Riposte to the Darla climate thread

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Seeing as Darla has opened a thread from which I'm barred, obviously scared that I would point out her insanity. I have opened this thread to answer her wild exaggerations. I have never been a climate denier and indeed there are not very many that attempt to deny that CO2 has a forcing effect on climate. The warmers always attempt to introduce emotion and agitprop into the equation, they just can't help it.

If I am a denier then I am in exalted company with the likes of CERN's CLOUD project and the 49 NASA scientists and astronauts that sent an open letter condemning James Hansen for bring NASA into disrepute. It is an indisputable fact that there has been no warming for the last fifteen years and only a shill for the warmers and ignorant peasants would try to say otherwise. Of course what do I know anyway as I am a Meteorological Research Advocate or MRA for short!!

On May 10, 2013, at the online Austrian ORF, there was a rare interview with the CLOUD Experiment director of the European European Organization for Nuclear Research, Jasper Kirkby. Within the scope of the CLOUD project, it is being investigated to what extent solar activity has on cloud formation via the mechanism of cosmic radiation and the impact this could have on the Earth’s climate (see Chapter 6 of our book “Die kalte Sonne“). Here’s an excerpt of the worthwhile interview:
.
ORF: What is the relationship between solar activity and cosmic radiation?
Kirkby: Cosmic radiation consists of high energy, charged particles. When they reach our solar system, they are deflected away by the magnetic field of the sun. Foremost by the magnetic field of the solar plasma. When the sun is active, less cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. The relationship to the solar cycle: When there are many sunspots, the Earth receives 10 – 30% less cosmic radiation.

Is this relationship sure?

Yes, it is solidly confirmed. We also know that cosmic radiation ionizes every cubic centimeter of the Earth’s atmosphere. Unsure so far is whether or not this also could have a climatic impact. Clouds are extremely important for the Earth’s climate. If I could magically eliminate all clouds from the atmosphere, then 30 watts of additional heat energy would reach every square meter of the Earth.
To put this number into context: The warming of the atmosphere through the impacts of man is currently pegged at 1.5 watts per square meter. Small variations in cloud cover could have large impacts.

What do your experiments show?

At this point in time we cannot say if cosmic radiation impacts the climate. So far up to now we have investigated the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets – particularly those that are formed from gas, i.e. gas-to-particle-conversion”. They represent about half of the condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining nuclei come from soot and dust.

What gases are involved in this process?

We have looked at sulfuric acid and ammonia. The results of the first trials: Cosmic radiation enhances the formation of condensation nuclei from gases by a factor of 10. But that alone is too little to have a significant impact on cloud formation. According to our latest experiments, there has to be another gas or vapor involved that enhances this process. We suspect organic substances.

Which ones?
The results are currently being reviewed by a journal. Unfortunately I can’t tell you more. Only this much: The results are very interesting. Over the course of the year there are going to be some publications on the subject.

Let’s assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?

I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We don’t know.
Continue reading at ORF.at.”


http://beforeitsnews.com/science-an...ts-of-cloud-are-very-interesting-2593028.html


March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
Anita Gale
Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
Thomas J. Harmon
David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
Alex (Skip) Larsen
Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
Tom Ohesorge
James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
 
Last edited:
Darla is lame. I have a good friend who is just lik her. She will ask if I've seen the latest leftwing climate meme (she's a jon stewart lefty. gets her news from daily show and realtime with bill maher), for example the Cook 97% survey which is ridiculous methodology and spurious use of statistics. When you try to walk her through the logistics she simply refuses to follow along instead assuming you're spewing some talking points or something. Unless the true believer wants to hear it, the truth will elude them. They really are like brainwashed cult members in that respect.
 
I would rather give her enough rope to hang herself.
She'll bar herself then. Are you so naive to think that she seeks the truth? The belief in man-made global warming, or climate change now that it's cooling, is a scheme to stifle capitalism, nothing more.
 
She'll bar herself then. Are you so naive to think that she seeks the truth? The belief in man-made global warming, or climate change now that it's cooling, is a scheme to stifle capitalism, nothing more.

Of course I know that she is pig ignorant and utterly incapable of assimilating anything that doesn't come from blogs, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, Al Gore or Greenpeace.
 
She'll bar herself then. Are you so naive to think that she seeks the truth? The belief in man-made global warming, or climate change now that it's cooling, is a scheme to stifle capitalism, nothing more.

It is a little more complex than that, CO2 does have a forcing effect. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Does Joe Public know that? Of course not, the majority assume that there is a straight line or even exponential correlation between radiative forcing and CO2 concentration.
 
It is a little more complex than that, CO2 does have a forcing effect. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Does Joe Public know that? Of course not, the majority assume that there is a straight line or even exponential correlation between radiative forcing and CO2 concentration.

I don't really care, man. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Adapt or die. I decided long ago that to live anywhere near the ocean was a stupid thing to do.
 
I don't really care, man. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Adapt or die. I decided long ago that to live anywhere near the ocean was a stupid thing to do.

if there was anything to fear I would be scared. Climate sensitivity built in to climate models is overstated and thusly the models deliver predictions that fail.
If climate sensitivity was truly as great as the assumptions built into the models, their predictions would be much more accurate. We are finding that the true climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is closer to 2 degrees C and further from the scary model scenarios where sensitivity is assumed to be nearly 6 degrees C.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24283

Overstating sensitivity 300% will produce scary scenarios and that's what our crisis-loving friends in government are counting on to trick the populace into a new era of control and crony capitalism masked as enviromentalism.

They need people like Darla to trust them. People like Darla are just smart enough to be able to tell themselves they understand the science, but in reality, people like Darla have a superficial knowledge of the subject and never bother to check the current state of the science.
 
Why are very minor efforts to change the way we look at energy so objectionable, but big oil's ownership of our politicians and overwhelming influence on our policy is not?
 
Why are very minor efforts to change the way we look at energy so objectionable, but big oil's ownership of our politicians and overwhelming influence on our policy is not?

I wonder if those minor changes include the major efforts by Goldman Sachs and others to set up carbon trading. However the bad news for them is that the European carbon trade market is on the verge of collapse. Prices had gone from a peak of €30 per tonne CO[SUB]2[/SUB] down to around €3 per tonne.
 
Why are very minor efforts to change the way we look at energy so objectionable, but big oil's ownership of our politicians and overwhelming influence on our policy is not?

DO you agree that there has been now warming for the last fifteen years? Because if you deny that then there is no reasoning with you.
 
DO you agree that there has been now warming for the last fifteen years? Because if you deny that then there is no reasoning with you.

"Warming", particularly in the short-term, is a moot argument with me. I'm not an AGW guy, or even a warming guy.

I'm a guy who realizes that fossil fuels are a finite resource, which we rely in way too heavily, and which pollute the planet relentlessly regardless of their effect on "warming." It's 2013, and we are a technologically advanced species. If not for the money spent by big oil, we would easily have viable alternatives for all of our energy needs that are renewable & that pollute minimally. And we're going to need that one day anyway, likely soon, and instead of making a reasonable, gradual transition, it will probably be crisis-mode when that day comes.
 
DO you agree that there has been now warming for the last fifteen years? Because if you deny that then there is no reasoning with you.

Guess I'll post this again:

Escalator_2012_500.gif
 
Why are very minor efforts to change the way we look at energy so objectionable, but big oil's ownership of our politicians and overwhelming influence on our policy is not?

because they are based in lies. And how do you make the leap that sceptics support crony capitalism in our energy sector? We don't like it anymore than you so quit with the strawman bullshit. We don't support our hijacked banker/oil cabal of a government so get it through your thick skull.

Left and right propaganda is designed to divide the nation
 
Seeing as Darla has opened a thread from which I'm barred, obviously scared that I would point out her insanity. I have opened this thread to answer her wild exaggerations. I have never been a climate denier and indeed there are not very many that attempt to deny that CO2 has a forcing effect on climate. The warmers always attempt to introduce emotion and agitprop into the equation, they just can't help it.

If I am a denier then I am in exalted company with the likes of CERN's CLOUD project and the 49 NASA scientists and astronauts that sent an open letter condemning James Hansen for bring NASA into disrepute. It is an indisputable fact that there has been no warming for the last fifteen years and only a shill for the warmers and ignorant peasants would try to say otherwise. Of course what do I know anyway as I am a Meteorological Research Advocate or MRA for short!!



http://beforeitsnews.com/science-an...ts-of-cloud-are-very-interesting-2593028.html




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
Tom that's because you're kicking a dead horse and that feeds into the hands of science deniers. You know as well as I do that "Global Warming" is a lay term not used by climatologist who use the term "anthropogenic climate change".

You also know as well as I do that though the scientific data is behind ACG is vast, compelling and has a large consensus of the scientific community supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting climate. You would also, I assume, believe in Occums razor, that if we are wittnessing climatic changes that the fact that humans are annually dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that is pretty much common sense that there's a causal relationship there.

But by kicking the "Global Warming" dead horse you're feeding the ideology and scientific illiteracy of neophites and scientifically illiterates like Tinhat, SF, Nova and the other science deniers whose views are based upon political ideology and not objective evaluation of the scientific data.
 
because they are based in lies. And how do you make the leap that sceptics support crony capitalism in our energy sector? We don't like it anymore than you so quit with the strawman bullshit. We don't support our hijacked banker/oil cabal of a government so get it through your thick skull.

Left and right propaganda is designed to divide the nation

You've started approximately a gazillion threads on AGW. I don't think I've seen one thread from you on big oil and it's much larger impact on our policy & our tax bill.
 
I don't really care, man. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Adapt or die. I decided long ago that to live anywhere near the ocean was a stupid thing to do.
LOL So much for compassionate conservatism. If you live near a factory emitting large volumes of hazardous air pollutants don't regulate the polluters but say "Fuck you!" to those who's property rights and health are being violated by these polluters and let them either die or move....right?
 
"Warming", particularly in the short-term, is a moot argument with me. I'm not an AGW guy, or even a warming guy.

I'm a guy who realizes that fossil fuels are a finite resource, which we rely in way too heavily, and which pollute the planet relentlessly regardless of their effect on "warming." It's 2013, and we are a technologically advanced species. If not for the money spent by big oil, we would easily have viable alternatives for all of our energy needs that are renewable & that pollute minimally. And we're going to need that one day anyway, likely soon, and instead of making a reasonable, gradual transition, it will probably be crisis-mode when that day comes.


I agree with you in general, however it is the non-stop pretending that it is a 'big-oil' conspiracy to keep away alternatives. It is economic viability. The same as it was for shale oil or for nat gas that we could not previously get to. We should indeed continue investing in viable alternatives. Continue expanding R&D until we find a way to make them economically viable. Solar isn't too far off. The tech there is essentially where PC's were in the late 80's early 90's. Not sure what it will take to get them over that final hurdle to see a similar explosion in growth that the PC universe saw in the early to mid 90's... but I don't think we are too far off.

My opinion: Inject a requirement into the building code for all office/manufacturing etc... buildings to be 'off the grid' or at least maximizing the use of solar power within the next ten years. My guess is that can be worked into the rents of the buildings and in the end become a cash flow if the buildings are able to produce over 100% of needed power. A guess... and not necessarily true for every building (sky scrapers would not have that occur)

Transportation: Convert to nat gas. Invest now in the infrastructure to get pumps up and running throughout the country. We have the tech to convert. Nat gas burns far cleaner and it is a viable option today. While this may not be the ideal long term solution, it will certainly provide us with a step in the right direction and a good interim solution until something cleaner becomes viable.

Nuclear technology: Obviously no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yards, but tech today allows us to build nuke plants in a far safer manner than we did in the 60's.

Just a couple of ideas... but of course we have to get over this blame game so many on the left want to play. Pretending it is 'man's fault' when computer models 'proving' that have failed is silly. Pretending that it is a big oil conspiracy is equally silly.
 
I agree with you in general, however it is the non-stop pretending that it is a 'big-oil' conspiracy to keep away alternatives. It is economic viability. The same as it was for shale oil or for nat gas that we could not previously get to. We should indeed continue investing in viable alternatives. Continue expanding R&D until we find a way to make them economically viable. Solar isn't too far off. The tech there is essentially where PC's were in the late 80's early 90's. Not sure what it will take to get them over that final hurdle to see a similar explosion in growth that the PC universe saw in the early to mid 90's... but I don't think we are too far off.

My opinion: Inject a requirement into the building code for all office/manufacturing etc... buildings to be 'off the grid' or at least maximizing the use of solar power within the next ten years. My guess is that can be worked into the rents of the buildings and in the end become a cash flow if the buildings are able to produce over 100% of needed power. A guess... and not necessarily true for every building (sky scrapers would not have that occur)

Transportation: Convert to nat gas. Invest now in the infrastructure to get pumps up and running throughout the country. We have the tech to convert. Nat gas burns far cleaner and it is a viable option today. While this may not be the ideal long term solution, it will certainly provide us with a step in the right direction and a good interim solution until something cleaner becomes viable.

Nuclear technology: Obviously no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yards, but tech today allows us to build nuke plants in a far safer manner than we did in the 60's.

Just a couple of ideas... but of course we have to get over this blame game so many on the left want to play. Pretending it is 'man's fault' when computer models 'proving' that have failed is silly. Pretending that it is a big oil conspiracy is equally silly.

In general, I agree w/ a lot of your ideas. There are things I really don't like about nukes, but if they're needed to transition, I support them. I don't see them as a long-term solution.

I actually don't think it's too far off when sources like wind & solar are viable & cost-effective, and just better overall than anything we have. The PC comparison is apt.

I may overplay big oil's influence, but you are definitely downplaying it. They have spent record amounts of lobbying cash for nearly 10 years to keep funding for alternatives down, and to defeat measures that improve air quality & other environmental initiatives that would encourage alternatives.
 
Back
Top