December 2009


Even the AGW skeptics buy the implicit assumption that any warming would be bad? Why?

Can too much CO2 in the atmosphere cause catastrophic warming?

All the CO2 locked up in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. The Earth survived that. The vast quantities of fossil fuel buried over past millennium represent an order of magnitude decrease in CO2 concentrations over geologic time. The reality is that the atmosphere is CO2 deficient.  Venus has a CO2 rich atmosphere, and that caused alarmists like James Hansen to assume that increasing CO2 concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere would lead to catastrophic global warming. Fellow alarmist, Al Gore, thinks the same way (or wants you to think the same way, because he is making obscene amounts of money off the AGW scam).  So far as we know, photosynthesis was not a factor in the formation of the Venusian atmosphere.

Conclusion:

Recycling the carbon in fossil fuels is extremely unlikely to cause a climate catastrophe. It is most likely better for the Earth to increase CO2 concentrations substantially.

How did we cope with a warmer Earth?

Historians can tell more from human records than climate “scientists” can tell from cherry picked tree-ring records. The reality is that the Medieval Warming Period was a much better time for humanity than the Little Ice Age that followed it. Mann, and his Climate-gate conspirators did all they could to suppress any such evidence. When the Earth warms, temperate zones see the benefits. This translates into more natural and agricultural productivity. When productivity declines, war famine, disease and plague follow. That’s what the factual historical record tells us.

Conclusion:

We did just fine. Bring it back.

Advertisements

I’m one of those people who respects America’s Judeo-Christian heritage but is somewhat skeptical about the existence of God. Like Steven Den Beste, I know I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so I don’t regard the faithful as people who need to be convinced that my beliefs are superior.  Den Beste wrote:

By the same token, there are some people who are atheists because they come around to the idea of atheism as being the most acceptable answer, for whatever reason. I’m one of those. But there are a lot of people who become vocally atheist mostly because it isn’t Christianity, and try to wield atheism as a rhetorical weapon in their crusade to convince Christians that Christianity itself is wrong. To that end, they will try to claim that atheism is better. Like all zealots, such advocates can become a pain in the ass; they’re usually confrontational and intolerant and actively seek out strife as they engage in anti-Christian evangelism. Because the atheists like me generally don’t seek out “the enemy”, it’s the zealots who are most visible and establish the reputation we all must live with.

The ACLU and their atheist fellow-travelers declare war on Christmas every year. Each year, some Liberal judge gives them a bit more ground in their campaign to convert Americans to Atheism. That annoys me.

Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. The religion established in his name gave rise to all the movements that “make America [is] a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”  Science became science as Christians strove to understand God’s creation. Individual rights, as enshrined in the constitution, came from the application of Christian principles. Christians abolished slavery. I could go on, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, one can look at the accomplishments of avowed Atheist leaders. Stalin and Mao come to mind. That should be a depressing record for Atheists to ponder.

As a small “a” atheist, I celebrate Christmas for all the blessings Christianity brought to this world.

On Monday we went shopping for our Christmas Turkey. We wanted a little turkey but the smallest we could find was 19 pounds of  frozen bird flesh that was not going to thaw in the fridge until New Years day. The alternative technique for thawing out Big Bird is waterboarding. So that’s what we’re doing. Big Bird gets dipped in the sink until the water gets close to freezing. We bring him up for air, replenish the water, and push him under again. So far, he isn’t talking, but he is thawing.

Let us suppose I create a computer program that predicts the price of gold for the next century. It takes into account every historical trend, every relationship between the price of gold and every other traded commodity over the last century, and anything else that might make the model more accurate. I run the model back in time, and it is spot-on. It should be, because it depends on historical data. I run it forward and it tells me the price of gold in 2047 will be 1.267 trillion American dollars per oz.. Should I trust that result?

Computer models take a current situation, do some computation, and tell you what the model predicts. If my gold price prediction program can’t predict the price of gold week-by-week, what use is it? If it could, I’d be a trillionaire.

My point is that climate models would have to be accurate on any time-scale to be taken seriously. They are not, so they are worthless.

Update:

I should add that computer models iterate through a timescale. Given the conditions at point of time t1, they calculate the conditions at point of time t2. They then take the calculated conditions at point of time t2, and calculate the conditions at point of time t3. Pretty obviously, if the model is not quite perfect, and the predicted conditions at point of time t2 do not match reality, then the computation based on t2 will not match reality either. In fact, the mismatch between reality and the model will get worse, the further they go down the timescale.

Update 2:

If the AGW climate model was correct; i.e. that human activity outweighs all other climate influences, and is having a potentially catastrophic effect on climate, then the temperature record going back in time should look like a hockey-stick. In reality it doesn’t look like anything like a hockey-stick. Mann and company were using every trick in the book to make past temperature variations go away. I have one question for Mann. I’d ask him when will the next ice-age start.

The London Times has an obituary for Mr. Shubin. The lead is:

The emergence of a lightweight bullet-resistant vest, which is estimated to have saved the lives of more than 3,000 US police officers, owed much to the determination and persistence of Lester Shubin.

The realization that bullets could be stopped led to the development of the body armor that saves the lives of our troops fighting the forces of evil.

This is an old story attributed to George Bernard Shaw:

A certain gentleman inquired of a lady whether she would be willing to sleep with him for 50,000 pounds. After some hesitation, the lady replied that she supposed she would, in consideration of the magnitude of the offer. Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for twopence.

“Certainly not,” she responded with indignation. “Just what kind of lady do you think I am?”Madam, I believe we have already established that,” he remarked calmly. “Now we are just haggling over the price.”

Senators Mary Landrieu and Nelson signed onto Harry Reid’s secret Healthcare bill, after massive bribes.  Reid bribed them with our money. Not his money, but taxpayer dollars. Admittedly, he didn’t put our money into their bank accounts; he just put it into their states  to boost their reelection chances. Landrieu is an admitted political whore. Nelson was claiming principle on the abortion issue but caved when bribed. He was also threatened in a manner which would have back-fired big-time if he had any spine. But he has proven spineless, just like the rest of his party. Nelson will stick up for the unborn until the price is right. Like I said.

Anything that derails Copenhagen is good. The Chinese are the world’s worst polluters and the biggest emitter of Carbon Dioxide. The first record is bad but the second record  is good. Burning fossil fuels recycles ancient Carbon Dioxide back into the atmosphere.  Think of it it as putting plant food into the sky. It won’t have any discernible impact on global temperature but it will improve agricultural productivity. Contra Mann, of hockey stick fame, all the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. Putting some of it back is better for life on earth and humanity. Let’s just do it without adding real pollutants.

Next Page »