What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes, and I can direct you to another government website that show the current administration's programs have "created or saved" 750, 000 jobs. That 'data' is posted to an official government website, so it must be true, right? Not living in the US, you are probably unaware of the depth of the fraud and deceit revealed concerning those numbers, such as the numerous fictitious congressional districts. Independent investigators put the number at less than 50 000.

Meanwhile, the GAO and CBO have consistently reported that government social welfare programs use ~80% of their funding to pay the salaries of the government employees who administer the programs, and for the 'infrastructure' costs such as real estate holdings and vehicles. I guess the more optimistic numbers are contrived by attributing much of the government employee's work hours as 'benefits'.

So which 'official' government data source do you choose to believe? Of course, being the good socialist you are, the one that supports the socialist ideal.

Jimbo

 

Well, Nils-Axel Mörner investigated the possible slowing in Earth's rotational speed because of the GWA allegued increase in the sea level due to melting of ice in the poles and he found none, concluding there has not been such increasing of level in the last decades. But this also means Mörner thinks global warming could in fact alter rotation of Earth.

Cheers.

 

As we are clearly in the presence of an intellectual colossus,I will be delighted if he can advise us of the usual situation when material is added to a body of water.

 

First of all Jimbo good buddy, you need to not hold in all that anger, you should let it out so folks can tell how you really feel!

Senad, you called Jimbo a liar, in a real elitist I'm smart you're not sort of a way, apologize, move on. Jim owes you no apology, you started it.

Now to return to our programming. We hear from our mysterious friend Boston all the time of mythical 97% and the consensus, and how they can't be wrong. The quick answer of course is ********,which comprises much of Bostons attempts at clouding the real issues with irrelevent detail and nonsense. The long answer is attached, makes some revealing reading.......

http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html

 

The real consensus nonsense implies that science is democratic and climate activities are up for a vote, of course they are not. While the consequences of admitting to being wrong can be embarrassing, they can also be empowering as they free the dogmatic from all previously held assertions and allow for real learning to take place. Among real scientists this happens all the time, among the College of Cardinals of the AGW KoolAid Club, this is sacrilege and you become anathema. Attached is an article about a real scientist and a peer reviewed paper that shows how one scientist can prove a consensus wrong, and how dogma should be confined to religion........



http://climateresearchnews.com/

 

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/defaul...IsGreenAndGood/&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Cheers.

 

"I think that Masrapido nailed your deceitful behaviour perfectly. One day you are from one place, the next you are from another. From Mexico to Alaska." How odd you two are. Where I live is your obsession? What is so difficult to believe? I live in Mexico and Alaska. Is it going to throw your minds into a tailspin when I close on property in Texas? If my wife would let it happen, I would invest in Columbia, too!
Aren't there real issues to confront?

 

Perhaps Wellmer will sell his property, but where would you put that cigar shaped concrete diner?

 

Probably what would be needed is the knowing of the mean coefficient of thermal expansion of the very few meters of the crust, as those are the only ones under the direct influence of Sun and athmospheric temperature, and knowing that of the oceans, which have a totally differente behaviour than the crust due to the active up and down transporting of heat from deeps to surface and viceversa. I have no idea if such thermal expansion of the crust is significative.

And yes, your close neighbours seem to have been cherry picking and massaging data, as well as using flawed statistical processes to bring results on the side of their preconceived ideas. But they have not been alone in such task.

Cheers.

 

Knut,
15 terawatts is the total energy we use (2008), including the one used to extract and process oils, nuclear material, etc., as well as the energy from renewable sources which depend on the Sun. All energy we use ends in the form of heat (mostly) or new materials, these last not influencing athmospheric temperatures at least in the short term. So the real figure for my little study is most probably lower than the 15 asumed terawatts. But you brought in an interesting point, as it is not counted the energy produced in exotermic industrial processes' reactions. I have to recognize I have no idea of how much can be its global amount, but I think we can asume, for my little entertainment's purposes, it is of the magnitude of the renewable plus the 'enthropy diminishing' one parts, so the total figure of 15 terawatts can still be usable to compare things.

Greenhouse gasses forcing is a different physical process, in which the radiations which balance is studied are basically generated from the incoming energy of the Sun (as we saw, man's is a power of four smaller, well within the variation of Sun's) and don't forget GHGs are not only anthropogenic, but mainly natural.

About the "mechanical" processes of the CO2, as you talked about in your following post, maybe you are interested in reading this: Estimation of the Radiative Forcing for CO2 Doubling and this "Calculating the Climatic Impacts of Increased CO2: The Issue of Model Validation"

Most interesting from the first work is this statement: "absorbed energy depends very little on the layer thickness (optical density)" and from the second one is the handwritten note stating uncertainty in the albedo effect is in the range of 10 W/m2. Compare that with the 0.1 W/m2 of human energy rate and the 1.4 W/m2 or even 4 W/m2 of the doubling CO2 estimated forcing.

About your comment on "we still keep on adding CO2 out there" let me tell you even if 1500 GtC coming from oil reserves would be burnt until 2100, the athmospheric concentration of CO2 would only increase to about 570 ppm, much lower than what Earth (and life) has experienced for most of the time in the last 500 million years. And plants will be happy, producing more food for humankind in a quite probably cooler Earth, what will save us from starving (we'll talk about this later).

HAPPY NEW "HEALTHY CO2" YEAR EVERYBODY!!!!

 

If you add sand into a glass of water, the level rises. The situation can not be reproduced by silt from rivers simply because the oceans do not behave like a glass of water. To begin they are not flat and have mountains and valleys, and second the contribution of silt by the rivers in comparison to the total volume of the oceans combined is insignificant.

However you don't have to believe me. All you need to do is check the real time sea level data, not the one that is "projected", computer modelled, or altered and deleted by fellow believers.

I own a water front property and have so for 21 years. I also inherited a farm that is water front from my parents who owned it for 50 years. The level of the water has remained constant for all this years and we are talking about tidal water not an inland lake. High and low tide remained constant and the frequency of king tides has not changed either. In 50 years a lot of silt mast have gone in the ocean yet it did not make any difference because it's relative volume is insignificant.

 

You should have just had your summer king, right? Looks like Tuvalu is positioning itself for a huge recompensation from western nations because they happen to have built on an atoll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw I was struck by the clever sailboats of the kids.

 

Knut,
Don't miss either this other Dietze's work and its discussion:
Estimation of the solar fraction and Svensmark factor

Cheers.

 

That's interesting. However since we had global warming and cooling and all in between already, has the rotation of the earth ever changed that we know or suspect of? ...well besides the long day recorded in the Bible that is.

 

We had a moderate king tyde a week ago just above one meter. it is very steady.



As for the islanders who claim we are respondible for their floods it is pure opportunistic nonsese. If the sea would be rising there would be hard data available and those who like me live waterfront would be the first to know. Alarm bells would be going off all over the world. There is no such thing besides what is made up for political purposes.

What is fact is that some island sink and other rise. The earth crust is not set on concrete but on magma and floats on it and therefore MOVES up or down or sideways. The island may be sinking not the sea rising. I feel sorry for them but they have no one to blaim, nor can they do anything about it.