July 15th, 2014 / 8:46 am
Beauty by Htmlgiant & Snippets

Politicians discussing global warming.


By Isaac Cordal.


  1. Dan Pangburn
  2. deadgod
  3. Bobby Dixon

      this burn will cause a whole new global warming

  4. Dan Pangburn

      There are always some who are unwilling or unable to grasp the science.

      If you can get past the sarcasm in the Greenfyre link (the other two are science illiterates), I explain why I had improved on what he did. Perhaps Greenfyre saw the light since I haven’t seen anything from him since.

      The equation there has been refined in the agwunveiled link which provides credible assessment back to 1610 in addition to the slight improvement in accuracy and corroboration that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.

  5. deadgod

      “Greenfyre” is Mike Kaulbars. Any insinuation that he’s fled the field of denialism is false, whether through laziness or mendacity: he’s at Facebook, where, as “Mike Kaulbars”, he continues to debunk denialism.

      Here’s a direct discussion of whether carbon dioxide (CO2) radiates as much energy out of the terrestrial atmosphere as it contributes to trapping. It does not, and its increase in the atmosphere over the past 200 years has contributed to the rising average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface water. (Often, denialists will say that the atmospheric warming trend at the end of the 20th century has slowed to almost nothing in the past several years, so “GW ended before 2001”. The water temperature near the surface of the oceans is warming… thanks to the ‘ice cubes’ in it melting… thanks to the warmer air on top of them. The ice is melting, which is where the increase in atmospheric heat is going, which is why it makes sense to say that the globe as a system is warming.)

      Here’s an example of the shake-off Pangburn’s robotic noise might get from exasperated scientists (see comment thread).

      At some point, a conversation about astronomy with a geocentrist gets where a conversation about political economy with a fiscal conservative gets: There’s No One There To Talk To.

  6. mimi

      add “burn” to “BOOST” and “knock” list

  7. Trey

      to me you are perfect

  8. Dan Pangburn

      Your lack of broad science skill has made you gullible to mob-think.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon
      dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

      Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

      CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through May, 2014) increased since 2001 by 27.51 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.7% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2014, 398.64 ppmv).

      The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of 5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs
      through 2013 have been added.

      That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.51 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

      Dr. Roy Spencer
      shows how the GCMs have failed to predict the average global temperature at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

      Before you think cherry picking, examine http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ . It considers all measurements
      since before 1900 and corroborates that CO2 change has no significant influence on climate.

      Do you have any idea what R2>0.9 means? It means that the method is very accurate. No one else has done as well. The planet is headed for cooling. What will think as the average global temperature drops?

  9. Rauan Klassnik

      do you have hair ??? xoxoxoxoxo

  10. shaun gannon

      “lack of broad science skill” is a phrase that makes me disbelieve everything you have to say

  11. shaun gannon

      see THIS is how a smart person talks

  12. deadgod

      It’s important to remember that anthropogenic global warming is about the total planet warming: surface waters as well as the atmosphere as a whole.

      Here’s a rundown of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s evidence of the Earth’s warming (and its connection to greenhouse-gas increase).

      Here’s further NOAA evidence and analysis of the warming of the Earth’s seas in the context of the warming of the Earth’s “surface” as a whole (click on “Warming Climate).

      Here’s the EPA’s rundown of the evidence that the Earth’s seas are warming.

      You know how conservatives got the Justice Department to quit keeping track of gun crime? and want the CBO to quit non-partisan analysis of the government’s effect on the economy? That’s where governmental global-warming data collection is headed.

      Given two explanatory variables, variation in the drivers of climate denial has an R2>.99: less than 1% of climate-denial rhetoric is not explicable by those two variables. They are: 1) $$; and 2) delusion.

  13. mimi

      TIME is an important parameter, dude,
      the ‘Industrial Revolution’ started in the mid- to late- 1700’s

      yr ‘data’ starts at 1996

      expand yr parameters, man, please

  14. Dan Pangburn

      If you had looked at the link you might have noticed that the data starts in 1610.

  15. mimi

      ok i see the graph starting at 1600 now (2nd link in yr comment)

      and it clearly shows an upward trend since 1600

      yr “GW ended before 2001” seems instead to be a downward trend (one among many downward trends along the way) in the overall upward trend since 1600

      remember “Climate has always changed”! that graph could turn upward any time now!

  16. Dan Pangburn

      Mouse over the little graph next to my name. It gets bigger and shows the upper and lower ‘limits’ or range of uncertainty. It was derived from all previous measurements. The reported measurements could go higher for a year or so (because of the random uncertainty) but the relentless direction for the trend is down.

  17. deadgod

      Here’s the response to Pangburn by the guy offering $30,000 to anyone who can debunk anthropogenic global warming. (Click on the “$30,000 global warming skeptic challenge” post on the right for details of Keating’s offer; if you can prove AGW ain’t so, go for it!)

      Here’s a much-reproduced graph plotting CO2 build-up atop global-temperature rise. Correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate causation, OF COURSE, but the CO2 hypothesis is a full argument–an argument for causation, not simply from correlation. (Keating, at his ‘dialogues on global warming’ blog, responds to several objections to the CO2 hypothesis, as well as to alternative explanations like Pangburn’s).

  18. Dan Pangburn

      Dr Keating cleverly wrote the challenge so he cannot lose. He is the sole judge and jury.

      Thermalization causes CO2 change to have no significant effect on climate. The IPCC report does not even mention thermalization. Thermalization happens because ghg are trace gases in the mostly non-ghg atmosphere.

      The real causation story is described at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and refs.

  19. mimi

      dude, please, “random uncertainty” and “relentless direction” in the same sentence? what are you, alt- alt- po- po- pomo or sumthin’??

      _uncertainty_ HAS NO “(upper or lower) ‘limits’ ”
      its range is infinite, dude

      remember, this is the internet literature magazine blog of the future