Posts by Bob Armstrong 28 publicly visible posts • joined 17 May 2012
I live at 2500 meters in the Colorado Front Range , with bountiful wild flowers including some only a humming bird tongue can service . Given our diurnal ~20c variation in temperature , year round , http://cosy.com/Science/NY_WPtemps.jpg , a 0.8c , max , change in mean temperature since the steam engine is supposed to have caused our bees' tongues to have shortened , how much ?
http://cosy.com/y15/CarbonPollutionTombstone.jpg
I know no "realist" who rejects the work of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius . But also Lambert and Beer . And it is the latter who explain why CO2's absorption spectrum is rather fully saturated at levels too low to support life , and therefore why our additions have had an essentially undetectable effect .
The difference here between laws such as GR and "climate science" is that GR is verified to be correct to many decimal places with various proposed emendations not yet being observationally resolvable .
"Climate Science" continually spouts just qualitative neither provable nor disprovable fuzz .
And exception is James Hansen's claim that Venus is an example of a "runaway greenhouse" which is trivially DISPROVED by basic undergraduate calculations of radiative balance .
"The evidence is quite convincing."
No it isn't .
A geologically unremarkable 0.3% variation in our temperature associated with a 40% increase in the molecule which bounces along only a few times the minimum level to support life and whose most recent 10% increase is associated with no detectable increase in temperature , is not convincing .
I've met 2 astronauts who have actually seen , from the moon , that the earth is indeed a sphere . They resent being called "flat earthers" for simply being good enough scientists , along with many of their NASA peers , to reject this ever more thoroughly debunked global statist stupidity that an extra molecule or two per 10k of air of the source of carbon to carbon based life is anything but a boon to the biosphere .
" ,,, while stressing that unusual things do happen - indicated at the time that the devastating Aussie floods were at least in part down to humanity's carbon emissions,"
Yea , well show me your logic and your computations . Otherwise I'll take it as slave talk just placating the mastah state to keep the grants flowing .
Most "climate scientists" so far as I can tell from the blogsphere don't even know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .
See http://cosy.com/y12/NewsLetter201212.html for a link to a brilliant video of Dyson dismissing the hysteria . Also links to Burt Rutan , Richard Lindzen , and Physics Nobel winner Robert Laughlin .
The notion that changes in CO2 concentration at these already saturated levels makes even a measurable change in our global mean temperature is profoundly stupid nonscience beyond any mass delusion I ever expected to see in my lifetime .
It illustrates what a small portion of the population can actually independently think and analyze even rather basic physics .
Schmidt said : "The math doesn't work."
If he's talking about his fellow alarmists , he's absolutely right .
I got involved in this fraud because grossly amateurish understanding of the most essential math and physics I saw on all sides of the "debate" . While in another branch of applied physics , the prefixes have evolved from mega- to giga- , there has been zero progress in the quantitative understanding of our planet's mean temperature .
As Ken Iverson , who won a Turing for his creation of APL said : “Any field of study that has the word science in it probably isn’t.” . That is certainly true for climate nonscience
The most classical computations of radiative balance show that Hansen's continuing claim that Venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse effect doesn't compute . It would have to be ten times as reflective in the IR as aluminum foil to explain its surface temperature on the basis of energy it receives from the Sun . And CO2 doesn't fit that bill . I doubt if anything does .
I wonder if otherwise brilliant programmers have to pledge allegiance to Schmidt's religion to join the Google hive .
Cook's article , http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article , was almost instantly debunked by a number of the authors he classified as AGW supporters in it . See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ .
The quote from Cook's paper itself says of the papers examined only " 32.6% endorsed AGW" .
Schmidt needs to take a more skeptical look at his pals if he wants to see which side of the debate stinks with mediocrity , mud slinging and outright dishonesty .
Of all schemes created by this profoundly stupid war against CO2 , the only one I see making economic sense is algae ponds using the waste CO2 and warm water from power-plants . That seems a much simpler and less costly solution than this , tho quite interesting , research .
BTW in the USA "greens" have prevented some experiments with power-plant fed algae ponds .
We are about 9 or 10 degrees ( 3% ) warmer than the 279 kelvin of a gray ball in our orbit . Our absolute temperature is apparently not known more accurately than that . Objects in our orbit have a temperature of about 1/21 whatever the sun decides to depending on their particular spectrum .
It is generally agreed we have warmed by perhaps 0.8 degrees ( 0.3% ) since we started using fossil fuels .
Perhaps our best data is our most recent , which shows that over the last decade and a half or so , CO2 has increased close to 9% , but our temperature not at all .
Any link to skepticalscience and I know the poster is a dupe incapable of rational analysis .
To get 2 to 4 degrees warming by 2100 requires a 2 to 4 times change in slope between CO2 concentration and temperature . But , with a 9% reported change in CO2 concentration over the last decade and a half , there has been no change in temperature .
This nonscience claiming the building block of the biosphere will destroy it has about run its profoundly stupid course .
The relevant relationship , of course , is not time versus temperature , but CO2 concentration against temperature . But that makes the case for CO2 caused warming virtually indefensible if the concentration has gone up by 9% while the temperature has been flat .
BTW , that totally arbitrary division between blue and red across http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif masks the fact that the temperature has apparently risen in two periods , from about 1910 to 1940 , and then 1975 to 2000 , with plateaus otherwise . Certainly not simply monotonic with CO2 .
I see the "coral killing" meme just another desperate attempt to demonize the building block of the biosphere .
Life exploded when photosynthesis evolved in an atmosphere where all the oxygen was locked up in CO2 which was second only to N2 in concentration . Now green life has been so successful it has driven CO2 below argon in concentration , just a couple of times the couple of molecules per 10,000 required for life to exist .
Even the earliest stromatolite fossils laid down when the atmosphere was more CO2 than O2 are largely carbonate .
This is just another example of these anti-life willful idiots trying to ignore the most basic fact that
CO2 + H2O ( + sunlight ) = LIFE
The "speed" of light is not a speed .
Because there is no measure of time or distance independent of it . Thus all measures are ratios , hence Lorentz geometry .
It's simpler to just make c = 1 , then all other measurements are seen as simply ratios .
You go to realist sites which tend to be populated by engineers statisticians , physicists and others with quantitative hard science backgrounds , and the sites are full of comparisons and analyses of the latest observations of polar ice extents or historical temperature data , etc .
You go to alarmist sites and you this sort of psychobabble trying to explain how come all those quants aren't terrified by the impending catastrophes which our government "scientists" , who are some superior species of intellect , have now been predicting for decades .
Never have so many carbon units been turned into such useful idiots by as profound a stupidity as this fraud against the molecule out of which they are constructed . Stalin would be envious .
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
