« Flat tax | Main | Black people don’t like trees »

October 28, 2011

Comments

The earth's median temperature is rising. The arctic and antarctic polar regions are losing ice. This is undeniable. While the situation is not as dire as Al Gore and his penguin army of greenfreaks would have you believe, it is still pretty worrying. Not enough for me to stop driving my car or utilizing the power grid, but it is a phenomenon that warrants investigation.

"The science is settled" they cried. Turns out that it's the snow that settles.

"The arctic and antarctic polar regions are losing ice. This is undeniable."

As it happens, the Antarctic ice is growing and the continent is cooling -- which has caused the hysterics to flail frantically for an explanation of how this can be happening in a time of "global warming."

Within the timescale of the past 10 years, the earth's median temperature is not currently rising, and the polar regions are not losing ice.

Add energy to a chaotic system and volatility increases. Global warming would be consistent with a higher average temperature and more extreme deviations from that average (in either direction). Global cooling would be consistent with a lower average temperature and less extreme deviations from that average (in either direction).

"Northeast snowstorm in October!"

....

The NYT will report that women and minorities are the most severely affected.

[HS: Poor minorities will not be able to afford the extra heating costs. The government should so something about this. Maybe move them to Mexico?]

"Poor minorities will not be able to afford the extra heating costs. The government should so something about this."

Government issued vouchers as part of a stimulus program for NAMs to purchase Triple Fat Goose and North Face jackets.

“Within the timescale of the past 10 years, the earth's median temperature is not currently rising, and the polar regions are not losing ice.”

“As it happens, the Antarctic ice is growing and the continent is cooling”

Race realists lose credibility when they are climate anti-realists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

Black people have high IQs because of Barack Obama! It's totally not an exception to a general trend!

@ nooffensebut

Great links. I've seen too many people here and elsewhere repeat nonsense and those videoes do an excellent job of debunking their myths.

"The arctic and antarctic polar regions are losing ice."

The arctic loosing ice can lead to a huge economic boom for countries with Arctic territories (such as the US, via Alaska), as new shipping lanes open and vast mineral wealth becomes accessible.

Half, what do you think about today's demo of a 1MW cold fusion power plant in Milan Italy? It uses nickel for fuel, which is converted to copper and energy. There is no radioactive waste altho gamma radiation is produced which requires lead shielding.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/e-day-thread-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-plant-tested-by-first-customer/

@Georgia Resident

Obama is half white, which explains his IQ and credentials, the elite won't take a chance by going all black before test piloting a mix.

Still if the "educated" is still ignorant of this fact then we're really doomed.

nooffensebut: do you realize that your videos do not counter either point?

The new phrase is Global Climate Disruption.
http://globalclimatedisruption.com/

I'm waiting for all the articles about the world's population reaching seven billion, which will happen in the next few days. The Economist has an article explaining how climate change affects those least responsible for carbon emissions, and calls for a carbon tax.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533409

Science that contradicts the global warming doomsdau cult is racist.

HS,

I ❤ Jewish males. Just today, while at a sushi bar near my campus I seen a Jewish man with his black wife and biracial son. It gave me hope.

You are quite possibly the laziest critic of global warming. You flog HBD constantly on your blog (I do believe in HBD), but you don't do the tiniest bit of research on global warming.

I do remember a post of yours in the distant past in which you said some guy agreed with you regarding HBD, and you thought he didn't believe in climate change. Anyone with fourth grade reading skills could have looked at the paper and see you were wrong. In regards to global warming, you are no better than a talking head, such as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

You're ignoring measured experts like they don't exist. This is an unserious post by you.

"TWO pieces of evidence were recently presented to substantiate the views held by most geologists that some day there will be no frozen North and that vessels will sail in Arctic seas now imperilled by ice floes."

From the New York Times, January 28 1934.

"The earth's median temperature is rising" and "the earth's median temperature is rising because of human activity" are not the same thing.

"You're ignoring measured experts like they don't exist"

When the experts produce climate models that predict existing conditions based on known past inputs, we'll stop ingnoring them. When they stop trying to silence skeptics, we'll stop ignoring them. When they stop calling for professional sanctions against experts who question their theories, we'll stop ignoring them. I don't know a lot about climate science, but I do know a lot about the behavior of liars. Only one side of this debate is behaving that way.

Finally, don't confuse experts on what would happen if global warming occurred with experts on whether it will occur.

"Race realists lose credibility when they are climate anti-realists."

No kidding.

This sort of nonsense reminds me of how people here in Southern California would say "it's not supposed to rain in June!" Yet, more often than not we would experience showers for at least one day during that month.

Global temperatures are rising. Human beings are emitting lots of green houses gases into the atmosphere. Perhaps the only way for right-wingers to arrive at a reality-based view is if it's to gin up a war with China (whose oil consumption now exceeds our own).

An October storm is the equivalent of tobacco companies who would parade 100 year-old ladies who said the secret to a long life is smoking and cursing every day.

The only rationally defensible position is to concede global warming is happening, human beings play a role, BUT heavy-handed regulations to designed to halt global warming will do more harm than good. They can argue that most economically efficient solution is to adapt to the environment, but it's difficult to take their economics seriously when they behaved so dishonestly on the science side of the debate. And if their views on the SCIENCE were so blinded by ideology, then I would expect the politics-economics to be even worse.

D,
You shouldn't obsess over Jewish men or any Caucasian men for that matter. It will potentially lead to grave disappointment for you which would be unworthwhile. Jews aren't that much more likely to date or marry blacks than other Caucasians, and although non-black/black dating and marriage is much less taboo than in the past, it is still rare, especially outside of large cities. Anyway, only certain very liberal Jewish men (more liberal than the Jewish average) are likely to be interested in you. If you want wealth and connections as well, that leaves a very small pool.

Hellooo, anybody home? It's as if my previous post was invisible. We now have a functional cold fusion reactor operational. This should mean the end of the use of fossil fuels.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

"You're ignoring measured experts like they don't exist."

CERN scientists debunked* global warming this year. To the extent there has been a warming trend this century the warming has been caused by the sun's activity, not man's.

Half Sigma was right (for once).

AGW was another scam/religious cult to get government regulations to prop up a SWPL sector slush fund, just like the racial diversity slush fund, the feminism slush fund, and everything else associated with the nonprofit sector:

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of "global warming". It's the sun, stupid.

snip

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

snip

But then, as Lawrence Solomon reminds us, this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Lubos Motl on CERN's discovery:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/cern-boss-i-forbade-employees-to.html

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting – and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting – their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer

One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn't have the moral right to predetermine in advance what "one has to make clear" about these a priori unknown scientific results.

Nebbish,

Your right. I really need to stop obsessing over Jewish men or white men in general. If they are not interested in me than then they just are interested in me and I need to move on. Its just that I dreamed of it for so long. The handsome white/Jewish husband, nice home, two biracial children( two girls), and a good career. Its kind of devastating to me that it seems like it won’t happen.

"CERN scientists debunked* global warming this year. To the extent there has been a warming trend this century the warming has been caused by the sun's activity, not man's."

Of course the CERN scientists do not claim to have demonstrated any such thing.

You can read a nature news article on the paper:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

The abstract of the actual nature paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

A quote from Nature news article:

"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says."

Kirby is the lead author of the paper.

I have also read that the CERN group tried to make there chamber completely free of organic contamination. In spite of that, most of the aerosols that formed contained traces of organic contamination. Also the aerosols formation rate in the CERN chamber was 10 times less than observed in the real atmosphere. The CERN authors speculate that this is because their chamber was ultra clean of organic contamination which is plentiful in the real atmosphere.

So while this experiment is interesting to scientist in the field, it does not show anything like what climate change skeptics have been claiming is shows.

I'm sure you have some wild conspiracy theory why the lead author of the paper says "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."

Climate is weather over an extended period of time. So your critics are wrong. Weather has *everything* to do with climate.

The Undiscovered Jew-

I'm not an expert, I read your link, and I'm not convinced. It might be a story you like, but that ain't bayesian. I'll wait for the consensus of the relevant experts to shift before I shift my intuition on this topic (which is that GW is real, and that AGW is real and significant).

Sorry Michael Crichton & friends.

What's fascinating is that most warmists don't even understand what the dispute is over.

"The only rationally defensible position is to concede global warming is happening, human beings play a role"

I'm a hard core denier, and I completely concede that global surface temperatures have increased over the last 50 years and that mankind's activities have very likely contributed to this increase.

And here's a bit of news: http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Of course he includes this bit: "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Again, it's all similar to the tobacco B.S.
First they deny that cigarettes harm anyone. Then they admit cigarettes are bad for your health, but they're not addictive (as company CEOs testified before Congress). Then, finally, they admit cigarettes ARE harmful and addictive because -- psssssht, EVERYBODY knows that.

But a user is going to latch onto any out. And people emotionally invested in an ideology of free markets, a belief that regulators use the excuse of "containing externalities" to impose a social-enviornmental agenda, they're also looking for something to latch on to.

L33tminion - "Add energy to a chaotic system and volatility increases."

Earth's weather is driven by temperature differences between the equator and the poles. Global warming, regardless of cause, affects the poles more than the equator, reducing this difference and reducing volatility. It's global cooling which would increase the volatility of the system.

nooffensebut - "Race realists lose credibility when they are climate anti-realists."

Maybe you better spend less time on YouTube, and more time reviewing the actual data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/27/climate-scientists-and-their-excuses/

Please note that the global warming community at large recognizes the stall and is at a loss to explain it.

Peter Harpending - why did you even bother posting? Take your fallacies and shaming language to a feminist blog.

The Real Vince - "Global temperatures are rising. Human beings are emitting lots of green houses gases into the atmosphere."

See the link above regarding the temperature flat lining during the decade when global warming climate models predicted the fastest warming ever, and global warming proponents predicted a "tipping point".

Note that this is not the only falsification of AGW theory. The models predict that the upper atmosphere should warm faster than the surface, yet a comparison of satellite and surface data for the 1980's and 1990's shows the opposite.

Also remember: correlation is not causation. Proxy data indicates that in the past CO2 levels followed temperature, not the other way around.

The Undiscovered Jew - Thank you for bringing up the CERN experiments. It boggles my mind that this news didn't cause a greater upheaval given the implications for global climate modeling. It doesn't completely eliminate a human factor, but it does mean that:

* All current climate models have to be reprogrammed, and all previous projections are false.

* The human factor is necessarily less than was believed.

* The climate's sensitivity to human activity is also less than was believed.

The Real Vince - Richard Muller's BEST papers haven't been public for a month and he has already been caught "hiding the decline." The 2nd named author of the papers, Judith Curry, has gone public against Muller stating that the papers were not ready to be published, do not address skeptic concerns, and do to show what they claim to show. Third parties are graphing the data and finding their graphs do not match the published graphs. It's going to be Climategate all over again.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

Like J1 said: "I don't know a lot about climate science, but I do know a lot about the behavior of liars. Only one side of this debate is behaving that way." Yep.

--But a user is going to latch onto any out. And people emotionally invested in an ideology of free markets, a belief that regulators use the excuse of "containing externalities" to impose a social-enviornmental agenda, they're also looking for something to latch on to.--

Agreed. Now fill up AF1, I'm going to NYC...

Let me explain this to you, Glenn **cough** I mean, um, Sigma: The reason the United States has an increasing number of tornadoes every year (see link below) is due to an increased temperature contrast between the North Pole and the Equator.

Anyone who passed 7th grade science can connect cause and effect. I doubt this situation applies to you (or at least some of your followers), so I will spell it out.

The influx of greenhouse gases will cause an increase of temperature at the equator, and a disproportionately smaller one at the poles (hence the melting of the ice caps). This leads to an increase in temperature contrast. When spring comes around, the equatorial air will meet with the polar air, and tornadoes form (I sincerely hope you know how a tornado forms). When there is more temperature contrast, the tornadoes become more violent, and increase in quantity. This is the simplest example I could think of.

http://www.thorntonweather.com/tornado-stats.php

If only those hunters had driven the Prius and taken mass transit instead of using F350 trucks and Hummers 10,000 years ago...

I apologize for my harsh insults. Climate change is real, and a snowstorm doesn't, to use a Glenn Beck term, "debunk" it.

Think of Al Gore as a more public version of yourself. You started this blog to spread the truth of HBD. Al Gore's entire career has been devoted to spreading the truth of climate change. The difference being, he has somehow managed to spread the truth more efficiently, and with greater obstacles (i.e. Corporations, Special Interest Groups, et cetera). Probably because Gore never feared loss of his job due to his political standpoints.

That brings me to another point. Gore ran for president in 1988 to spread the idea of climate change. Obviously, he didn't win. He demonstrated that the best way to spread an idea (especially a truthful one) is to run for political office.

You should run for Congress. You have a law degree, and you are smart enough to win. Your IQ would dwarf most members of Congress (especially the Tea Party) You are clearly opinionated about politics, even though you like people to think you aren't.

You would get my vote.

Posted by: Peter Harpending | October 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Hysterical commentary about Gore. No, he isn't full of shit at all! I've never seen anyone live greener than him...

The comments to this entry are closed.