The greenies have been crying for years about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" which absorbs the infrared heat the earth is trying to radiate into space, thus warming the earth and the root cause of GLOBAL WARMING. Analysis of ancient air bubbles trapped in arctic icecaps shows the CO2 content in ancient times was around 300 parts per million (PPM) Analysis of modern air shows a CO2 level of 400 PPM. A 25% increase, which the greenies say will lead to the heat death of the earth day after tomorrow. Or sooner.
The greenies claim that the CO2 increase comes from burning coal starting with the industrial revolution (1750 or so) and burning oil starting with the development of the automobile (1900 or so). To halt the CO2 growth the greenies want to put us all back in to a Hiawatha lifestyle, no cars, no oil furnaces, no electricity after dark, and a bunch of other uncomfortable ideas. Gotta save the world you know.
In actual fact, the air is also full of water vapor. Which is as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2. And there is a lot of it. About 11,000 PPM give or take a scosh. It varies from time to time as we all know, some days are very humid others are bone dry. Take 50% relative humidity at 20 C as representative. An increase of 100 PPM of CO2 compared with 11,000 PPM of H2O isn't going to matter for world temperature.
The greenies are getting all hot a bothered by a 1% increase in greenhouse gas in the air.
Relax people, we can drive our cars, travel by air, light our furnaces, and generate electricity and the planet will be just fine.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Monday, March 20, 2017
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Jerry Brown goes on Meet the Press
And manages to say nothing of substance in 10 minutes of airtime. They started him off on the California drought. He talked about "progress" and " programs" and "Urgency". Nothing about dams, canals, wells, and allocation. The biggest water users in CA are farms, and you could turn off their water, let 'em go broke, and have enough water to supply everyone's homes. Not a word about any of this. We did learn that Jerry believes global warming is causing the CA drought. And he doesn't like Ted Cruz, they played a clip of Cruz saying that the globe hasn't warmed at all in the last 17 years (which is true, according to GISS data). Jerry doesn't believe that, and called Cruz "totally unfit to run for president".
Well, we know where Jerry's heart is. And where is head is too.
Well, we know where Jerry's heart is. And where is head is too.
Friday, March 8, 2013
New York Times makes up new science
The Times ran an article about Shaun Marcott and his team at Oregon State University. Marcott claims to have "read" earth's temperature going back 11 thousand years. Naturally (for the NYT) Marcott's temperature "reading" shows temperature's were colder than today, for the last 11 thousand years. Global warming rides again.
Naturally the Times didn't both to explain just how Marcott was able to measure the temperate 10,000 years ago. That's actually quite a trick. Many global warmers have made mistakes, like claiming tree ring wide indicates temperate. (It indicates rainfall).
The Times also quotes the notorious Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State. Mann was exposed in the great Hadley Climate Research Unit document leak as an very partisan warmist not above fudging his results to get the answers that he wants.
Finally, the Times declares a solution to the age old question of "what caused the ice ages". This has been a topic of discussion for the last century or more. There are dozens of theories kicking around, none of them convincing enough to become generally accepted. But this doesn't stop our NYT warmists. The Times boldy declares that variation in the heat of the Sun causes ice ages. Sun gets colder and we have an ice age.
Trouble with this theory is that instrument readings don't support it. We have solar output readings going back to the beginnings of artificial satellites. The instruments are sensitive enough to show the 11 year sun spot cycle. But they don't show any long term variation at all. Solar output today is exactly the same as it was 40 years ago (date of earliest satellite observations). Which suggests that the Sun burns at the same level all the time.
Glad to hear that the Times is so scientifically hep, throwing out new theories as if they were generally accepted. I always believe what I read in the Times.
Naturally the Times didn't both to explain just how Marcott was able to measure the temperate 10,000 years ago. That's actually quite a trick. Many global warmers have made mistakes, like claiming tree ring wide indicates temperate. (It indicates rainfall).
The Times also quotes the notorious Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State. Mann was exposed in the great Hadley Climate Research Unit document leak as an very partisan warmist not above fudging his results to get the answers that he wants.
Finally, the Times declares a solution to the age old question of "what caused the ice ages". This has been a topic of discussion for the last century or more. There are dozens of theories kicking around, none of them convincing enough to become generally accepted. But this doesn't stop our NYT warmists. The Times boldy declares that variation in the heat of the Sun causes ice ages. Sun gets colder and we have an ice age.
Trouble with this theory is that instrument readings don't support it. We have solar output readings going back to the beginnings of artificial satellites. The instruments are sensitive enough to show the 11 year sun spot cycle. But they don't show any long term variation at all. Solar output today is exactly the same as it was 40 years ago (date of earliest satellite observations). Which suggests that the Sun burns at the same level all the time.
Glad to hear that the Times is so scientifically hep, throwing out new theories as if they were generally accepted. I always believe what I read in the Times.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
I'd LIKE to believe this, but is it real?
Article in "Nature Climate Change" (who ever they may be, I never heard of 'em before) claims that tree ring width measurements from present day back to Roman times show a persistent global cooling has been going on for the last two thousand years. I'd like to believe this.
Trouble is, tree ring width is determined by rainfall. Trees love moisture and on wet years they lay down thicker layers of new wood. Temperature doesn't effect ring growth much.
The authors attempt to meet this criticism by comparing tree ring widths to measured temperatures in modern (post-thermometer-invention) times. They claim a correlation of 0.77 which is better than random, but far short of the standards used in the real sciences. For instance the Higgs Boson discoverers demanded a correlation of 0.999 or better before they made their claim. So I am not sold on tree ring width as a proxy measurement of temperature.
The title of the article suggests that the temperature changes are a result of changes in Earth's orbit. It has been known for hundreds of years that earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, is it a plump elipse, close to a circle but there is a perihelion (closest to the sun point) and aphelion (farthest from the sun point). The differences are not great, a percent or so. Plus the earth's axial tilt (which causes seasons) drifts around some, which means some times Northern Hemisphere summer happens at perihelion, giving warmer summers. Some times Northern summer happens at aphelion giving cooler summers. The whole effect cycles around with a period of 25,000 years. The cycle is called the Drayson cycle, it has been known for centuries, and numerous attempts have been made to connect Draysonianism with the coming and going of the ice ages. None of these attempts have convinced the bulk of the scientific community to believe them.
The title suggests another attempt at selling Draysonianism as a cause for global cooling is under way. Trouble is, they don't have the data to make the case. Their tree-ring/temperature data only covers 2000 years, a Drayson cycle is 25000 years. To show that we have a 25000 year global cooling cycle driven by the 25000 year Drayson cycle, you need 25000 years worth of temperature data, which they don't have.
So , a nice article, which I want to believe, but their case is shaky, at best.
Trouble is, tree ring width is determined by rainfall. Trees love moisture and on wet years they lay down thicker layers of new wood. Temperature doesn't effect ring growth much.
The authors attempt to meet this criticism by comparing tree ring widths to measured temperatures in modern (post-thermometer-invention) times. They claim a correlation of 0.77 which is better than random, but far short of the standards used in the real sciences. For instance the Higgs Boson discoverers demanded a correlation of 0.999 or better before they made their claim. So I am not sold on tree ring width as a proxy measurement of temperature.
The title of the article suggests that the temperature changes are a result of changes in Earth's orbit. It has been known for hundreds of years that earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, is it a plump elipse, close to a circle but there is a perihelion (closest to the sun point) and aphelion (farthest from the sun point). The differences are not great, a percent or so. Plus the earth's axial tilt (which causes seasons) drifts around some, which means some times Northern Hemisphere summer happens at perihelion, giving warmer summers. Some times Northern summer happens at aphelion giving cooler summers. The whole effect cycles around with a period of 25,000 years. The cycle is called the Drayson cycle, it has been known for centuries, and numerous attempts have been made to connect Draysonianism with the coming and going of the ice ages. None of these attempts have convinced the bulk of the scientific community to believe them.
The title suggests another attempt at selling Draysonianism as a cause for global cooling is under way. Trouble is, they don't have the data to make the case. Their tree-ring/temperature data only covers 2000 years, a Drayson cycle is 25000 years. To show that we have a 25000 year global cooling cycle driven by the 25000 year Drayson cycle, you need 25000 years worth of temperature data, which they don't have.
So , a nice article, which I want to believe, but their case is shaky, at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)