Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Far north feels worst effects of warming

Ron
Did you actually read and understand this paper?

Thank the Almighty for Newsmax! Without that brave news organization, we would maybe never have heard about this important paper debunking the lie of global warming.

The silence from the liberal-controlled media is not surprising. They and their cohorts in the scientific community are doing their all to steal from me and everyone else by means of the great hoax of global warming.

A Google search returns the original paper and the Newsmax articles and some laughable attempts by dunderheads trying to debunk the debunkers! All their handwaving and equations and nonsense does not erase the fact that they have been smacked down using their own lying methods!

Just one example is enough to show their desperation.

I've rarely felt so satisfied, so vindicated!

I only stumbled across it a couple of days ago on another site and I'm in the process of reading it.

I'm a chemist by training, so neither the chemistry nor the thermodynamics is overly daunting. The optics are somewhat more complex than I have normally had to deal with; however, mathematics is mathematics and I've had enough to deal with what is here.

That being said, this is a lengthy article and I'm taking my time to go through it. It's quite absorbing (no pun intended) and I'm enjoying it very much.

The follow-on by Irked and the ATMOZ site commenting is extremely useful; this is the sort of exchange one sees in a good scientific discussion. So far as I see it, the authors are still secure within their intellectual laager and the circling impis of the faithful are getting in a few pot-shots but are nowhere near being able to use their assagai on the devils challenging holy writ.

Ron, do you have a bellini to go with that?

Seriously though, getting back to your original question (what would happen if . . .), we don't live in the age of Galileo. There is no Holy See to inflict isolation or death upon the infidels. There is a trove of naysayers who are well-funded, well-endowed, and eager to publish any and all opinions, no matter their validity (remember "The Global Warming Swindle" swindle?), to create new doubts among a general public completely incapable of grasping the concepts presented at this level of scientific complexity.

Has anybody read the book "And the Band Played On", by Randy Schiltz? Imagine how much longer it would have taken for the effort to contain and reverse the AIDS epidemic if the general public had been involved in the scientific debate from the outset.

I confess, I had a hard time reading the link. I suppose I could put a lot of effort in to try to understand their point, but in the end, I suspect that their argument is sufficiently technical that it can only be evaluated by a real informed expert.

I noted their argument that there is no such thing as average temperature... or at least that it cannot be derived. To me, this sees nonsensical. After all... we cannot know the exact value of Pie either. Just on a general level... it seems obvious that with enough measurements, we could come up with a useful approximation of average temperature on the earth. And the disputation of this point makes me suspicious of their other points... even though I personally cannot evaluate them.

Over all, I am a little amused by the relatively constant accusations that there is some plot/orthodoxy that is responsible for the consensus about global climate change. I suspect that the people who dispute GCC would not find it suspicious if the scientific consensus happened to agree with their opinion.

Yes, of course it is possible that there is some group think going on among people concerned about GCC. In fact, I am quite sure this is the case. But ultimately, the issue at hand is whether or not there is some reason to be concerned. And as long as there remains a scientific consensus on the issue... it seems obvious that the minimum standard for concern has been met. This level of "proof" is not nearly sufficient for banning all carbon based fuels. On the other hand, it is sufficient to start the process of addressing this issue. It is sufficient to argue for taking the easy steps that could begin to limit carbon emission increases... JUST IN CASE it happens that there is a reason for concern. Then after 5, or ten or 15 years... if there is better evidence that carbon emissions are no problem... we will still have all of these fossil fuels available to burn with abandon. If it turns out... as some aggue... that maybe GCC is a good thing... then we can just light our forests on fier and bur all our tires to get maximum beneift.... after we are more sure

So here is the latest headline

link

A previous poster gave us a link to a paper that (among other things) made the argument that we cannot even measure the average temperature of the earth in order to determine if warming is in fact taking place. Other posters have made claims that ice is growing in some places and shrinking in other places so you cannot really say much about trends in ice quantities.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Meanwhile, back in America:


And meanwhile, back in Greenland:

source (for both quotes): Deniers Jump on NASA Gaffe, While Greenland on Verge of Meltdown

Remember those same deniers and Gore-ophobes took "An Inconvenient Truth" to task for claiming that the melting of the Greenland ice pack would result in sea level rises of 20 feet or more, citing the IPCC report's assertion that the sea level rise would only be a few inches. Of course they were conveniently comparing apples to oranges . . .

. . . but who cares about that? The purpose of equivocation is to obfuscate, not to explain.

I also noted in the original "debunking greenhouse effect" that the authors did not correct for the higher reflectivity of bright white (snow and ice) surfaces on the Earth with darker (ocean, dirt and vegetation) surfaces. That decreased reflectivity as the ice sheets melt will result in a greater energy absorbtion, thus accelerating the warming process.

I remember reading that this effect was considered to be part of the reason that the glacial and artic ice melting is going at a faster rater than even the "high end" predictions of a few years ago.

Anyone have any references on this part of the equation?

I wonder how Greenland got its name?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Some inventive minds spout the nonsense that this was a bit of creative marketing--an attempt to draw settlers to a fledgling colony on an ice-capped island with a narrow bit of habitable shoreline around its southern tip off in the middle of nowhere. However, everyone knows that such dissimulation would not have occurred at a time and place without a strong central government to distort markets and hinder the actions of free individuals.

No, Greenland was just that in the year 1,000 -- a veritable Ireland, the France of the North Atlantic.