It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Global Warming Doubters, Have a Video |
Its amazing to believe, but there are still people who deny that global warming exists. There are even more people who admit that global warming exists, but insist that it isn’t a problem.
To these people, I suggest taking a look at a video of a detailed lecture on the effect of global warming on coral reefs. The video has been produced by the Coral Reef Studies Center of Excellence in Australia.
It’s not An Inconvenient Truth. The graphs aren’t as pretty, but these are serious people talking about a very serious crisis that is not receiving the attention it merits: They’re talking about the prospect of the disappearance of reef-building corals from the Earth’s oceans.
Contact Us
Greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat from the earth’s surface and keep it warm. Except for the minuscule contribution of radioactive decay, all of this heat came from the sun and all must be radiated from the planet for it to retain its average temperature. Climatologists are good at measuring temperature and wind and determining how energy moves about the planet. Apparently, however, their training does not include knowledge of the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat. This lack of relevant training has contributed to the Global Warming Mistake. With adequate training they would be aware of the science that all of the radiant heat from the earth’s surface that is going to be absorbed by greenhouse gases gets absorbed close to the ground (half within less than 24 meters) and is carried up by convection currents to where it ultimately gets radiated to space. The average global temperature is modulated by convection currents. The convection is negligibly influenced by the amount of carbon dioxide. The only effect of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide is that the radiant heat from the surface would be absorbed a few feet closer to the ground. Human activity that puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere never has and never will have any influence on global climate.
Graphs of climate history presented at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html ) show that carbon dioxide level has had no significant influence on climate. The reason why the carbon dioxide level has no significant influence on climate is revealed in papers by Dr. John Nicol, Dr. Jack Barrett and Dr. Heinz Hug. These papers are available on the web at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc , http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf , and http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm respectively.
Comment by Dan Pangburn — 5/20/2008 @ 4:02 pm
Dan,
I think you lost 90% of the readers at “Greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat”!
As to the first sentence, April was the coldest April in the past 100 years and the following link sheds more light on to the questionable science of global warming.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/20/170863.aspx
If people believe that the earth can naturally have cooling cycles why is it such a stretch to think it has natural heating cycles? Probably because without Global warming it’s harder to justify taking freedoms away from the people. i.e. Barack Hussein Obama’s Oregon speech.
Comment by Joe — 5/20/2008 @ 4:40 pm
Joe,
I think you lost 90% of the readers with your “Barack Hussein Obama” comment.
Hey guys, look! There’s a flat Earth!
Made you look.
Oh, and did you go and actually watch the video? No, of course not.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/20/2008 @ 5:07 pm
You’d think wise people would err on the side of caution and at least SLOW DOWN the rate of carbon dioxide production, nitrogen reactive compounds, and other pollution and at least START to develop “greener” ways to live on the planet.
Since a very large part of humanity (like India and China) aren’t going along with these ideas, and since the nay-sayers above are typical of where humanity is with respect to this issue, i’d say that, in the long run (less than 200 years), we’re toast. Real, measurable effects of our way of life have been documented and written about in peer-reviewed scientific journals and other sources over and over again for the doubters to view as evidence, but stupidity reigns (in no small part due to our nut-case in chief and the idiotic, corporate controlled media).
Just watch as it gets increasingly worse over the next bunch of years and when it’s far too late to do anything about it, you’ll see just how ignorant humanity has been.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/20/2008 @ 6:33 pm
Green Man, its his middle name isn’t it? No one is saying we shouldn’t be more efficient just saying no to taxes, mandates and caps on economic growth. As for scientific journals, written by who meteorologists and climatologists? They can’t tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow. Wake up if no one else slows their manufacturing and we do then China and India run America. This is precisely what the Environmental Left want. Egotistical thoughts like we actually make a difference one way or the other are humorous.
Comment by Joe — 5/20/2008 @ 6:42 pm
Atmospheric carbon dioxide level has no significant influence on global climate. Never has. Never will. See above for sources of climate history and reason why. Any activity to limit carbon dioxide level is a total waste.
Comment by Dan Pangburn — 5/20/2008 @ 8:19 pm
Well, I looked your op-ed piece, Dan, and I was unimpressed with an assertion that because “The temperature has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exhibits a smooth progressive rise,” somehow that makes carbon dioxide is unrelated to temperature. You’re thinking univariate. Think multivariate.
Comment by Jim — 5/20/2008 @ 9:51 pm
How you characterize NOAA reports:
“According to NOAA data, the average global temperature trended down during 2007 to lower than it was in 1998.”
How NOAA characterizes NOAA reports:
“The year 2007 the 10th warmest year for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895…. Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.”
Comment by Jim — 5/20/2008 @ 9:55 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_high_and_low_temperatures_by_state
NOAA data as well Jim. (If you posted the religion article I have a question. Would you oppose a week of black-out go green eco-shit as strongly as a religious week?)
It is in inexact science at best. Only one record from the 00’s. What stupidity. Prove that temperatures follow CO2 and not the other way around. Notice no one will debate this shit, not even Al Gore. Why? Because its smoke and mirrors. Change it from Global warming to Global Climate change, the climate changes daily and has forever. Change it from Liberal to Progressive still un-intended side-effect screw-ups. The Baby-Boomers couldn’t die fast enough in my opinion, get rid of some of these hippie burn-outs.
Comment by Joe — 5/20/2008 @ 10:07 pm
The records you cite are of the highest temperature ever per 50 states for any day whatsoever. What is the baseline probability that in the decade so far there would be a record? Without that as a comparison you don’t have a useful statistic. And what relation does this have to mean temperature, which is what the climatologists you disparage have been talking about?
Comment by Jim — 5/20/2008 @ 10:14 pm
If…the…highest …daily …temperatures….aren’t…..rising…..how is it that the earth IS GETTING WARMER? There is only 7 from after 1970? What is the probability that Al Gore is financially gaining from his lies? 100%. I hear so much shit about Bush being a Fascist, what about the global warming crowd who threatens professional exclusion based on not falling in goose-step. Jim, you honestly don’t see the humor in the fact that all the sudden these “experts” see global cooling for the next ten years? The record was set in 1998 and temperature hasn’t increased in 10 years add that to 10 years of forecast cooling and whoa thats 20 years!
Comment by Joe — 5/20/2008 @ 10:29 pm
You people are all up into statistics… Let’s think for a minute. Where do these statistics for the last 100, 200, or more years come from. There has not always been extremely precise measuring devices in this world we live in. Some of those temperature readings from long long ago were taken from devices that were as inaccurate as a smooth bore musket is compared to a sniper rifle today. Picture if you will: it’s 1884, electricity is still a dream in your home, a reliable indoor light bulb is still 5 years in the future, and only the biggest cities have outdoor lighting, so you read in the morning and at night by candle, you are the person responsible for recording the weather readings for your community newspaper, so you wake up early on a chilly January morning, run outside with your blanket wrapped around you with your candle burning “brightly” to look at the little glass tube full of mercury or alcohol, the tube is held in place by two little wire straps that allow the tube to slide up and down some so accuracy is not great, you quickly memorize the number beside the top level of the liquid so you can jot it down when you get back inside where it is warm, there is no such job as a meteorologist, so you do all this in addition to your normal job with the paper..whatever that might be. Was that particular reading the true low for the overnight, will the reading you take later in the day be the true high for the day? Or did you get busy and forget to check the thermometer every 15 minutes for the highest temperature. Oh well, you did your best and recorded it for posterity. Flash forward 125 years, the 11:00 pm t.v. weather guy lists the previous record high temperature as being 45 degrees in 1884, but we broke it today with a high of 50. A reading he took off a computer which monitored the temperature every 5 seconds of the day to get the most accurate temperatures, taken electronically with a precisely calibrated device that can be duplicated 1000’s of times for 1000’s of weather stations located all over the city, county, state, and country. What’s that? A new record high? Must be that darn global warming again… WHATEVER!
Comment by Leon — 5/21/2008 @ 1:40 am
Ah, I see, Joe. You haven’t actually gone to see the video lecture. You’re just criticizing it without knowing what it says.
You wrote, “…written by who meteorologists and climatologists? They can’t tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.”
Joe, that argument might have held a little water back in the 1970s. You seem, in general, stuck in the 1970s. However, if you actually paid attention, you’d see that meteorologists ARE now usually able to tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, with a great degree of reliability.
But, I think it’s very very odd that you suggest that the people we should trust least to understand the climate are scientists who have made a career of specializing in the study of climate.
Who do you suggest we trust instead? How about oil company public relations firms and lobbyists?
This is interesting. I’m noticing that global warming doubters have a similar kind of behavior as Ron Paul supporters.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/21/2008 @ 5:39 am
“If…the…highest …daily …temperatures….aren’t…..rising…..how is it that the earth IS GETTING WARMER?”
Joe, if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand what a mean is. Go read up on what a mean is.
Leon hasn’t read up on the methodology. Clearly, Green Man, we need to put up some more educational links.
Comment by Jim — 5/21/2008 @ 6:13 am
Yeah meteorologists do a good job in Arizona…”It’s gonna be sunny tomorrow”. Not so much for lets say anywhere that has “Climate Change”. The funny thing is if I quoted the mean your would quote daily’s and vise versa. Look at me i’m slippery. ..
Basically the polar caps aren’t melting the sea isn’t rising and your “fear-mongering” scientists are calling for ten years of cooling. No witty retort to professional dangers of not being on the boat? Throw caution to the wind lets live in caves because an inexact science says we are killing the planet. Anyone recall the infamous “Hockey-Stick” graph from “inconvenient truth” similar to the one the guy shows in the video? It was a farce and totally fabricated. I guess the truth or even scientific discussion is also inconvenient.
Still no reply to global cooling for ten years? Hey, I’ll sell you some stupidity offsets, but first tell me all about mean, medians SD’s, AUC’s and p-value’s please…*anticipation*
Comment by Joe — 5/21/2008 @ 7:47 am
Wow, Joe. You’ve really lost grip. The lecturer in the video describes exactly where the data for those graphs comes from, and encourages you to replicate the analysis if you don’t believe him. Did you try that, or are you just blowing hot air?
Comment by The Green Man — 5/21/2008 @ 8:18 am
Naysayers can argue all they want, but ice-core records, ocean temperatures, glacial retreat and the other evidence clearly points to the fact that things are going to change BIG TIME climatically and in short order (think a few hundred years). The world body who wrote up the report (the IPCC) actually UNDERESTIMATED the coming results, and they predicted that it’s going to get drier where it’s relatively dry now, wetter where it’s relatively wet now, and that all of us will be subject to ERRATIC weather patterns. So it isn’t going to be a smooth warming trend over the next 100 years. It may be cooler in some cases, but overall we’re going to lose the glaciers, the ice masses in the arctic, the tundra of Alaska and Siberia will melt (releasing vast amounts of methane, which is even worse for trapping heat than CO2), and all of this will have severe consequences on the ability of not only humans but all life on the planet to survive whether you believe it or not.
Comment by Tom — 5/21/2008 @ 8:21 am
No, no, no, Joe. Don’t slip by this with a little glib comment.
You asked, “how is it that the earth is getting warmer?” if “the highest daily temperatures aren’t rising”.
There is an answer to that question, and the answer to that question requires that you understand what a mean is. If you don’t understand what a mean is, then go look it up. If you really do understand what a mean is, then you should be able to answer your own question.
If you’re really an intellectually curious person who wants to understand climate change, I suggest you sit down and do some thinking about the answer to your own question. (It’s not my job to teach you statistical literacy… start here if you need some help.)
There isn’t “global cooling.”
Is NASA part of the conspiracy?
Comment by Jim — 5/21/2008 @ 8:45 am
So you saying that in ten years the highs wont get higher just the mean will rise? Can you explain how then we are going to burn up? That is a reduction in the coefficient of variance not an increase in temperature. Jim we all have our scientific journals and if you are so wise in the ways of stats though you claim not to be an academic you should realize stats lie worse than you do when manipulated.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/01/new-york-times-new-climate-model-predicts-global-cooling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
If global warming is linked to CO2 and we aren’t slowing CO2 production its impossible that there is going to be a cooling cycle. It is scientists on your side saying this shit. I’ve lost interest…Global warming is Jim’s new God. Yeah for Jim, replace religion with Global Warming. They have a lot in common they both take faith!
Comment by Joe — 5/21/2008 @ 9:32 am
So you DO claim that NASA is part of a conspiracy then. I just showed you the facts. YOU, on the other hand, just linked to a news report that talked about slight cooling due to La Nina that in no way contradicts the climate models tying CO2 increases to a global warming trend:
Here’s a link to the actual original Nature article of May 1. It does not contradict greenhouse gas research at all, but rather supplements it with consideration of the effect of ocean currents on temperature. I don’t see why I should be expected by you to dispute that. It’s an interesting paper.
Your statement “If global warming is linked to CO2 and we aren’t slowing CO2 production its impossible that there is going to be a cooling cycle” is only true if we live in a univariate world. We live in a multivariate world, obviously, and the Nature article makes that explicit.
Comment by Jim — 5/21/2008 @ 10:10 am
A multivariate world that we humans play little to no roll in when in comes to climate control. Stop a hurricane make a rain storm Almighty Humans. Question anything these idiots hold as their new gold calf and suffer the labels. Don’t believe in unproven man made Global warming your an idiot. Believe in unproven creation and god your an idiot. Think Obama is a moron muslim douche bag, your a racist. Think welfare sucks you an elitist.
NASA is surely in on the hoax. See previous remarks about strong arming into submission. It is well know in the scientific community that if you want funding and recognition tie your research to Global Warming, if you want to go broke say it doesn’t exist.
Heres the actual link to you are an idiot…www.jimisanidiot.com
Comment by Joe — 5/21/2008 @ 2:00 pm
Well, that last statement pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
Comment by Jim — 5/21/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Dan,
You have confused two very different cooling processes. The Earth does not cool via the mechanism of radiant heat. The Earth cools by radiative cooling: the emission of long-wave radiation into space (infrared radiation). Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are very good at absorbing this outgoing longwave radiation so that it cannot escape into space. This is the primary process that contributes to global warming.
Regarding the references you cite.
The first ones has a lot of figures that show a clear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels. I will agree that from these data alone, one cannot conclude that increasing CO2 causes increased temperatures.
The crux of John Nicol’s paper is in Figure 7 on page 43. Here he claims that CO2, after absorbing IR radiation, is put into an excited state. He shows the emission of radiation as CO2 drops back down to a normal state. However, and this is where the entire paper falls apart. CO2 does not emit radiation upon dropping to the resting state. The extra energy is converted to an increase in vibrational energy in the molecule (HEAT). Few molecules actually re-emit radiation in the process of returning from and excited state to the resting state.
Barrett seems to dismiss the idea of increased CO2 concentrations leading to global warming because his calculations show only about a 1-2% increase in IR radiation with a doubling of CO2. This 1-2% increase may be all it takes to increase global temperatures by a degree or two.
Hug’s article makes an interesting point about our measurement of CO2 IR absorption. I think, however, it’s quite a stretch to go from these laboratory measurements to climate science.
Comment by Mark — 5/21/2008 @ 2:31 pm
If you want to go broke say global warming doesn’t exist?!? Oh, give unto me a break!
If you want to get funding from the oil companies, say global warming doesn’t exist! Exxon has been giving away plenty to scientists willing compromise their professional integrity in exchange for cash.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/21/2008 @ 2:39 pm