Global Warming Update

A while back, Rusty, one of our resident progressives and I, debated the global warming issue specifically as it related to human involvement. I cited several sources wherein it was noted that temperatures had leveled off over the last decade despite continual measurable  increases in carbon emissions. Well this fact has even now caught the attention of the “quite liberal” Gray Lady:

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Amazingly, despite the fact that previous claims of rising temperatures as a result of carbon emissions by global warming alarmists have now been proven false, the movement to control personal activity continues. And dovetailing into Mark’s previous thread, the global warming issue, or climate change issue, or whatever it is called today, IS just another mechanism for control over the population sought by governments. And even more harming to America is the fact that this cause has become global, and many world governments are hoping to legislate our activity and redistribute our wealth in the name of climate change. Restricting our freedoms? You’re damn right, and those freedoms are being assaulted on many different fronts. The worst enemy to an ever expanding and controlling government is an educated and armed populace, unfortunately the “educated” part of that equation has waned considerably over the last few decades, and the “armed” part of that equation is currently under attack. Thomas Jefferson once said that a “democracy requires eternal vigilance”, and for those of us who hope to keep liberty in tact, we had better start stepping up to the plate.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Global Warming Update

  1. Cluster June 13, 2013 / 1:02 pm

    Well Watson, with temperatures leveling off over a long period of time and carbon emissions continuing to increase, it doesn’t take a scientist to realize that the direct correlation between the two once cited by alarmists is false.

  2. Cluster June 13, 2013 / 1:05 pm

    The climate has always changed, and always will – that’s not the point. The issue is human involvement in regard to carbon emission output as once claimed by ALGORE. That argument is now proving to be very weak.

    Can you imagine what these alarmists would have done had they been around during the dust bowl?

  3. neocon01 June 13, 2013 / 1:28 pm

    It is not, as some contend controlled by the 2nd law of thermodynamics for it constantly receives energy from the sun

    WRONG on BOTH.

    • neocon01 June 14, 2013 / 7:49 am

      WE DON”T LIKE YOU
      Bingo…….
      AND watty, AND crusty, AND the forkers (which the kid is one of.)

  4. neocon01 June 13, 2013 / 2:38 pm

    AGW = HOAX for dummies.

    The perfect “closed system” in the universe might be an asteroid orbiting Mars as seen above. Practically no matter input. Another is earth.

    Interesting how Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) fanatics are being strangely silent lately. And this winter–in the writer’s home town of Asheville–has been one of the warmest in decades. [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/15197/Nice-Weather-in-US-Makes-Obama-a-Little-Nervous-It-gets-you-a-little-nervous-about-what-is-happening-to-global-temps–Climate-Depot-Answers-Global-Temps-are-dropping]

    One certainty–earth is a ‘closed system’. There can be energy exchange, but there is no matter exchange. In other words, there can be no accumulation or elimination of a particular element or compound. It has, and will remain, the same for millenia. There are temperature variances for periods, but all matter remains equal in a ‘closed system’. Any carbon dioxide [CO2] generated will be converted to glucose.

    AGW followers believe all the [CO2] from burning fossil fuels (e.g., oils, gas, etc…) artificially raises global temperatures.

    There’s a huge quantity of [CO2] generated when oil is consumed, but all [CO2] gets consumed with the natural production of [glucose] by photosynthesis (addition of light). Breathing by animals reverses the process, and releases [CO2]. This process has remained static and ‘closed’ for eons on earth.

    There can be surges of either [CO2], or [glucose], but they always have equaled out in 600 million years of history. Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gives detailed [CO2] concentrations and temperatures over past few eons. Even as recently as the Jurassic Period (when dinosaurs roamed), [CO2] averaged 1800 ppm (>3x higher) than today’s paltry 390 ppm. Likely, no fossil fuel was burned at that time.

    Earth might be a ‘closed system’ for matter, but it is not for energy. The major energy source for the earth is obviously the sun. The sun is known to have over 30 cycles that have large effects on its climate. That’s besides all earth’s cycles (e.g.,orbit eccentricity, tilt, etc..). All these are the antithesis of anything anthropogenic (human caused) occurring.

    Recent warm temperatures in North America have been a direct result of The Arctic Oscillation and Arctic Weather Patterns (AO), while at the same time giving frigid cold to locations in the eastern hemisphere. The resultant “AO” was produced by sun variations. No carbon or oxygen was changed in this ‘closed system’.

    Just lately, we have been on the upside of an 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Solar cycle – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). After a major lull, there has been a major increase in sunspot activity. Just a week ago, a major solar storm hit earth. It involved coronal mass ejection, and ejecting a massive plasma cloud.

    This plasma cloud hit earth at 4 million mph. This time, any technology disruptions were helped by a favorable northern orientation. Had that orientation been southern, technological disruption would have been quite severe. It should be remembered in 1989, when a similar solar outburst struck the power grid in Quebec, Canada, depriving 6 million of power.

    Sunspots typically produce additional cosmic radiation, which produce clouds, which affect climate. Cosmic rays usually affect cloud formation through cloud condensation nuclei. Solar Geomagnetic Activity at all-time Low shows how solar activity has dramatically decreased in the last 165 years. Changes of 3–4% in cloudiness have been correlated to the 11-year solar (sunspot) cycles.

    One cycle, the Grand Solar Minimum, is when total radiation from the Sun predicted to last a century precedes a new ice age. We are at the end of a interglacial period (warm), since the period between ice ages is generally 11,500 years. But it has nothing to do with anthropogenic changes.

    The highly AGW-biased Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges their report contains very little scientific understanding of solar variation, or what all the natural sun cycles can do depending on which cycle is dominant at the time. At least they are willing to admit different cycles, with different time periods, and different solar activities.

    Dennis Avery (Scientist/Hudson Institute) notes: “Humans have known for 400 years—since Galileo—that sunspots correlate with climate changes on earth…” Significantly fewer sunspots have predicted the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age (1300), the Sporer Minimum (1460), the Maunder Minimum (1645), and the recent Dalton Minimum (early 1800s). All of which was due to the Sun—not [CO2] concentration.

    What is it about AGW that makes it so exciting? Maybe it’s actually thinking that man controls his eventual outcome. Possibly someone forgot to tell God he made earth a ‘closed system’…

    “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” —Albert Einstein

  5. ricorun June 13, 2013 / 4:06 pm

    Cluster: I cited several sources wherein it was noted that temperatures had leveled off over the last decade despite continual measurable increases in carbon emissions.

    Cluster again: Well Watson, with temperatures leveling off over a long period of time and carbon emissions continuing to increase, it doesn’t take a scientist to realize that the direct correlation between the two once cited by alarmists is false.
    First of all, what happened to Watson’s comment? It sounds like he might have had something worthwhile to say.

    • neocon01 June 14, 2013 / 7:36 am

      reek-0
      trolls are routinely deleted, one civil comment in an attempt to get their nose back into the tent does not change the zebras stripe.

      meanwhile reek-0 prove your point…….

  6. ricorun June 13, 2013 / 4:38 pm

    Cluster: I cited several sources wherein it was noted that temperatures had leveled off over the last decade despite continual measurable increases in carbon emissions.

    Most scientists understand that the situation is more complicated than that. But be that as it may, at what level did Cluster’s “several sources” claimed they “level off” at? If Cluster meant they had leveled off at the highest levels ever recorded in history, then I’m sure you can appreciate that that’s potentially problematic.

    Cluster again: Well Watson, with temperatures leveling off over a long period of time and carbon emissions continuing to increase, it doesn’t

    First of all, what happened to Watson’s comment? Given that Cluster responded to him, It sounds like watson might have had something worthwhile to say. But Watson’s comment is apparently erased. What’s up with that [irony not withstanding]?

    • Cluster June 13, 2013 / 5:16 pm

      If Cluster meant they had leveled off at the highest levels ever recorded in history, then I’m sure you can appreciate that that’s potentially problematic.

      That begs the question Rico – what is the average temperature of the planet? Are we actually warming up from normal? Or to normal? And in history – you mean just since records have been kept, which encompasses a minute span of history.

      I don’t know what happen to Watson’s comment but it wasn’t worthy of deletion in my opinion.

      A question among Moderators was should some people be not allowed because their posts are intended to be disruptive or should each post be considered alone based on if it is “civil” or not. The prevailing opinion was that we should not allow some people no matter what an individual post might say because overall they are disruptive and we do not want to get dragged into a dissertation on each and every post. Every person who has been named as unacceptable has been warned many times and has continued to be disruptive and has shown a pattern of coming back with one or two reasonable posts and then returning to nothing but blog vandalism. Every person named as unacceptable has been one who has insisted on coming back here with nothing but the same old talking points, cluttering the blog with nothing but rote contradictions. All posters from the Brimstone have been named as unacceptable and so have some others who merely restate the same thing over and over again. A hope was that posters would be able to refrain from responding to these people. This was evidently a false hope. The urge to respond to these people is evidently too strong to overcome so the blog is cluttered with the footprints of deleted posters, creating confusion. A hope was that regular posters would understand the desire to have discourse among conservatives flow without disruption from people who only want to disrupt but who offer nothing else. This was also evidently a false hope. The goal was to enable discourse without quibbling but evidently some here love the constant regurgitation of Leftist talking points and constantl rebuttal of them over and over without positive results even when this does not further the discussion. // Moderator

      • Retired Spook June 15, 2013 / 7:39 am

        That begs the question Rico – what is the average temperature of the planet? Are we actually warming up from normal? Or to normal? And in history – you mean just since records have been kept, which encompasses a minute span of history.

        Until alarmists can answer those questions, the whole debate is really moot.

      • Cluster June 15, 2013 / 11:24 am

        Rusty,
        Do you honestly believe that we could calibrate the planets climate to remain in a habitable condition if in fact it were trending toward a non habitable state?

      • Cluster June 15, 2013 / 12:22 pm

        Talk about ignorance Rusty, good gracious. Why do you cling to disproven talking points son? The correlation between carbon emissions and rising temperatures is just not there, regardless of how desperately you want it to be so. It’s ok to admit that you were wrong. Sun spots and solar flares that emanate from the giant fire ball in the sky impact our climate moreso than we ever could, and unless and until we can find a way to harness the sun, we will just have to put up with “climate change”.

        Now to address your asinine assumption that I believe we should “do nothing”. I believe we should transition to greener, more sustainable energies, but only because crude oil is a finite resource. Not because it’s killing polar bears.

      • Amazona June 15, 2013 / 2:40 pm

        What I don’t understand is why you even bother to respond to rusty. For one thing, isn’t he one of the trolls who has been deleted when he posts? At least I see posts from him that later disappear. Why bother to write back and have some response hanging there that does not relate to anything?

        And why waste time repeating yourself? Not one single thing here has not been said on this blog, over and over and over again. You know perfectly well that truth and accuracy and common sense will never disrupt the fanatical belief system of people like rusty, a belief system which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their irrational knee-jerk need to oppose anything said by anyone they can label as “conservative”.

        Your hero must by Sisyphus.

      • tiredoflibbs June 15, 2013 / 3:21 pm

        cluster, these proggies have no idea about the affects of carbon dioxide and “man-made” green house gases.

        Let’s look at Mars. Mars’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide – a “greenhouse gas” – 3% nitorgen, trace gases an water vapor. Now, earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and 2% trace gases and water vapor (of which 0.039% is CARBON DIOXIDE). Of course, the atmospheric density of earth is 100x that of Mars. Of all things being equal, the atmospheric mass of CO2 on earth is 1.95 teratonnes and on Mars it is 25 teratonnes (20x that of earth!). The temperatures on Mars range from -140C to 20C. You would expect that have so much greenhouse gas, trapping the sun’s heat, on hand the temperature would be vastly different

        Somehow the proggies expect us to believe that CO2 is responsible for global warming, climate change or whatever slogan they want to use today. Apparently, CO2 is not the efficient greenhouse gas that they expect us to believe. If it were not for water and its vapor trapping the variable solar output, our planet would be very cold indeed. Even, Algore’s own hockey stick model in his “Convenient Lie” would show a changes in CO2 concentration LEADING changes in temperature and not the other way around if CO2 was the culprit.

        The figures above are from multiple sources and can be found by searching “atmospheric density” and “atmospheric composition”. I did not post the links since multiple links would have put this post in moderation, but the data can be easily found if one is willing to look.

      • tiredoflibbs June 15, 2013 / 11:23 pm

        It figures that the proggies would miss the point on Mars Nd the CO2 greenhouse gas nonsense. I acknowledged that it has a thinner atmosphere and, duhhh, that it is further from the sun. Even so, Mars reaches temperatures of 68F with its thin atmosphere, no less. Its thin atmosphere still contains 20 times more CO2 than Earth. IF CO2 was the driving forces of globa warming/climate change the one shoul expect results to follow that of the prevailing theory.

        I said that CO2 is responsible for the greenhouse affect but the water content of the Earth and its ability to retain heat more than CO2 They base this whole greenhouse gas affect because of Venus, it’s atmosphere content, but don’t worry the FACT that Venus is closer to the sun, has a much higher atmospheric density and pressure.

        If only these proggies could pass a basic reading comprehension course they would not look so foolish and prissy in their responses.

      • tiredoflibbs June 15, 2013 / 11:51 pm

        “I said that CO2 is responsible for the greenhouse affect but the water content of the Earth and its ability to retain heat more than CO2 ”

        That statement should read that “CO2 is NOT responsible for the greenhouse affect…”.

        I also forgot to mention the “hockey stick” graph does not show this as well.in it, changes in temperature LEADS changes in CO2 and not the other way around for it to fit the proggy theory.

        Details….details….

      • tiredoflibbs June 16, 2013 / 12:03 am

        Pel, interesting statement from your article:

        “Water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this caused temperatures to rise even more.”

        As I said before…..

        Notice the statement, “SCIENTISTS THINK…..”

        Your article just confirms what I stated earlier….thanks.

    • neocon01 June 14, 2013 / 7:53 am

      reek-0

      answer one easy question … the American mid west…….Wha Hoppon??
      1. T Rex
      2. glaciers
      3. temperate
      did fred flintstone burn too much wood in his camp fires?

Comments are closed.