Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 09/05/2010 3:23:07 AM PDT by lmr
Hello Everyone!
I had a great debate just yesterday with some of my in-laws at a birthday party for my mother-in-law. (My wife, her sister and mother left later to go gambling in Oklahoma. We live in Kansas.)
Anyhow, I was speaking mostly with my brother-in-law there about some local business that he was involved with the company I work for. The conversation progressed to my opposition to Corporatism which, of course, isn't Capitalism and we found some common ground. Then, somehow the conversation shifted to Greensburg, Kansas and how they were rebuilding the city in true 'Green' fashion after it was wiped out in 2007 by an EF5 tornado. (The most powerful tornado category)
My father-in-law had something to add about how Greensburg had built a system to recycle storm-drain rainwater to be used on lawns and such. I told him that I wasn't opposed to such projects as long as they made economic sense in the small-government mindset and preferred that they be initiated by the free-market and be in the economic interest of everyone. I told him I didn't like Tax-Payer dollars wasted on projects that didn't make economic sense in order to make certain groups 'feel good.' I informed him that our nation was in way over our heads in deficit and debts and that, at the very least, we should apply reason to our spending decisions.
My father-in-law responded without evidence that such projects would be feasible and beneficial for the environment in the future and therefore necessary. At this point of the discussion, he then proceeded to 'school' me on the 'evils' of C02. I told him outright that Global Warming was a scam. My eldest, my boy, 15, also retorted that Global Warming was hoax. (He's a chip off the old block, ya know?) My brother-in-law then decided to chime in openly, "I'm going to disagree with you there."
I immediately brought up the fact that the East Anglia Researchers were involved in manipulation of temperature data and sent emails to each other conspiring to 'hide the decline' in temperature over the last decade or so.
My brother-in-law then told me that I was right on that fact, but that just because 'someone is wrong or lies once doesn't make them wrong or a liar all the time.' I guess in his Liberal brainwash, he thought that as a conservative, I liked Bill O'Reilly or something. (For some reason quite a few Liberals wrongly believe this.) He said, "Look, Bill O'Reilly has lied and misrepresented before, but he's not wrong all the time is he?" I had a good laugh and replied, "O'Reilly is blowhard!", he didn't know what to think then! hahahahaa...
All the while, my father in law kept agreeing with him, but he was listening... I told him that Global Warming was the means that the elite intend to use to get rich off us and control us. I told him that there was no Science behind Global Warming theory, just Money and Politics. I told him that the earth has existed for 4.5 billion years and elitists are merely attempting to manipulate 100 years of data to get us to do what they want us to do. I told him this 100 years of data was insignificant and represented a small window of earth's weather history and was not indicative of anything. I told him also that as long as the earth has an atmosphere and we are tilted 23.5 degrees on our axis that we will have weather. He agreed with this. After he mentioned glaciers melting in certain spots, I informed him that the Antartic Ice Sheet was actually increasing and one microcosm of glacier and ice melt was not evidence of overall warming. I told him that Ice Ages have come and gone over the long history of this world.
We then talked about the Discovery Channel Eco-Terrorist. I told both of them that this global warming rhetoric was making individuals like that guy crazy. They both conceded the argument at that point.
I try not to talk to my inlaws.
It is better for everyone that way.
Abandon logic and reason, when dealing with leftists.
Go with Alinsky.
Accuse them of supporting terrorism, and for evidence, cite the Discovery Channel building nut.
Seriously. Use emotion, and forget logic.
GLOBAL WARMING = TERRORISM
Best site out there, hands down, for the thoroughgoing (and inarguable) debunking of global warming hysteria and pseudo-science.
Awesome link. Scientific too. Logic is ultimately my aim. Thanks.
How nice it would be if everyone against the hoax of Global Warming would be this prepared for debate..That could change a lot of things for us..
When I get someone jumping on me about gorebal warming, I always hit them with a few simple questions, which most have no clue as to what they mean, much less how to answer.
1. What caused the MWP?
2 Why is Greenland called Greenland?
3. What then caused the little ice age?
4. What is the latest trend in solar activity?
5. Why were the ice caps on Mars melting, and all
planets showing higher temperatures?
That is usually enough to end the debate.
You forgot the part where they refused to let you have any dinner.
:>)
#5 is wrong - you should replace it with, “Why are atmoshpheric CO2 levels a lagging indicator of temperature?”
what is MWP?
MWP= Medieval Warm Period, about 900 to 1400, when Europe flourished due to unusually warm climates.
In Greenland, they raised animals and grew crops, even grapes for wine.
“#5 is wrong”
wrong? How or why is that?
Are you saying that there has been no warming on the other planets?
Thanks for your post!
No, I am saying that there is no warming on this one.
Hence, “ALL planets” is incorrect.
You said:
“The conversation progressed to my opposition to Corporatism which, of course, isn’t Capitalism and we found some common ground. “
Well another word for Corporatism is fascism for one but....
How did you find common ground? The AGW hoax is all about Corporatism so if your brother-in-law agrees with it then he supporting Corporatism. The greenie agenda is all about using government to pick the winners and losers in the market place and in controlling the agenda and mindset of the entire market. The greenie agenda would have Corporations and the entire market intertwined with government.
“Hence, “ALL planets” is incorrect.”
Well, yes, I should have said “some planets” as those very close or very far would not count, as their temperatures are so extreme, we would not really know.
It is, from my understanding, assumed that the warming/cooling events have been natural and occurring within our solar system.
Is their a problem with my statement about the ice caps on Mars?
“Is their a problem with my statement about the ice caps on Mars?”
Nope. Just don’t buy into the myth that the Earth is warming.
It is not true.
It is cooling.
“Nope. Just don’t buy into the myth that the Earth is warming.”
I never said that it IS warming.
I implied that there have been cycles where all planets warm and cool, and Earth is one.
You are confusing solar warming with man made warming.
” and all
planets showing higher temperatures?”
Prove it.
“Prove it.”
Take a thermometer up there and see for yourself :P
Been done - of the sixty V-2 shots from Launch Point 33 at WSMR, many were weather instraments.
Three landed in Juares, MX.
One had a pair of monkeys on board - they died when the parachute failed to deploy.
But none of them established any evidence of global warming - AGW or otherwise.
Neither has anybody else.
Another good site is http://www.iceagenow.com/. The guy that runs this site actually makes a compelling argument that the earth is cooling, not warming and that man doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Congratulate your in-;laws for their progressive “Green” outlook and press them for details about when and by how much they are going to reduce their carbon footprints. Also remind them that every anchor baby and immigrant to the USA increases the total carbon footprint of the world.
On that note, here’s a good thread on information sites:
Need Top Ten Sites to Explain AGW Climate Skepticism to a Lay Audience (vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464898/posts
Because of the nature of Mars's orbit. While there may be some trend up or down pertaining to Mars's ice caps melting or not melting, it is minute in relation to orbital mechanics. Mars has an oval orbit and a 25 degree tilt that has drastic effects on the stability of the CO2 and water ice that makes up the caps. The CO2 layer sublimates much easier than the water ice it covers meaning it can quickly dissipate but also quickly reform.
The ice caps on Mars are in long term dynamic equilibrium and any short term look at them doesn't provide any meaningful information with which to draw any conclusions about solar output.
I tell my lib/greenie friends, and, as a musician, I have a lot of them, to get on their computers and search out a few simple facts. I ask them to find the total percentages of gasses in the atmosphere. Then once they’ve found out the % that is CO2, search out Man’s contribution to the CO2. And ask them to give me their answers in parts per million. Then I send them here;
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
If I just gave them the numbers, they wouldn’t believe me,,,,, so I make them look for themselves.
A great musical summary of Hurricane Earl
Indeed. Here are two shows that Glenn Beck did to expose the 10 trillion dollar carbon credit trading scam. Challenge your in-laws to watch these and say it's not about money and control.
Cap and Trade Scheme Exposed - Show #1 (4 parts) Note: Skip ahead to 9:00 for beginning of climate exchange segment
Crime Inc - Show #2 (4 parts)
for future reference
Even IF the latter can be established to be fact, the issue fundamentally is whether the causitive agent is anthropogenic or not.
Somebody needs to explain what happened to the mile high sheet of ice covering a significant portion of the North American Continent a mere 10,000 years ago. How that is not anthropogenic in nature but the trifling current events in comtrast ARE is a baffling mystery to me. Moreover, a recent PBS special concerning the evolution of Man presents clear and unequivocal evidence of catostrophic climate change occuring regularly over millenia and eons, whereby lakes the size of Lake Victoria in Africa completely dried up and refilled. Clear, unequivocal empirical evidence is cited where the time-frame of these transitions occured within time frames of century (or even less). Look at a contemporary map of Africa and contemplate the affect of the largest lakes shown drying up completely. What magnitude of climate change is that? Presumably all the homo habilus campfires caused that?
Fundamentally, all premises based on anthropogenic causation for 'climate change' is at best predicated upon seriously and fundamentally flawed 'science', i.e., the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Over 97% of all greenhouse gases are natural and there is nothing we can do about them. For example, India's population of one billion people produces more carbon dioxide just by breathing than is produced by all the coal-burning power plants in the United States. Moreover, termites are said to produce more carbon dioxide each year than all other living organisms combined. Most poignant is the fact that a solid 50% of anthropogenic CO2 is attributable to burning of biofuel exclusively for cooking. Dr. Roy Spencer, in his book Climate Confusion, points out how total anthropogenic CO2 emissions amounts to 50 billion tons per annum. This figure is qualified with the total weight of the atmosphere cited at 5 quadrillion tons, i.e., the 50 billion tons added to 5 MILLION billion tons amounts to a mere 10 parts per million addition. That notwithstanding, according to the USGS, volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The accumulated amount of volcanic attributable CO2 over the course of 43 years equals total annual anthropogenic generation. How many 43 year periods are there in the 5 billion years volcanoes have been burping and farting around? Obviously 10 part per million additional CO2 really screwed the pooch.
CO2 that is released into the atmosphere remains for 200 years. However, 50% of the annual human addition is adsorbed by the oceans; at 8.6 GTC/Y, that's 4.3 GTC/Y being adsorbed. A few decades ago, humans only produced 4.3 GTC/Y. Why didn't it all go into the oceans? Oceans can't respond to percent; they can only respond to absolute values. The total CO2 in the atmosphere is around 800 GTC. It wasn't much less when humans were adding 4.3 GTC/Y, which means oceans would have been absorbing almost as much.
Physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR in 1909. His work was published in Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Being an expert on IR, his accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe" rather than a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also emit radiation. One greenhouse was covered with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass being opaque to IR and the rock salt transparent to it. At time zero the sun was turned on and the rock salt greenhouse was observed to heat faster than its peer.
A subsequent experiment was then conducted whereby another pane of glass was placed above both greenhouses. The result was that both greenhouses heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Although Wood didn't indicate which greenhouse was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt, the slight difference in temperature can suitably be accounted for due to the different thermal conductivity coefficients of the materials covering the 'coldframes'.
This experiment conclusively demonstrated that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space can't cause higher air temperature therein, neither then can CO2 in the atmosphere cause increased air temperatures.
The glass sheets provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed - comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere - and trapping IR with it would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a far wider spectrum of IR than that which is absorbed by CO2. While the rock-salt sheet covered coldframe did heat up faster, it would likewise cool down faster than the glass plate sheeted coldframe. This is due to emission IR being reflected back into the interior of the coldframe while CO2, in contrast, no incident IR.
In comparision, water - which covers 70% of earth's surface - is fairly opaque to IR (being absorbed w/in 1m), and is only significantly reflective at very low incident angles. In contrast, although comparatively transparent with respect to shortwave radiation, i.e., absorbed w/in 30m, is highly reflective at even the highest incident angle possible. One should keep in mind that the quanta of energy per non-IR photon is by orders of magnitude greater.
Four years after Wood published his findings, Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)
Unlike glass which reflects IR according to staid rules of trigonometry, CO2 molecules emit IR simultaneous on vectors of equal magnitude with 6 degree's of freedom. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow incident IR to pass them by. Glass in contrast reflects IR continuously. Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide a theory for the mechanism whereby such physical process can operate.
Neither man nor nature can change the net temperature of the atmosphere, because radiation going out must equal radiation coming in (from the sun); and radiation out is strictly determined by temperature. All matter emits IR at a frequency that is dependant upon its temperature. Hotter objects emit more radiation (with a higher frequency) than colder objects (less radiation and lower frequency). The earth's surface is not very hot, so it gives off radiation which is too low in frequency to be visible.
Heat contained by subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface (being colder than the unexposed materials below the surface); its a fundamental principle of thermodynamics that heat flows from high to low concentration. Heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up the atmospheric boundry layer, i.e., that layer in contact with the earth. Thereafter, the direction of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can only go upwards into the upper atmosphere and then out into deep space. Atmospheric gases can NOT cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission.
Climatologists evaluate movement of energy around the earth on flow charts which they call an "energy budget". Given that it's impossible to extract real information from IPCC reports, one must resort those produced by NASA. Accordingly, NASA flow charts show 51% of the sun's energy striking the earth, while 15% is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere, and 6% is radiated from the earth directly into space. Studies from decades past (before global warming became a significant issue) showed that 8% of the radiation which leaves the surface of the earth is of suitable wavelengths to be absorbed by carbon dioxide.
The claim that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing Arctic ice to melt displays a contempt for every element of, and does willful, wanton, egregious injury to the most basic and fundamental tenets of modern science.
Not only is its thermal conductivity very low, air has a very low heat capacity; as such it is an extremely good insulator. Air has a specific heat of 1.0035 J/g*Kelvin (solid water at 0 Deg. C. is twice that). Moroever, the heat of fusion for solid water is 333.55 J/g. That means 1 gram of solid water at 0 Deg. C will become liquid water at 0 Deg. C after 333.55 J are added to it. That means either 333 g of air at 1 Deg. C are necessary to change the state of 1 g of water, or 1 g of air at 333 Deg. C. Given that at STP air has a density of 1294 g / 10000 ml, a little more than 2.5 liters of air at 1 Deg. C. will melt 1 ml of water. If one makes the air hotter, more air will be needed since the hotter air will be less dense.
91% of the world's glacial ice is located in Antarctica where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. How much air would be required to melt that? Where would the predicted huge sea level rise come from? Mars? The North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Al-Gorbull-warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. However, that floating ice that melts does not raise the water level whatsoever is a fundamental principle of science established 2,500 years ago.
Arctic ice melting is virtually entirely due to solar energy; it can penetrate both water and ice, while heating the surrounding land and creating an increase in temperature of the surrounding air of about 100°F. The claim that a 1°F temperature increase in the atmosphere resulting from global warming melts more ice than seasonal solar energy is not merely absurd, its patently ludicrous.
Those that claim that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are responsible for global warming (or 'climate change') are SO ignorant of basic tenets of science in general that their drivel can be attributed to nothing more than the tiny clench-fisted tantrums of squalling infants and the horrid shrieks of a rabid leperous desert rat spinning blindly in horror of anticipation of being struck by the venomous bite of a pit-viper.
Looks like an interesting series. ping for later reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.