Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, it is wise to base decisions and policy on hard fact.
Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational. And please feel free to copy/paste this comment wherever you think it will do the most good.
The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.
The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that
Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.
[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition
by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
[2] ibid.
[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.
[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/
[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.
[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.
[7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
[8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html
[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.
See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and
HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.
ADDENDUM
What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.
Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.
Wow H, quite an analysis. You may earn 50 down thumbs from the Progressive true believers of man made Climate Change. After all, they believe Global Warming/Climate change is the most serious national security threat that we face. Their President told them so.
I found your post on a Jamaican website, but I could not determine who actually wrote it. Do you know who penned this report H. Seneker? I would love to know who wrote this besides “anonymous”
Hey word parser, are you trying to start another fight? H posted a great post, had numerous links and what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you going to a Jamaican website? If you don’t agree with the conclusions, post your own with links or shut up.
Agent, was your post really necessary? Because Rosenblatt asked a question you assume he’s trying to pick a fight and tell him to shut up? He did not say he agreed or disagreed. It is possibly he simply wanted more information. And you wonder why your posts get down-thumbed so often.
Thank you Godot. Agent’s response (and other replies Yogi has directed at me) is exactly the reason why I have not responded to Yogi’s request below. I have no appetite to try and discuss things as a rational adult when I get insulted and demeaned simply for asking clarifying questions.
It’s already a fight from their side where they feel the need to insult others at every turn and I haven’t said anything except “who wrote this report?”
August 1, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Godout, I have had experience with the “word parser in chief” on many things. He never quite gets it and will keep on asking, asking, asking and it never ever stops. H Seneker did a great job explaining everything and Rosenblatt starts in on a Jamaican website?????? Global Warming/Climate change is a major hoax right under Obamacare and it is very sickening to think people actually believe it. Perhaps there was too much information to it. Hard to absorb for a Progressive, right?
August 2, 2016 at 7:57 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Pipe down there agent. You already know I (and I’ve seen Confused write this to you a bunch too) think Obamacare is a super-duper failure. As for asking questions and never stopping – if you directly answer the question one of these times, I won’t have to keep asking the same question over and over!
August 3, 2016 at 6:11 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Agent, you imbecile, you complimented his analysis, which is spammed word-for-word all over the Internet, and when the sources are questioned your problem is with the person who looked into the sources. Your definition of a good analysis is saying what your already believe.
There is a lot of talk about “trolls” in these pages, and the article above is a good example of a real troll-post. From what I can glean, this is an article by a secretary of a local branch of the UKIP party in Great Britain. http://www.ukipdaily.com/author/simon-blanchard/
You can find the same exact thing (footnotes included) posted numerous times on the internet here and there under different names.
Rosenblatt – Mr Seneker uses undergraduate level thinking and writing to try and convince a bunch of scientifically illiterate people that recent global warming cannot be anthropogenic in origin and that their politically driven agenda for evaluating scientific debate is somehow valid. One citation to a peer reviewed article? And what is the opinion of the vast majority of the members of the National Academy of Science? Pretty much that Mr Seneker has no idea what he’s talking about. Seneker vs Natl Academy?? Not a very close call.
This spam, aside from being incorrect, and mainly lies, is posted all over the internet. It’s debunked left and right, anybody posting or cheering it is clueless.
OP Argument: Carbon dioxide has little effect on the greenhouse effect since water vapor is more prevalent and effective as a greenhouse gas.
Response:
The argument overlooks the fact that water vapor creates a positive feedback loop making any changes in temperature much larger than they would otherwise be [1].
1) More CO2 –> 2) Increasing Temp –> 3) Evaporation –> 4) More Water Vapor –>Back to 2)
Studies have shown this effect essentially doubles temperature increases from CO2.
OP Argument: We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years. Temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago. Fluctuations in the recent history including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Response:
You are correct that climate has had phases of cooling and warming, and many of these have had devastating consequences and been associated to triggering events. Right now, the triggering event is the human contribution to the CO2.
I would also like to point out that your source number 7 supports climate change. The conclusion states: “The unstable nature of the Earth’s climate history suggests that it may be liable to change suddenly in the future. By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on the climate system which might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. As the geologist W.S. Broecker has said, “Climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks”.
Also, over the past 2,000 years up until 100 years ago, the planet was undergoing a long term cooling trend. It’s true that there was the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age; however, these were regional events that did not occur across all global regions. Additionally, the global surface temperature at the end of the 20th century was higher than the Medieval Warming Period peak [2].
OP Argument: Principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrable disingenuous.
Response:
Just no. Phrases were taken out of context and misconstrued. Several independent groups conducted investigations that found no evidence of wrong doing. [3]
[1] Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
Agent wrote, but COWARDLY BOT-users (abusers?) censored his comment:
**************************************************************************
Wow H, quite an analysis. You may earn 50 down thumbs from the Progressive true believers of man made Climate Change. After all, they believe Global Warming/Climate change is the most serious national security threat that we face. Their President told them so.
Censorship is used by COMMUNISTS to silence their critics.
BOTS are their most recent tool for doing so, in a nation where Freedom of Speech is a protected right.
So far, the only replies by the COMMUNIST-like Climate Warming Hoaxers has been to ATTACK the credence of the OP. Nothing substantive has been offered to buttress THEIR opinions. That is most likely due to the fact that their opinion is just that; i.e. opinion, not a FACT (as they believe).
Some comments were made about where the OP was also found on the internet. The replies by Climate Warming Hoaxers mentioned one specific location, whereas that is untrue. There are SEVERAL sites on the internet where this was posted, and they chose one site in a feeble attempt to discredit the OP.
Yogi, all I see is a feeble attempt by Godout to defend Rosenblatt’s goofy comment. Some of these dudes actually think your iceberg will melt and drown Miami and New York.
My iceberg’s integrity is currently great, and it won’t melt until I drift closer to North Carolina, South Carolina, where I depart for fishing and golf.
Yogi, sounds like fun to me. By the way, I hope you get to play the grand strand at Myrtle Beach. They have about a hundred courses down there and most are outstanding. None of them have been proven to cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Charleston seems to be in no danger of going under due to your iceberg melt.
August 2, 2016 at 11:45 am
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Yogi,
When you and Boo Boo have a “bullpen” sesh, who pitches and who catches? Or do you switch it up once in a while? I heard those dufus pokemon pocket monsters are all the rage. Do you use them like gerbals?
August 2, 2016 at 9:05 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
I have no interest in trying to hold a rational adult conversation with you two citing facts, evidence and providing sources when I get insulted and demeaned simply for asking a relevant question about who wrote the article in the first place.
I have plenty of evidence to cite; I chose not to engage because of how you two “discuss” things and apparently feel the need to insult me at every opportunity.
Keep insulting me and I won’t talk about this topic. Stop insulting me and maybe we can discuss things as rational adults.
Let’s try to start fresh:
Regardless of your belief that humans are or are not impacting the climate, do you think our planet is getting warmer, colder or is the earth’s average temperature not changing what-so-ever?
The Earth’s temperature is oscillating over long periods of time.
To say that man is affecting the temperature significantly is a lie. The effects seen are natural, and the man-induced impacts are minimal. Al Gore is a carnival barker, snake oil salesman who knows no one alive today will live long enough to see his long run predictions dis-proven.
The above info from the OP points to numerous instance of Global Climate Hoaxers fudging data and censoring results of unbiased studies. Read them and engage the OP in debate.
August 2, 2016 at 11:56 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Every time I read one of your posts, the more I believe that you and Agent are the same person.
I asked if the planet’s average temperature is warming, cooling or not changing. You said the temperature oscillates. That’s all well and good, but is the planet’s average temperature increasing, decreasing, or staying the same???
August 2, 2016 at 7:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
He might consider it, if you stop trying to do ah ha questions.
You have no reason to ask this question. He has no reason to answer it.
I have seen this debate tactic, so I will assume you debate either in a debate club, or you have been on debate.org.
It is a dishonest measure of debate. The method is thus:
Ask a question you have pre selected.
Force an answer, in order to continue debate.
When they answer in the positive, you claim the only possibility for said answer is one of only so many things, but that they have already admitted in the positive that it is occurring. Thus they lost the debate the moment they answered yes, or no, while that question has little to do with the debate at all.
The burden of proof here is on YOU do prove what is causing global warming.
Not for Yogi to say “yes, it is occurring” and then you say well we agree so I don’t have to prove it,
Or “No it isn’t” and then you force him to debunk your studies that it is occurring.
A theory is not established until it is put through a falsifiable test, and what you should always do is assume the theory is false, and find what disproves it. Not assume it is true, and say it exists until proven incorrect.
Your question seeks to force a true until proven incorrect theory. It is dishonest.
August 3, 2016 at 8:18 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
This is no “A HA” moment or question, Bob. This is a “let me try to understand where Yogi is starting from so I know where we disagree, and therefore what should be discussed in more detail” question. Take my questions at face value, please.
August 3, 2016 at 1:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, the more I read Rosenblatt’s posts, the more I think he may be Godout, Actu, Confused, Boogereater or UW. They are all very similar, can’t use Google and believe nothing we say. As you say, all the questions they pose are loaded questions, kind of like our double Obama voter, wonderful Ron.
August 3, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I believe what people say when there is evidence to support their argument. I will not believe anyone just because they claim something is true if the evidence does not support it.
This applies to you, Bob, Ron, UW, Yogi, TXBooger, Confused, an author of an article posted on IJ, scientists, religious folks, any politician, etc.
Example: I did not believe you when you referenced Kerry’s air conditioner/global warming comment. I provided evidence, even from right-wing sources, to support my argument that he didn’t say it. You have not provided anything to substantiate your claim; therefore, I don’t believe you.
August 3, 2016 at 2:48 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I don’t know how to use Google, Agent? Who outed you?
August 2, 2016 at 2:14 pm
Godot says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Agent, you have no idea the reasoning behind Rosenblatt’s question. It wasn’t a goofy comment – it was simply a question. Stop picking at everything and everyone that isn’t your ‘buddy’. Your schtick is very old and tiresome, although it is good for a chuckle. Knock it off, bully.
Yogi, I don’t think Rosenblatt can come up with any info to disprove what H provided. The best he could do is provide links from disgraced scientists who fudged their data to try to prove man has something to do with Global Warming. By the way, the carnival barker Gore said the poles would be melted by 2014.
This is EXACTLY why I didn’t bother posting anything earlier. You’ve already made up your mind that anything I post will be from “disgraced scientists who fudged their data.”
Your mind is already closed off to anything I may post – it’s pointless to even try to have an honest back and forth on this topic.
I bet even if I post something the Republicans agree with, you won’t even bother to consider it may be legitimate because I posted it. Need proof of my theory? I’ve said Obamacare is a super-duper failure many many times, but you continue to post about how I love everything Obama has done and that I think Obamacare is the best thing ever.
So Rosenblatt, what do you think about Obama’s poster child Kerry saying that it is the Refrigerators/A/C is the cause of Global Warming? That is almost as goofy as Obama saying that Global Warming/Climate Change is the most serious national security threat this country faces.
By the way, I am pretty sure Kerry never sits in an un air conditioned office or lives in a home without A/C. He is one of the bigger hypocrites right next to Gore and Obama.
Well, he didn’t say that, now did he? Would you like me to respond to what he actually said? If not…
While I agree that A/C’s are not the cause of global warming, Kerry never said that. I would agree with you that IF someone were to say that, they would been wrong.
Why are you going on left leaning Snopes when you can go on Google? As reported by the Washington Examiner, Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners,refrigerators and inhalers.
You know what Rosenblatt, this is just the second installment of leftists and their theories about what is causing climate change. Years ago, they said Freon used by A/C was causing holes in the Ozone and made A/C contractors capture Freon and put in environmentally safe refrigerants. Now, we see that the environmentally safe refrigerants are terrible too. By the way, I have not seen an Ozone action day in 4 or 5 years. How big of a lie are you willing to swallow from Kerry? The new refrigerants are thousands of times more potent than C02???????????????? The equivalent to emissions from 300 coal fired plants every single year???????????
August 2, 2016 at 4:25 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I agree that “Kerry was in Vienna to amend….” and the rest of what you posted in the first paragraph. I agree with that 100%. No arguments here.
You asked me “what do you think about Obama’s poster child Kerry saying that it is the Refrigerators/A/C is the cause of Global Warming?”
Kerry did NOT say that!
Here are two “right” links: Fox News & Washington Examiner as you suggested. NOWHERE do they report Kerry said what you claim he did.
Now, please post a link in your reply where Kerry said A/C’s are the cause of Global Warming. Left, right, independent, domestic, foreign, whatever. I’m all ears
August 2, 2016 at 4:49 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Well, news reports I found written by Fox News & the Washington Examiner still support my argument that Kerry never said A/C’s were the cause of global warming.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that information from.
Could you please post a link where the report confirms your argument that Kerry said refrigerators and air conditioners are the cause of global warming?
August 2, 2016 at 5:10 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
You are about as proficient as Confused on Google. He couldn’t find the polls on the nation being 2-1 that the people think the nation is on the wrong track despite 20 polls saying it.
Okay, Agent. I can’t google correctly. That’s fine. I can admit it.
In that case, please provide me with a link to support your statement that Kerry said A/C’s & refrigerators are the cause of global warming so I can read what you’re referencing.
Sorry your reading skills are not so proficient. You do this every time until you wear your welcome out. How about you spout off on your theories about Global Warming and see if you can dispute what H Seneker presented? Quick answer: You can’t.
I found two right-wing sources that showed Kerry never said what you claim he did. You have provided ZERO evidence to the contrary. Put up (a link to support your argument he said those things) or shut up.
OP Argument: Carbon dioxide has little effect on the greenhouse effect since water vapor is more prevalent and effective as a greenhouse gas.
Response:
The argument overlooks the fact that water vapor creates a positive feedback loop making any changes in temperature much larger than they would otherwise be [1].
1) More CO2 –> 2) Increasing Temp –> 3) Evaporation –> 4) More Water Vapor –>Back to 2)
Studies have shown this effect essentially doubles temperature increases from CO2.
OP Argument: We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years. Temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago. Fluctuations in the recent history including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Response:
You are correct that climate has had phases of cooling and warming, and many of these have had devastating consequences and been associated to triggering events. Right now, the triggering event is the human contribution to the CO2.
I would also like to point out that your source number 7 supports climate change. The conclusion states: “The unstable nature of the Earth’s climate history suggests that it may be liable to change suddenly in the future. By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on the climate system which might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. As the geologist W.S. Broecker has said, “Climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks”.
Also, over the past 2,000 years up until 100 years ago, the planet was undergoing a long term cooling trend. It’s true that there was the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age; however, these were regional events that did not occur across all global regions. Additionally, the global surface temperature at the end of the 20th century was higher than the Medieval Warming Period peak [2].
OP Argument: Principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrable disingenuous.
Response:
Just no. Phrases were taken out of context and misconstrued. Several independent groups conducted investigations that found no evidence of wrong doing. [3]
[1] Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
oh no Yogi – i see those progressive bots are after Rosenblatt too! how come he’s not whining and complaining like a petulant child and not re-posting all his hidden comments like you do? oh. right. he seems like a rational adult. that explains it
Hi FFA. Good to hear from you again. Those Cubbies are still rolling. Will this finally be the year?
The employees are running the asylum with their employers. Their work must be so slow, the boss let’s them get away with it. If the employer only knew what these nasty Millenials are doing every day, they would be handed a cardboard box and sent packing.
So everything is really operating at break-neck speed at your agency? You seem to have a lot of time to spend on here and townhall.com, propertycasualty360.com, and the likes. Stop regurgitating the same statements – we’re not all slacking millenials. If I were one of your partners, I’d be tempted to hand you a box and send you packing.
Godout, as Donald Trump would say, You are fired! You haven’t been getting your work out, the audit of your computer reveals almost nothing but rants on IJ. You are stealing from me since I paid you to work. Here is your cardboard box. Someone please escort him from the building.
I caught some of the Marlins games. Couldnt make the 12 inning game, but that Madden… A pitcher making a grab against the wall in left Field and another pitcher makes the sac bunt to end the game… Game three won in the bottom of the 9th. Zobrist looking big time and Rizzo for MVP. I like the pitcher pick ups at the dead line. They are charging hard for it this year.
Got to see Ted Nugent last week. Love that guy. Love what he stands for. One of the best Rock & Roll guitars ever. He asks the burning question “Why are there less shootings and more murders in Detroit then in Chicago where there are more shootings and less murders? Better shots in Detroit.”
Madden is a good manager. He did a lot with Tampa Bay without a lot of resources. By the way, how did the Cubbies manage to get that really good reliever away from the Yankees? The guy only throws about 100 MPH. The Yankees seem to be dumping payroll and let Beltran go to the Rangers (we welcome him). He was only leading the team in HR, RBI etc. Perhaps his age had something to do with it. In any case, the Rangers didn’t have to give up much to get him. Maybe he will be a rent a player for this season. At least, the Rangers want to win. Picked up a great catcher and closer from Milwaukee.
Pitcher has baggage – Domestic Violence I think. They need a baby sitter for him. He throws over 100. He was clocked at 105 a major league record. They wanted Schwarber for him but Cubs wont let him go. Maybe they deal him for that pitcher in LA (Kershaw I think). A left handed power bat under a rookie contract staying put for now.
August 5, 2016 at 4:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent asked “By the way, how did the Cubbies manage to get that really good reliever away from the Yankees?”
The answer, per ESPN, is “The Cubs paid a steep price, parting with Torres, versatile pitcher Adam Warren and minor league outfielders Billy McKinney and Rashad Crawford.”
If you downvote this comment, you’re not downvoting my take on this deal, you’re downvoting ESPN’s stance on the trade.
August 5, 2016 at 6:13 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I will give you a upvote on that Rosenblatt. Didn’t know you even followed baseball. I asked FFA because he is a Chicago fan and probably got the local scoop on it. Sometimes ESPN may be off a little bit. I like Major League baseball channel for a lot of news on trades, but hadn’t seen anything on this trade. In any case, if this guy can hit 100 regularly, I don’t think many teams can catch up to him.
FFA, if you remember about a year ago, I commented on ESPN baseball TV telecasts that it was really good that they had the electronic frame over the plate in front of the catcher to show exactly where the pitch was, strike or ball. One of the idiot Progressive trolls, either Confused or UW was arguing against it and apparently had never seen an ESPN game. Well, they are still using it and the other networks use a box down in the corner of the screen like Fox does. All the ESPN frame does is show us how good major league umpires really are. They miss a few, but get it right 95% of the time. That ball coming at the plate 85-95 MPH with movement on it has to be a tough job. It takes a number of years to advance to the major leagues. These guys are good.
That “idiot” was me Agent, and I stand by my statement:
ESPN uses the same size strike zone for every player, but taller players have bigger strike zones than smaller players; therefore, the ESPN strike zone isn’t 100% accurate for every batter.
So you are the idiot? I thought it might have been Confused or UW since they like to argue with a fence post. As I recall, the idiot said there wasn’t even an electronic frame over the plate. By the way, umpires are not 100% accurate for every pitch and the frame is more accurate in my opinion no matter who the batter is. Those down and out sliders are hard to call anyway.
Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, it is wise to base decisions and policy on hard fact.
Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational. And please feel free to copy/paste this comment wherever you think it will do the most good.
The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.
The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that
Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.
[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition
by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
[2] ibid.
[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.
[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/
[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.
[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.
[7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
[8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html
[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.
See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and
HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.
ADDENDUM
What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.
Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.
Bravo! I’ll be back later to add specific comments.
Wow H, quite an analysis. You may earn 50 down thumbs from the Progressive true believers of man made Climate Change. After all, they believe Global Warming/Climate change is the most serious national security threat that we face. Their President told them so.
I found your post on a Jamaican website, but I could not determine who actually wrote it. Do you know who penned this report H. Seneker? I would love to know who wrote this besides “anonymous”
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/mobile/columns/The-global-scam-called-man-made-climate-change_19222999
Hey word parser, are you trying to start another fight? H posted a great post, had numerous links and what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you going to a Jamaican website? If you don’t agree with the conclusions, post your own with links or shut up.
*shakes head and chuckles in disappointment*
Agent, was your post really necessary? Because Rosenblatt asked a question you assume he’s trying to pick a fight and tell him to shut up? He did not say he agreed or disagreed. It is possibly he simply wanted more information. And you wonder why your posts get down-thumbed so often.
Thank you Godot. Agent’s response (and other replies Yogi has directed at me) is exactly the reason why I have not responded to Yogi’s request below. I have no appetite to try and discuss things as a rational adult when I get insulted and demeaned simply for asking clarifying questions.
It’s already a fight from their side where they feel the need to insult others at every turn and I haven’t said anything except “who wrote this report?”
Godout, I have had experience with the “word parser in chief” on many things. He never quite gets it and will keep on asking, asking, asking and it never ever stops. H Seneker did a great job explaining everything and Rosenblatt starts in on a Jamaican website?????? Global Warming/Climate change is a major hoax right under Obamacare and it is very sickening to think people actually believe it. Perhaps there was too much information to it. Hard to absorb for a Progressive, right?
Pipe down there agent. You already know I (and I’ve seen Confused write this to you a bunch too) think Obamacare is a super-duper failure. As for asking questions and never stopping – if you directly answer the question one of these times, I won’t have to keep asking the same question over and over!
Agent, you imbecile, you complimented his analysis, which is spammed word-for-word all over the Internet, and when the sources are questioned your problem is with the person who looked into the sources. Your definition of a good analysis is saying what your already believe.
There is a lot of talk about “trolls” in these pages, and the article above is a good example of a real troll-post. From what I can glean, this is an article by a secretary of a local branch of the UKIP party in Great Britain. http://www.ukipdaily.com/author/simon-blanchard/
You can find the same exact thing (footnotes included) posted numerous times on the internet here and there under different names.
Or maybe, it was the real Harold Seneker:
http://hseneker.blogspot.co.uk/
Anyway, one admires arguments without name calling and such.
Rosenblatt – Mr Seneker uses undergraduate level thinking and writing to try and convince a bunch of scientifically illiterate people that recent global warming cannot be anthropogenic in origin and that their politically driven agenda for evaluating scientific debate is somehow valid. One citation to a peer reviewed article? And what is the opinion of the vast majority of the members of the National Academy of Science? Pretty much that Mr Seneker has no idea what he’s talking about. Seneker vs Natl Academy?? Not a very close call.
This spam, aside from being incorrect, and mainly lies, is posted all over the internet. It’s debunked left and right, anybody posting or cheering it is clueless.
OP Argument: Carbon dioxide has little effect on the greenhouse effect since water vapor is more prevalent and effective as a greenhouse gas.
Response:
The argument overlooks the fact that water vapor creates a positive feedback loop making any changes in temperature much larger than they would otherwise be [1].
1) More CO2 –> 2) Increasing Temp –> 3) Evaporation –> 4) More Water Vapor –>Back to 2)
Studies have shown this effect essentially doubles temperature increases from CO2.
OP Argument: We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years. Temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago. Fluctuations in the recent history including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Response:
You are correct that climate has had phases of cooling and warming, and many of these have had devastating consequences and been associated to triggering events. Right now, the triggering event is the human contribution to the CO2.
I would also like to point out that your source number 7 supports climate change. The conclusion states: “The unstable nature of the Earth’s climate history suggests that it may be liable to change suddenly in the future. By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on the climate system which might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. As the geologist W.S. Broecker has said, “Climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks”.
Also, over the past 2,000 years up until 100 years ago, the planet was undergoing a long term cooling trend. It’s true that there was the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age; however, these were regional events that did not occur across all global regions. Additionally, the global surface temperature at the end of the 20th century was higher than the Medieval Warming Period peak [2].
OP Argument: Principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrable disingenuous.
Response:
Just no. Phrases were taken out of context and misconstrued. Several independent groups conducted investigations that found no evidence of wrong doing. [3]
[1] Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
[2] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
Proponents of ‘Climate Change Significantly Driven by Humans’ are more closed-minded than you think.
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Agent wrote, but COWARDLY BOT-users (abusers?) censored his comment:
**************************************************************************
Wow H, quite an analysis. You may earn 50 down thumbs from the Progressive true believers of man made Climate Change. After all, they believe Global Warming/Climate change is the most serious national security threat that we face. Their President told them so.
***************************************************************************
Censorship is used by COMMUNISTS to silence their critics.
BOTS are their most recent tool for doing so, in a nation where Freedom of Speech is a protected right.
So far, the only replies by the COMMUNIST-like Climate Warming Hoaxers has been to ATTACK the credence of the OP. Nothing substantive has been offered to buttress THEIR opinions. That is most likely due to the fact that their opinion is just that; i.e. opinion, not a FACT (as they believe).
Some comments were made about where the OP was also found on the internet. The replies by Climate Warming Hoaxers mentioned one specific location, whereas that is untrue. There are SEVERAL sites on the internet where this was posted, and they chose one site in a feeble attempt to discredit the OP.
OK, Climate Warming Hoaxer Trolls; let’s see some rebuttal of the stats and such in the OP, rather than attacks on the poster.
I dare you to reply with ONE credible source that refutes the OP. Just one.
{crickets chirping in the distance.}
Yogi, all I see is a feeble attempt by Godout to defend Rosenblatt’s goofy comment. Some of these dudes actually think your iceberg will melt and drown Miami and New York.
My iceberg’s integrity is currently great, and it won’t melt until I drift closer to North Carolina, South Carolina, where I depart for fishing and golf.
Yogi, sounds like fun to me. By the way, I hope you get to play the grand strand at Myrtle Beach. They have about a hundred courses down there and most are outstanding. None of them have been proven to cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Charleston seems to be in no danger of going under due to your iceberg melt.
Yogi,
When you and Boo Boo have a “bullpen” sesh, who pitches and who catches? Or do you switch it up once in a while? I heard those dufus pokemon pocket monsters are all the rage. Do you use them like gerbals?
I have no interest in trying to hold a rational adult conversation with you two citing facts, evidence and providing sources when I get insulted and demeaned simply for asking a relevant question about who wrote the article in the first place.
I have plenty of evidence to cite; I chose not to engage because of how you two “discuss” things and apparently feel the need to insult me at every opportunity.
Keep insulting me and I won’t talk about this topic. Stop insulting me and maybe we can discuss things as rational adults.
Let’s try to start fresh:
Regardless of your belief that humans are or are not impacting the climate, do you think our planet is getting warmer, colder or is the earth’s average temperature not changing what-so-ever?
The Earth’s temperature is oscillating over long periods of time.
To say that man is affecting the temperature significantly is a lie. The effects seen are natural, and the man-induced impacts are minimal. Al Gore is a carnival barker, snake oil salesman who knows no one alive today will live long enough to see his long run predictions dis-proven.
The above info from the OP points to numerous instance of Global Climate Hoaxers fudging data and censoring results of unbiased studies. Read them and engage the OP in debate.
Every time I read one of your posts, the more I believe that you and Agent are the same person.
I asked if the planet’s average temperature is warming, cooling or not changing. You said the temperature oscillates. That’s all well and good, but is the planet’s average temperature increasing, decreasing, or staying the same???
He might consider it, if you stop trying to do ah ha questions.
You have no reason to ask this question. He has no reason to answer it.
I have seen this debate tactic, so I will assume you debate either in a debate club, or you have been on debate.org.
It is a dishonest measure of debate. The method is thus:
Ask a question you have pre selected.
Force an answer, in order to continue debate.
When they answer in the positive, you claim the only possibility for said answer is one of only so many things, but that they have already admitted in the positive that it is occurring. Thus they lost the debate the moment they answered yes, or no, while that question has little to do with the debate at all.
The burden of proof here is on YOU do prove what is causing global warming.
Not for Yogi to say “yes, it is occurring” and then you say well we agree so I don’t have to prove it,
Or “No it isn’t” and then you force him to debunk your studies that it is occurring.
A theory is not established until it is put through a falsifiable test, and what you should always do is assume the theory is false, and find what disproves it. Not assume it is true, and say it exists until proven incorrect.
Your question seeks to force a true until proven incorrect theory. It is dishonest.
This is no “A HA” moment or question, Bob. This is a “let me try to understand where Yogi is starting from so I know where we disagree, and therefore what should be discussed in more detail” question. Take my questions at face value, please.
Bob, the more I read Rosenblatt’s posts, the more I think he may be Godout, Actu, Confused, Boogereater or UW. They are all very similar, can’t use Google and believe nothing we say. As you say, all the questions they pose are loaded questions, kind of like our double Obama voter, wonderful Ron.
I believe what people say when there is evidence to support their argument. I will not believe anyone just because they claim something is true if the evidence does not support it.
This applies to you, Bob, Ron, UW, Yogi, TXBooger, Confused, an author of an article posted on IJ, scientists, religious folks, any politician, etc.
Example: I did not believe you when you referenced Kerry’s air conditioner/global warming comment. I provided evidence, even from right-wing sources, to support my argument that he didn’t say it. You have not provided anything to substantiate your claim; therefore, I don’t believe you.
I don’t know how to use Google, Agent? Who outed you?
Agent, you have no idea the reasoning behind Rosenblatt’s question. It wasn’t a goofy comment – it was simply a question. Stop picking at everything and everyone that isn’t your ‘buddy’. Your schtick is very old and tiresome, although it is good for a chuckle. Knock it off, bully.
By the way, Agent, spell my name correctly going forward please.
Yogi, I don’t think Rosenblatt can come up with any info to disprove what H provided. The best he could do is provide links from disgraced scientists who fudged their data to try to prove man has something to do with Global Warming. By the way, the carnival barker Gore said the poles would be melted by 2014.
This is EXACTLY why I didn’t bother posting anything earlier. You’ve already made up your mind that anything I post will be from “disgraced scientists who fudged their data.”
Your mind is already closed off to anything I may post – it’s pointless to even try to have an honest back and forth on this topic.
I bet even if I post something the Republicans agree with, you won’t even bother to consider it may be legitimate because I posted it. Need proof of my theory? I’ve said Obamacare is a super-duper failure many many times, but you continue to post about how I love everything Obama has done and that I think Obamacare is the best thing ever.
So Rosenblatt, what do you think about Obama’s poster child Kerry saying that it is the Refrigerators/A/C is the cause of Global Warming? That is almost as goofy as Obama saying that Global Warming/Climate Change is the most serious national security threat this country faces.
By the way, I am pretty sure Kerry never sits in an un air conditioned office or lives in a home without A/C. He is one of the bigger hypocrites right next to Gore and Obama.
Well, he didn’t say that, now did he? Would you like me to respond to what he actually said? If not…
While I agree that A/C’s are not the cause of global warming, Kerry never said that. I would agree with you that IF someone were to say that, they would been wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/john-kerry-didnt-say-refrigerators-and-air-conditioners-are-as-dangerous-as-isis/
Why are you going on left leaning Snopes when you can go on Google? As reported by the Washington Examiner, Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners,refrigerators and inhalers.
You know what Rosenblatt, this is just the second installment of leftists and their theories about what is causing climate change. Years ago, they said Freon used by A/C was causing holes in the Ozone and made A/C contractors capture Freon and put in environmentally safe refrigerants. Now, we see that the environmentally safe refrigerants are terrible too. By the way, I have not seen an Ozone action day in 4 or 5 years. How big of a lie are you willing to swallow from Kerry? The new refrigerants are thousands of times more potent than C02???????????????? The equivalent to emissions from 300 coal fired plants every single year???????????
I agree that “Kerry was in Vienna to amend….” and the rest of what you posted in the first paragraph. I agree with that 100%. No arguments here.
You asked me “what do you think about Obama’s poster child Kerry saying that it is the Refrigerators/A/C is the cause of Global Warming?”
Kerry did NOT say that!
Here are two “right” links: Fox News & Washington Examiner as you suggested. NOWHERE do they report Kerry said what you claim he did.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/23/kerry-air-conditioners-as-big-threat-as-isis.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-refrigerator-chemicals-are-just-as-bad-as-isis/article/2597416
Now, please post a link in your reply where Kerry said A/C’s are the cause of Global Warming. Left, right, independent, domestic, foreign, whatever. I’m all ears
Well, news reports I found written by Fox News & the Washington Examiner still support my argument that Kerry never said A/C’s were the cause of global warming.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that information from.
Could you please post a link where the report confirms your argument that Kerry said refrigerators and air conditioners are the cause of global warming?
You are about as proficient as Confused on Google. He couldn’t find the polls on the nation being 2-1 that the people think the nation is on the wrong track despite 20 polls saying it.
Okay, Agent. I can’t google correctly. That’s fine. I can admit it.
In that case, please provide me with a link to support your statement that Kerry said A/C’s & refrigerators are the cause of global warming so I can read what you’re referencing.
Sorry your reading skills are not so proficient. You do this every time until you wear your welcome out. How about you spout off on your theories about Global Warming and see if you can dispute what H Seneker presented? Quick answer: You can’t.
I found two right-wing sources that showed Kerry never said what you claim he did. You have provided ZERO evidence to the contrary. Put up (a link to support your argument he said those things) or shut up.
OP Argument: Carbon dioxide has little effect on the greenhouse effect since water vapor is more prevalent and effective as a greenhouse gas.
Response:
The argument overlooks the fact that water vapor creates a positive feedback loop making any changes in temperature much larger than they would otherwise be [1].
1) More CO2 –> 2) Increasing Temp –> 3) Evaporation –> 4) More Water Vapor –>Back to 2)
Studies have shown this effect essentially doubles temperature increases from CO2.
OP Argument: We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years. Temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago. Fluctuations in the recent history including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Response:
You are correct that climate has had phases of cooling and warming, and many of these have had devastating consequences and been associated to triggering events. Right now, the triggering event is the human contribution to the CO2.
I would also like to point out that your source number 7 supports climate change. The conclusion states: “The unstable nature of the Earth’s climate history suggests that it may be liable to change suddenly in the future. By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on the climate system which might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. As the geologist W.S. Broecker has said, “Climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks”.
Also, over the past 2,000 years up until 100 years ago, the planet was undergoing a long term cooling trend. It’s true that there was the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age; however, these were regional events that did not occur across all global regions. Additionally, the global surface temperature at the end of the 20th century was higher than the Medieval Warming Period peak [2].
OP Argument: Principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrable disingenuous.
Response:
Just no. Phrases were taken out of context and misconstrued. Several independent groups conducted investigations that found no evidence of wrong doing. [3]
[1] Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
[2] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
{crickets chirping in the distance} as yogi would say
oh no Yogi – i see those progressive bots are after Rosenblatt too! how come he’s not whining and complaining like a petulant child and not re-posting all his hidden comments like you do? oh. right. he seems like a rational adult. that explains it
Some people just have too much time on their hands….
Hi FFA. Good to hear from you again. Those Cubbies are still rolling. Will this finally be the year?
The employees are running the asylum with their employers. Their work must be so slow, the boss let’s them get away with it. If the employer only knew what these nasty Millenials are doing every day, they would be handed a cardboard box and sent packing.
So everything is really operating at break-neck speed at your agency? You seem to have a lot of time to spend on here and townhall.com, propertycasualty360.com, and the likes. Stop regurgitating the same statements – we’re not all slacking millenials. If I were one of your partners, I’d be tempted to hand you a box and send you packing.
Godout, as Donald Trump would say, You are fired! You haven’t been getting your work out, the audit of your computer reveals almost nothing but rants on IJ. You are stealing from me since I paid you to work. Here is your cardboard box. Someone please escort him from the building.
You get more idiotic with every post.
are you purposely spelling his name wrong in every reply?
I caught some of the Marlins games. Couldnt make the 12 inning game, but that Madden… A pitcher making a grab against the wall in left Field and another pitcher makes the sac bunt to end the game… Game three won in the bottom of the 9th. Zobrist looking big time and Rizzo for MVP. I like the pitcher pick ups at the dead line. They are charging hard for it this year.
Got to see Ted Nugent last week. Love that guy. Love what he stands for. One of the best Rock & Roll guitars ever. He asks the burning question “Why are there less shootings and more murders in Detroit then in Chicago where there are more shootings and less murders? Better shots in Detroit.”
Madden is a good manager. He did a lot with Tampa Bay without a lot of resources. By the way, how did the Cubbies manage to get that really good reliever away from the Yankees? The guy only throws about 100 MPH. The Yankees seem to be dumping payroll and let Beltran go to the Rangers (we welcome him). He was only leading the team in HR, RBI etc. Perhaps his age had something to do with it. In any case, the Rangers didn’t have to give up much to get him. Maybe he will be a rent a player for this season. At least, the Rangers want to win. Picked up a great catcher and closer from Milwaukee.
Pitcher has baggage – Domestic Violence I think. They need a baby sitter for him. He throws over 100. He was clocked at 105 a major league record. They wanted Schwarber for him but Cubs wont let him go. Maybe they deal him for that pitcher in LA (Kershaw I think). A left handed power bat under a rookie contract staying put for now.
Agent asked “By the way, how did the Cubbies manage to get that really good reliever away from the Yankees?”
The answer, per ESPN, is “The Cubs paid a steep price, parting with Torres, versatile pitcher Adam Warren and minor league outfielders Billy McKinney and Rashad Crawford.”
If you downvote this comment, you’re not downvoting my take on this deal, you’re downvoting ESPN’s stance on the trade.
I will give you a upvote on that Rosenblatt. Didn’t know you even followed baseball. I asked FFA because he is a Chicago fan and probably got the local scoop on it. Sometimes ESPN may be off a little bit. I like Major League baseball channel for a lot of news on trades, but hadn’t seen anything on this trade. In any case, if this guy can hit 100 regularly, I don’t think many teams can catch up to him.
FFA, if you remember about a year ago, I commented on ESPN baseball TV telecasts that it was really good that they had the electronic frame over the plate in front of the catcher to show exactly where the pitch was, strike or ball. One of the idiot Progressive trolls, either Confused or UW was arguing against it and apparently had never seen an ESPN game. Well, they are still using it and the other networks use a box down in the corner of the screen like Fox does. All the ESPN frame does is show us how good major league umpires really are. They miss a few, but get it right 95% of the time. That ball coming at the plate 85-95 MPH with movement on it has to be a tough job. It takes a number of years to advance to the major leagues. These guys are good.
That “idiot” was me Agent, and I stand by my statement:
ESPN uses the same size strike zone for every player, but taller players have bigger strike zones than smaller players; therefore, the ESPN strike zone isn’t 100% accurate for every batter.
So you are the idiot? I thought it might have been Confused or UW since they like to argue with a fence post. As I recall, the idiot said there wasn’t even an electronic frame over the plate. By the way, umpires are not 100% accurate for every pitch and the frame is more accurate in my opinion no matter who the batter is. Those down and out sliders are hard to call anyway.