addressed the video.  Your comments attack the people who think differently than you. 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 9, 2017 - 3:01pm
Somebody must have hit you a lot, Stockton, or else they played you for a total sucker with propaganda targeted at your overwhelming taste preference for whatever garbage they wanted to feed you.
William Stockton Added Dec 9, 2017 - 3:28pm
 . . . and looks who shows up wishing violence on people who think differently.  LOL
I have deleted so many of your hostile comments Wendell.  You'd think you would have learned by now.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 9, 2017 - 11:09pm
Referring to your recent post, Stockon, I said, "Somebody must have hit you a lot, Stockton, or else they played you for a total sucker with propaganda targeted at your overwhelming taste preference for whatever garbage they wanted to feed you."
 
Stockton said, " . . . and looks who shows up wishing violence on people who think differently."
 
Uh, could you please show me precisely where anything in that comment of mine wishes violence on you? Is this the kind of spin on what I said that you fall for when you read about politics or listen to whatever "news" you listen to? Then you call everything else is fake news?
 
The first part before the "or else" says "somebody must have". Please, do your best to explain how that phrase, which is in the past perfect tense and includes the word "must", is "wishing violence" on anyone, "Must" is NOT a declaration of anything. It is implies a tentative guess. We're waiting with bated breath to understand how that is  "wishing violence" on anyone? 
 
Then after the "or else" there is an alternative explanation. I think that is much more likely. It says nothing about violence at all, much less "wishing violence" on anyone. In fact there is nothing like that anywhere at all in that entire sentence.  
 
So what do you do? Throw all the words you read in a mental hat, shuffle them all up, then hook them all back up by stream of consciousness driven by an intense emotional desire to spin it all to fit whatever you want to think? That IS the way you and Haluska think about science. I would testify to that under oath in court. Try improving your reading comprehension, but you know, somehow I don't think you ever will. 
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 10, 2017 - 2:48pm
Rob W - Apparently your lack of engineering/science skill has made you gullible to mob-think. CO2 has never had, does not have and will never have a significant effect on climate. At low altitude, the tiny amount of energy it absorbs is simply rerouted to water vapor.
 
Humanity is, however, doing something that has been causing slight increasing trend in average global temperature as indicated by satellite data. The increase is self limiting though so it will soon end if it hasn't already.  It is countering the global cooling which would otherwise be occurring. 
Robert Wendell Added Dec 10, 2017 - 3:29pm
Dan, I've debunked that argument with solid science a zillion times. Your lack of engineering/science skill has apparently made YOU gullible to group think. I've never been gullible to group think. I never liked rock-n-roll until the Beatles came along, at which time I was already in college.
 
That was not group-think, since everyone around me thought I was weird for not liking it. I could illustrate with another dozen examples or so of how I've never been gullible to group-think.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 10, 2017 - 4:00pm
My analysis is here: target="_blank">http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Please point out precisely what you perceive to be wrong. Just one thing.
Where can I find your work?
Robert Wendell Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:53pm
Dan, I'm not going to repeat everything I said in the past elsewhere here. So I'll give you a more concise if still rather long summary. After my experience with others of your persuasion, I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of time no matter how deep I were to go into the matter.
 
I don't write papers on the subject as you have, but you're a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist or even a physicist. I have an uncle who is a mechanical engineer with over 700 patents to his name. But he's completely ignorant of the physical factors that CO(2) contributes to climate.
 
Along with many other engineers here, as a group I find them quite ignorant of much very basic science. You may think, as others here maintain, that I'm just a musician and so have no technical or scientific knowledge, but that's far from the truth. I won't bother to explain that one more time.
 
First, CO(2) is neither good nor bad per se, of course. Are you aware that a vanishingly small quantity of water vapor exists above the troposphere, but CO(2) remains in the same relative proportion to other atmospheric gases (more than 400 ppm) to over 80 km, or about 50 miles. Of course, they all get quite thin above that.
 
However, are you also aware that there is enough CO(2) above the troposphere to be virtually opaque to infrared radiation at its wavelengths? The gases are thin but extremely deep above the troposphere. A drop of tea looks almost like water, but a deep cup of it doesn't look at all like water.
 
You're right that no heat energy leaves the terrestrial system by conduction or convection. Infrared radiation is the only means by which heat ever leaves it. The preceding paragraph clearly implies that most infrared radiation can only leave the earth by conversion of thermal (kinetic) heat to infrared by GHGs or by radiative transfer.
 
The only exception is the portion of the infrared spectrum called the atmospheric window, which finds no atmospheric gases, including water, that absorbs that portion of the infrared spectrum. Over 99% of the atmosphere is incapable of radiative transfer, since that ability is confined to those gases defined as GHGs precisely for that reason. Oxygen and nitrogen are absolutely incapable of radiative transfer at atmospheric temperatures.
 
Are you aware that GHGs, including CO(2) of course, are also capable of converting thermal heat (molecular and atomic kinetic energy) to infrared radiation merely be means of collisions with other gases, mostly the 99% non-GHGs. The time (half-life) CO(2) kicked into a higher quantum state requires to radiate its infrared photon is on the order of a few milliseconds (~4 ms). So after eight half-lives (~32 ms) only 0.4% remain excited. 
 
The mean time between collisions of CO(2) with all other gas molecules is extremely short; on the order of about one microscecond. So the instant a CO(2) molecule leaves its excited state by emitting a photon of infrared, it is excited again. That clearly shows that CO(2) conversion from thermal (kinetic heat, i.e., heat associated with a temperature) to infrared radiation is highly efficient.
 
So water vapor forms an effective conveyor belt using a combination of convection, conduction, and radiation to carry thermal (kinetic) heat up to the stratosphere. Above that, CO(2) continually converts this thermal heat to infrared radiation at its own wavelengths, which radiative transfer easily relays to space.
 
We need CO(2) in order for the earth system to work for us at all. So it's a matter of how high or low the long-term equilibrium temperature is at any given concentration of CO(2). I find it laughable to imagine that the human release of 38 billion tons of CO(2) gas per year (really heavy stuff, huh?) has no effect on climate. And this is while we collectively allow deforestation of the whole planet at an incredibly accelerated pace, eliminating a major CO(2) sink! 
 
The ocean and other aspects of nature absorb about half of our emissions. However, the oceans (~75% of the planet) release CO(2) back into the atmosphere as we warm like a carbonated drink releases it's CO(2) on  hot summer day. So after a certain level of planetary temperature rise, that triggers accelerated rise.
 
This is not to mention that CO(2) is making the oceans so acidic that the shellfish industry, a traditionally conservative demographic, is absolutely clear that AGW is real. Why? Because the CO(2) level in ocean water is making it so acidic that it disallows adequate shell protection for young shellfish. They're losing their livelihood to CO(2) absorption in ocean water.
 
To miss all the vastly different scientific disciplines that are currently experienc
Robert Wendell Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:54pm
experiencing AGW on the front lines of their daily activities, you have to tune out any kind of scientific news. You either never watch even just common, everyday science shows and articles or you write it all off a priori as "fake news". You can even find famous radio and TV personalities who will reinforce your rejection of all these incontrovertible parcels of reality...transparent bits of reality revealing the same truth across an extremely broad range of scientific disciplines and industries.
 
I'm sorry (not), but I'm not the one who's a victim of group-think. Your feckless attempt at an academic paper based on a conclusion you had already drawn only makes the point more strongly. It's called circular logic.
 
As Haluska is so fond of misapplying, correlation is not causation. I have run across several "scientist/engineers" here who have worked their silly fannies off to find factors that correlate with climate change and present them as "proof" that the worldwide community of climatologists are all wrong.
 
Ironically, this exactly what they accuse expert climatologists of doing. It's called classical projection and double standards. Of course, to explain their mistrust of those who contradict them, they invoke political conspiracy theories. So do the flat-earthers.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 11, 2017 - 4:02pm
RB - Thanks for the summary, you appear to understand the science far better than most.  I have been researching this stuff pretty much full time (I am retired) for a decade on top of M.S.M.E. During my career in aerospace, I was often the go-to guy for problems no one else could figure out. The engineering/science skill helps to sort through the nonsense and put stuff in context. Not being a physicist or climatologist might have helped me to avoid their mistakes. A key one is their hijacking and currupting the meaning of feedback.
 
The main thing which misled you appears to be the elapsed time between molecule collisions. It is more like 0.0002 microseconds. Ref 7 in my blog/analysis gives the link to the hyperphysics calculator. This short time means that conductive heat transfer takes place before the CO2 molecule has a chance to emit a photon. It completely changes what happens next making it entirely different from what you stated. The process of a gas molecule absorbing a photon and sharing the energy with surrounding molecules is thermalization.
 
Is this a typo? "...at its own wavelengths...". CO2 only absorb/emits at 15 microns in the range of significant terrestrial wavelengths in the stratosphere. Pressure, etc. broadening at sea level expands absorption to a band mostly in the range 14-16 microns.
 
The 38 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere doesn't sound so scary when you discover it amounts to only about 1% of what is already there. Another way to look at it is the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has increased from about 3 per 10,000 to 4 per 10,000 in a century.  The only effect that the added CO2 has had is to enhance plant growth and reduce the amount of water plants need.
 
Your mention of warming oceans releasing CO2 is valid.
 
Not to worry about ocean acidification. There is about 50 times as much carbon in the ocean as there is in the atmosphere.
 
The rest of your summary is typical misguided warmist nonsense.
 
You can learn a lot more from my blog/analysis.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 11, 2017 - 5:09pm
Dan, thanks for your reply. At last, I'm at least debating with someone who is not totally ignorant of high school science like Haluska and his peers.
 
Your belief that the huge ratio of CO(2) half life to mean time between collisions means that molecular excitation immediately turns back into thermal (kinetic) heat is misinformed. The collisions never stop. So since conduction has no capability at all of going to the vacuum of space, unless you introduce Maxwell's Demon into this picture GHGs are the major contributor to infrared radiation to space.
 
Confirming this picture empirically, satellite spectroscopy shows 71% of all infrared going to space is from GHGs. The rest is from cloud tops and the essentially black body radiation from the surface that makes it directly to space through the atmospheric window. Carbon dioxide constitutes 96% of all GHGs in the atmosphere. That means ~68% of all radiant heat going back to space is radiated from CO(2) that is above the troposphere.
 
It also comes back down, since GHGs don't discriminate direction, but radiate omnidirectionally. Since the whole issue doesn't hang on whether CO(2) is good or bad, it hangs on the balance between what goes out versus what comes in, which will always be equal in the long-term average.
 
That means the equilibrium temperature, the temperature at which this terrestrial input/output balance occurs, is the bottom-line issue. To pretend that an increase of 33% over preindustrial levels, especially with massive deforestation occurring simultaneously, makes no sense at all!
 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 11, 2017 - 6:24pm
Wendell - your statement:
 
"Nonetheless, if you think that betting against what it predicts for the next 50 years is a good idea, you're nuts."
 
is puzzling.  I don't "bet" on computer forecasts one way or the other.  You can worship at the altar of computer models all you wish, I can cite literally thousands of "predictions of Imminent Doomsday Forecasts".  The model you cite certainly can't be one of those models. 
 
Since we haven't experienced any significant rise in temperature, your model must have forecast this to be "accurate".  So why does a model that accurately predicted no AGW effects have you believing the opposite.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 11, 2017 - 6:36pm
Wendell - your allegation:
 
"Further, if you think betting against very rigorous statistical analysis that shows the probability that global warming is human caused is about 100,000 to one, your nuts."
 
is just pure fantasy.  What you call "rigorous statistical analysis" legitimate scientists and statisticians call bullshit.  I'll go ahead and ask, knowing full well you won't be able to answer, but it does have entertainment value:
 
Would you please show me the "calculation" that determined the probability that global warming is caused by humans? 
 
Since there has been no significant global warming in the past 20 plus years (hence the change to "Climate Change") this "explanation" should be interesting.
  
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 11, 2017 - 9:16pm
RW - Apparently I was not clear, which led to "molecular excitation immediately turns back into thermal (kinetic) heat is misinformed".  The energy from EMR absorbed by CO2 molecules is conducted to other molecules including water vapor molecules which have many absorb/emit lines (transitions in Hitran talk) at lower energy (longer wavelength) than CO2 molecules.
 
Proof that, at low altitude, the energy in the terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is ‘rerouted’ to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight. If you are up on the first law of thermodynamics, the meaning of thermal capacitance and a typical graph showing the ‘notch’ in TOA radiation (i.e. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif shown as Fig 1 in my blog/analysis) it is obvious. The notch demonstrates the wavelengths of EMR absorbed by CO2. The first law requires absorbed energy cannot just disappear. Thermal capacitance requires that it cannot accumulate for ever. The only thing left is for the added energy to be ‘rerouted’ to water vapor.
 
Thermalization is when a photon is absorbed by a gas molecule and the energy shared with surrounding molecules. Because thermalized energy contains no identity of the molecule which absorbed it, the increase in warming from added CO2 can be no more than the ratio of the number of added absorption lines (transitions) to the total number of lines. As determined using Hitran2012, the increase in warming from doubling CO2 cannot be more than 0.48% of the 33 K due to GHE or about 0.16 K.
 
As shown in the TOA graphic, much of the radiation from WV goes directly to space.
As WV condenses out, mostly below about 10 km, CO2 comes back into play.
 
This: “Carbon dioxide constitutes 96% of all GHGs in the atmosphere. That means ~68% of all radiant heat going back to space is radiated from CO(2) that is above the troposphere.” Asserts you are unaware that water vapor is IR active i.e. a GHG. Hitran2012 shows there are 423 significant absorb/emit lines (transitions in Hitran talk) in a WV molecule in the range 0-500 wavenumber compared to 71 for CO2 in its band. The ‘scaled intensity’ for the WV molecules is about 200 times that for CO2 molecules. Also, there are about 35 WV molecules for each CO2 molecule. Much of the radiation from the WV molecules goes directly to space as shown in the TOA graphic.
 
It is unclear what you mean by this: “   an increase of 33% over preindustrial levels, ” Temperature has increased by 1 K since 1850. CO2 has increased since 2001 by 40% of the 1800-2001 increase.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 11, 2017 - 9:36pm
What does your pretentious mind consider significant, Haluska? A few tenths of a degree Celsius for the average long-term is very significant. Yes, we have temperature fluctuations of many tens of degrees and more.
 
Your own comments have clearly declared that you're one of those who stupidly imagines that this makes small changes in the equilibrium temperature insignificant. Could you please show me the equation you use to calculate that, Haluska! Fluctuations in temperature say nothing about the equilibrium temperature and how significant that is, so why would anyone with a few marbles left upstairs ever think it does?
 
And speaking of calculations, you asked for a statistical calculation (some simple formula you seem to imagine statisticians use) that shows what the probability that humans cause global warming is. Exactly how knowledgeable about the nature of statistical methods do you think that incredibly stupid request is, Haluska?
 
I supplied the link to a whole article that showed their methodology in detail. I suppose you predictably wrote it all off a priori as fake science? What do you think your idiotic "pissing in the ocean" non-analogy is?
Robert Wendell Added Dec 11, 2017 - 10:50pm
Dan, you said, "Thermal capacitance requires that it cannot accumulate for ever. The only thing left is for the added energy to be ‘rerouted’ to water vapor."
 
So why is that relevant, Dan? Water vapor is virtually non-existent much above 10 km altitude. There is radiative transfer, convection, and conduction in the upper atmosphere, none of which is somehow nullified by limited thermal capacitance. I've already said that water vapor delivers tons of heat to the upper atmosphere by convection and conduction. After that, water vapor plays no role.
 
Further, how do you nullify with your theoretical considerations that satellite spectroscopy yields solid proof that roughly 68% of all infrared radiated to space bears the signature of CO(2)? You've already said that all heat leaving the terrestrial system is electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum. That's absolutely true.
 
Why doesn't that tell you that as far as input/output equilibrium is concerned "the only thing left is for the added energy to be ‘rerouted’ to" infrared radiation to space from the upper atmosphere (not water vapor, which isn't even there), with the exception of the atmospheric window. Have you forgotten what I said about CO(2) persisting in the same proportion to over 80 km altitude?
 
You also said, Dan, "It is unclear what you mean by this: '...an increase of 33% over preindustrial levels,...'.” [missing ellipses added]  Don't you recall that you said, "...the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has increased from about 3 per 10,000 to 4 per 10,000 in a century." Is that not an increase of 33%?
 
Some of us, at least, including you (refreshingly) understand that all heat leaves the earth as electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum. Considering that 99% of atmospheric gases are completely incapable of radiating anything at all to outer space, why would a 33% increase in CO(2) not be very, very significant? Unless you believe that our equilibrium temperature is almost completely independent of CO(2) or any other GHG in the atmosphere, that makes no sense at all.
 
If you argue that water vapor is what does that job, the total amount of water on earth is virtually constant over many millions of years. Unless you believe in magic and the complete violation of conservation law, water cannot ever be the initiator of any long-term change in the equilibrium temperature. It can only act as an amplifier for other factors that raise or lower the temperature to change the proportions found in vapor, liquid, and ice.
 
The main, really huge mistake I find in most arguments that deny the significance of GHGs in climate change in either direction is not seeing the forest for the trees. Total water in the earth system cannot ever be constant and also be the prime mover of any change in the long-term average equilibrium temperature that balances energy input/output for the earth system. Theoretical details, no matter how sophisticated, cannot ever change that big picture. How do you deal with that, Dan?
Robert Wendell Added Dec 11, 2017 - 11:55pm
https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
 
I predict some here will simply "bad mouth" Snopes, as if that had anything to do with the verifiable information in the article the link above points to. That's typical misdirection based on a straw man fallacy that refuses to even consider the validity of the content. Arguing with people who are aggressively interested in maintaining their positions and who accuse you of the same for not buying their absurd arguments is not very productive.
 
At least for now, I'm enjoying Dan's interchanges with me. He at least argues with a decent understanding of science. He also understands that I do and is willing to admit it, unlike the rest of those debating with me here.
 
The latter should be ashamed of their arrogant presumption and dismissive manner in the face of their near-total ignorance, but they're too deeply subject to the Dunning-Kruger Effect to recognize their profound lack of scientific competence. They don't even seem to notice the obvious logical fallacies in their arguments. 
 
That's even after I provide them links to those fallacies with clear definitions and examples of them. This is not even to mention their often repeated and fundamentally dishonest rhetorical tactics. They "debate" like politicians talking to their blind worshipers instead of debating with me.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 12, 2017 - 1:55am
Here is an interesting explanation of atmospheric composition at different altitudes and how solar energy interacts with them. The article explains that wherever most light passes down through the atmosphere, that part is called optically thin. Where most is blocked is optically thick.
 
The energy absorbed in the top layer or thermosphere is by non-GHGs. This energy is in the ultraviolet and X-ray regions. Note that optical thickness is practically zero until solar energy reaches the stratosphere. The first place where infrared is significant is also the stratosphere.
 
The solar energy entering the thermosphere converts to thermal energy, but the atmosphere is so thin that very low energy density results in extremely high temperatures as thermal (kinetic) energy. Kinetic heat cannot go to space, but moves down through the atmosphere. The first place where significant energy can radiate back to space is, once again, the stratosphere. This extends to around 50 km from about 10 km, or just above the troposphere.
 
Remember that only GHGs can radiate energy to space directly from the atmosphere. The earth's surface can only radiate directly to space via the atmospheric window. This represents only 16% of the total energy radiated back to space from the earth system. Cloud tops can also radiate to space for the other 13%. This leaves 71% radiated by GHGs. Of the GHGs, CO(2) is about 96%. This implies that roughly 68% of all energy radiated back to space is radiated by CO(2).
 
Now 99% of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen. They radiate zero infrared back to space. CO(2) radiates indiscriminately in all directions. How much goes out and how much goes down to the surface of the earth is determined by the amount of CO(2) in the atmosphere.
 
Both have to increase, along with other energy entering from the sun, to balance at an average long term temperature that is greater. The amount of CO(2) in the atmosphere has increased by about 33% since preindustrial times. OK, now your figure out what that means for life that cannot survive intact without major shifts in plant, animal, and human populations and geographical locations.
 
Then merely look at enough science shows no more hard to understand than those aimed at typical audiences. You will discover that insects from warm climates are moving north. Many larger animal populations are doing the same.
 
There are dozens of different scientific disciplines that are experiencing obvious changes in the environments they study. They all indicate that global warming is real. You have to live in a narrow information silo with lots of echoes of nothing beyond what you already believe to ignore this.
 
Some here, like Haluska, alternate between denying that climate change is affected by CO(2) and denial that it is even happening. He can't seem to make up his mind. He randomly switches back and forth between both arguments.
 
Where is the intellectual integrity in that? Never mind that he understands practically nothing about the most basic high school level physics principles. On some level he must know this, but pretends he's scientifically informed. Oh, he can spout lots of scientific facts, but that doesn't imply any understanding of them at all, does it (as illustrated by his ridiculously clueless "pissing in the ocean" non-analogy)?
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 12, 2017 - 2:13am
MW - Sorry to mislead you. The 'it' in the section you quoted is referring only to energy absorbed by CO2 at low altitude and the necessity that the energy show up at other wavenumbers than at the notch.
 
Your assertion that water vapor plays no role at high altitude is a bit strong. The role per molecule is unchanged, it’s just, as you said, there are very few molecules. 
 
Most of the radiation from water vapor gets all the way to space because there is nothing to absorb it over most of the WV absorb/emit wavelengths except other WV molecules.
 
The radiation 'signature' at high altitude consists of a 'spike' at its nominal absorb/emit wavelength of 15 microns. Look at that TOA graphic.
 
Oh that 33%. Thanks for explaining. CO2 has no significant effect on climate because of thermalization, etc.
 
That should have read 99% of dry atmospheric gases. Water vapor can get up to 4% (400,000 ppmv) in the tropics.
 
Water is the great stabilizer and regulator of earth temperature. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans keeps average global temperature fairly constant. The time constant is about 5 years. Water vapor self regulates the temperature. If temperature increases water vapor increases and albedo increases which reduces insolation (radiant heat from the sun reaching earth surface), reducing temperature and so on. End result is AGT has been within +/- a couple degrees for millennia.  
 
A major fault in the GCMs is they wrote them to have water vapor dependent on CO2 level. That is profoundly wrong and indicates incompetence. Liquid water has a vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water; nothing else. It does not matter how much CO2 is there. It could be 6,000+ ppmv as it once was or zero or anywhere in between. It does not even matter what the total pressure is.
 
Water vapor is what makes the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. The total amount of water does not have to change. What changes is the part of the water that is water vapor. When more of the water is water vapor, a GHG, the surface temperature must get higher to maintain the same radiant energy flux at TOA.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 12, 2017 - 3:35pm
RW – This is in response to your post which starts “Here is an…”
 
Regarding this statement “Kinetic heat cannot go to space, but moves down through the atmosphere”. I assume by ‘kinetic heat’ he is referring to energy transported by conduction or mass transport (gas at one temperature moves to another place where the gas temperature is different). No one who understands the engineering/science of heat transfer would make that statement because the only way for energy to significantly move down (without a fan) is by radiation.
 
The discussion about how energy moves from earth is mostly wrong, some ridiculously wrong. Particularly egregious is the contribution of non-condensing GHG. Assuming the spikes are 3 wavenumbers wide and there are 4 of them, they only add up to about 4 W/m2 out of the total average of about 240 W/m2 i.e. about 2%.  
 
I did a crude energy balance with results shown at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com Apparently both assessments used Trenberth’s 40 W/m2 for radiation through the ‘window’. A big difference is in radiation from clouds, your 13% amounts to 31 W/m2 vs my 75. My number is a calculation assuming average cloud temperature 258 K, average cloud emissivity 0.5 and 60% cloud cover. This calculation was made in 2011. The same method but using more recent values of cloud average temperature 267 K, emissivity 0.5 (same), and 62% cloud cover, results in 75*(267/258)4*62/60 = 89 K. The increased radiation from the clouds is balanced by an equal reduction in radiation from the atmosphere. The big uncertainty in this is average cloud emissivity. The 0.5 comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model  
 
As to the rest of your post, IMO there is a lot of confirmation bias and government grant mining involved by the “…dozens of different scientific disciplines… “.
 
I constantly monitor reports from the 5 agencies who report average global temperature (AGT). They all exhibited the 2015-2016 el Nino and the trend has been down since then. I have a bit more faith in trends using data from the 2 reports using satellite data because they cover the entire planet equally.
 
The current (thru Nov 2017) AGT trend using UAH monthly data since mid-2002 is up about 1.3 K per century. The uptrend has been driven by the increasing water vapor as reported by NASA/RSS at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201710.time_series.txt  
(this is the October report, the 10 will change to 11 soon for the November report)
Water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade since 1960 and is coincident with increasing irrigation. The increase is twice that calculated from increased vapor pressure from increased liquid water temperature. This uptrend is being countered by decline in solar activity (more and more days with no sunspots). Eventually, the uptrend will also be countered by increasing cloud cover. A 1.7% increase in cloud cover would result in an eventual drop of 0.5 K in AGT http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com . The increased warming is welcome but risk of catastrophe from precipitation related flooding is increased.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 12, 2017 - 4:35pm
So let me take a new tack.  Consider this real event which is a major event. The five years to recover is not a full recovery but where sufficient return, around half to 80%.
 
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) was one of the deadliest and most destructive volcanic events in recorded history. At least 36,417 deaths are attributed to the eruption and the tsunamis it created. Significant additional effects were also felt around the world in the days and weeks after the volcano's destruction. In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[11] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[11] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the “water year” from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[12] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[13] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[14] but many scientists doubt that there is a causal relationship.[15]
 
The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which as subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[16] Ref Wikipedia

The oceans didn't even see the effect and the planet rock was nothing. Real climate change has to effect the oceans which form recorded history takes hundreds of years to be even noticed. We have not sufficient accurate data to even evaluate real climate change. We can not even accurately predict atmospheric changes.
 
So what happens when we burn carbon base fuels? Well the carbon dioxide (CO2) also in the stratosphere will also transform to carbonic acid (H2CO3) which will fall to the ground or ocean as an acid. This is the problem already recognized in the east that effect the forest. The time constant for remove is likely similar to that for sulfur dioxide. Thus the burning of carbon fuels is taken care by the natural process that have existed for millions of years. Global warming is a fake because an equilibrium will be reach and has already been reached.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 12, 2017 - 5:47pm
What I define to remove CO2 can happen but the more likely way a balance is kept is by photosynthesis in plants.  And coal, oil, and natural gas is natures way of carbon sequestration.   The time constant for plant is months to decades and occurs in the ocean and lakes which we have little control of.   And water covers over 70% of the earths surface.  Land we have some control but in reality we need to eat so may change the plant.   A tree may look like a better converter of CO2 to oxygen but the choice of plants for food my guess actually more efficient because we feed more animals with less land. 
 
Thus a balance will develop for what ever amount of fuel we burn. The level of CO2 goes up then a matching level of photosynthesis happens because plant grow faster on average or collect more of the solar power to drive photosynthesis.  Nature will find a balance quickly.  The five year period for the volcano is likely in the order of magnitude of photosynthesis.   The delta change of burning is small so the correction in photosynthesis will happen quickly.  Only a very small increase in CO2 will happen with a significant increase in the rate of production of Carbon Dioxide.  The threat of global warming is fake news.
Robert Wendell Added Dec 12, 2017 - 6:27pm
Dan, by kinetic energy I mean non-radiant, molecular or atomic heat with a temperature. Also, the constant amount of total water in the earth system clearly means it cannot be a prime mover of change. It can only amplify the effect of some other factor that initiates a change in either direction, heating or cooling.
 
To pretend that a fixed amount of water in the earth system can initiate or be fundamentally responsible for a change requires magical thinking that ignores the big picture. That includes how much is in the atmosphere, since either an increase or decrease in the atmosphere has to be caused by some other factor. As soon as you can elevate yourself above the ground by tugging upwards on your bootstraps, I will be willing to consider a counterargument.
Dan Pangburn Added Dec 12, 2017 - 7:32pm
RW - The initiating and sustaining source of changes on earth is mostly changes on the sun. The part that does not appear to be caused by changes on the sun is the net effect of ocean cycles. I have yet seen a plausible explanation for ocean cycles except, perhaps, a resonance with other planets.  http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/Synodic-Jupiter.html

Recent Articles by Writers William Stockton follows.