Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[HAL 90000 0]

If you find his facts questionable then follow the links he provides to his evidence. There is a lot of information if you include his references.

Gary, did you show me this before? This is truly eye-opening. I can't believe how wrong I was!

I need more time to digest all this amazing data. If this is true, and I am beginning to suspect it is, I may have been wrong about everything all along.

Sometimes, it really are the simple minds that see the world for what it is. Too much nuance and complexity and detail can blind one.

Thanks!

[mRx 16]

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

[HAL 9000 96]

Just returning from some work of my own- but here's a little bit of my take:

P. 3 and 4 are enlightening. Some pretty interesting assumptions about the molecular activity of how saturated a CO2 molecule is in regards to its energy reflectance. I wonder if the analysis is also including molecular resonance and how day/night cycles influence the energy state of these bonds.

This immediately puts into question the author's use of logarithmic scaling to explain how even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 wouldn't yield a measurable disturbance in this energy reflection. Remember that something as simple as night allows for a lower energy reflection after these molecules have given off the solar energy they've absorbed, thusly moving to a lower energy state from saturation. Plus, by acknowledging that CO2 is in itself a greenhouse gas, part of the equation is alluded to as to how both the natural and artificial contributors to GW exists.

That is evidence, and quite clear to see. So perhaps the author can choose better wording.

Furthermore, one major setback to the reasoning of non-evidenciary analysis is one that seems to completely ignore a global homeostatic model. Basically, if its cold somewhere, it will be hotter elsewhere. Heat energy works like that. Unless you change the amount of input/output energy (solar/dissipate to space), the net level of energy on this planet stays the same.

p. 5

Feedbacks throughout history are relativized to water vapor. Same thing though. The author assumes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is THE KEY to climate. In fact, what he should state isn't about climate... but weather. This is something else that has been discussed in these threads ad nauseam.

I think the author also is ignoring that tropospheric changes would be static, and that water vapor would likely stay put to cause greater fluctuations and effects in greenhouse dynamics. Take is as you will but I don't think water would likely stick around in an expanded troposphere. In fact, the very feedback mechanisms described would probably influence some of that water vapor to reduce- possible doing some really weird things with weather in the process... hmmmm...

The red herring shows up by p.9: The author is using time scales in the tens of years to describe climate shift phenomena known to influence a much wider time period. Which shows up in the author's obsessive look at Al Gore.

Does CO2 level lag temperature rise? Or is it the other way around? Lets make sure we're looking at appropriate correlations, not peaks and troughs on graphs. How can we do that when we are not around thousands of years ago?

Next is the issue of correlation. This is what I was mentioning to mawilson up above. What the author is describing as a poor man's correlation (correlation on linear scale is what it is... not open to debate mathematically as long as the data follows- for the segment of data being described- linearity) is correlation any way you look at it. With oscillation patterns included. Figure 7 shows it.

Again by p 14 the author is committing the same mistake... confusing climate with weather. Even ignoring this... IF, as the author tries pointing out- CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming, by 800 years... then the author has no business trying to link ten-year cycles of temperature variations with CO2 or other possible causes.

In fact, the author goes on a rant about alarmist scientists savagely ignoring other potential causes when in fact, most scientists agree that it isn't only CO2 at fault. This is an example of one analyst making a personal crusade against the scientific community's consensus that tries using cherry-picked 'data' that has logical flaws when applied to the argument being attempted.

Finally... the author is countering the CO2 model for GW by again assuming the feedback of temperature on CO2 hasn't been shown and thusly isn't credible evidence. Not to mention the author's reluctance to mention how gases dissipate in the atmosphere over time and how they are cycled into chemical cycles.

I wonder, then... why so many smart people out there haven't caught on to this. The answer is because they too can read and notice logical mistakes in arguments like these- that are fairly common in the naysayers'club.

I think it highly irresponsible to use ill-begotten logic to conclude certain things about how CO2 behaves given the author's own admission that many of the topics he covered are still very grey areas of understanding for the entire community of science... and thusly... active areas of research.

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

Can I throw battery acid on it?

sure, and some old plastic bottles, the non-recyclable ones

Wooot!

[mawilson 2,133]

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

We can convince European countries to follow the American example.

Once Europe is on board, we can impose trade sanctions on China, India and other polluting countries.

Right now, it's pot calling kettle black - we can't tell China not to pollute when we are the biggest polluters ourselves.

[HAL 90000 0]

In sum, Gary - you were right and I was wrong.

Thanks, this was fun.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

unlikely. what's the incentive for them?

[HAL 90000 0]

I am still reeling from the pwnage I got from Gary.

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gery-

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

Well that solves it (again).

You don't want to discuss something that clearly discomforts you, and I don't know if its because you can't grasp the concepts behind the reasoning... since I don't know you well enough about how you really think, I reserve making personal and insulting judgements that make Baby Jesus cry.

But when you do want to have an open discussion about science and how things work, let me know.

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

Read it, comment on it. It isn't a scientific study but it is an article written by a PHd. He outlines point by point the problems I have with GW. He also posted links to the studies that are in his article. Read them. Show me where he is wrong.

So if it isn't scientific, what level of comment would be suitable for you? And you do understand that right and wrong aren't exactly the best concepts to juggle in an Op piece right?

(I am reading it, BTW).

Again... lets address points, not conclusions.

It is an OP piece written by a scientist and he is citing scientific studies. That makes it a valid starting point for discussion. If you find his facts questionable then follow the links he provides to his evidence. There is a lot of information if you include his references.

So I'm checking out the references... and none are directly printed in peer-reviewed journals... but rather part of the IPCC report series, and CCSP review series.

Of course there isn't enough time to check them all out independently... and the actual literature is legitimate. The data the author (I wonder if he annotated the data accurately... because its somewhat clear he didn't conceptualized it in light of the atmosphere being more dynamic than a bag of air) presents IMO a misstated interpretation of how physical data reflects on homeostatic changes in the atmosphere.

If you find his facts questionable then follow the links he provides to his evidence. There is a lot of information if you include his references.

Gary, did you show me this before? This is truly eye-opening. I can't believe how wrong I was!

I need more time to digest all this amazing data. If this is true, and I am beginning to suspect it is, I may have been wrong about everything all along.

Sometimes, it really are the simple minds that see the world for what it is. Too much nuance and complexity and detail can blind one.

Thanks!

Whomever this troll is... I love it.

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

Who knows?

Perhaps we can stumble onto more cost-effective technologies in the process, thereby making mass-polluting methods a more expensive proposition. Specially when considering clean-up costs later on down the road that are usually ignored by the incentives market.

[mawilson 2,133]

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

"Any of us"?

Ok, I'll bite. What makes you think you're the only one with a "scientific education"?

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

P.S. Err... never mind. Just noticed the extra zero

Edited July 1, 2009 by mawilson

[HAL 9000 96]

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

We can convince European countries to follow the American example.

Once Europe is on board, we can impose trade sanctions on China, India and other polluting countries.

Right now, it's pot calling kettle black - we can't tell China not to pollute when we are the biggest polluters ourselves.

This is very true.

[HAL 90000 0]

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

Nonsense.

That said, I hold you in high esteem regardless of your lack of educational bona fides.

[mawilson 2,133]

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

Nonsense.

That said, I hold you in high esteem regardless of your lack of educational bona fides.

[HAL 9000 96]

Is the idea that once we start limiting our emissions (by raising our costs), then all of the Earth's governments will see the benefits of greener energy and follow the American example?

We can convince European countries to follow the American example.

Once Europe is on board, we can impose trade sanctions on China, India and other polluting countries.

Right now, it's pot calling kettle black - we can't tell China not to pollute when we are the biggest polluters ourselves.

This is very true.

I am still reeling from the pwnage I got from Gary.

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

"Any of us"?

Ok, I'll bite. What makes you think you're the only one with a "scientific education"?

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

P.S. Err... never mind. Just noticed the extra zero

for whomever it is.

[nowhereman 1]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way