Gravity is Bringing Me Down

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Al Gore in Slate responding to climategate:

“The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God’s sakes. It’s not some mystery.…”

Now where have I heard the “as well established as gravity” mantra before? Hmm. It’ll come to me in a moment.

Comments

I am highly critical of anyone who supports the current AGW agenda. For two reasons. 1. It is obviously ultra political and just a charade in order to get political control over the means for production in the world. If anyone doesn't see this then they are operating with real blinders on and their judgment should not be trusted. If they do see it then their judgment is not suspect but their motives are at best "foul." If you think this is paranoid then why did the US EPA declare this wee the air we exhale a pollutant which is the first step to control emissions as they see fit. 2. These people of both stripes are preventing a rational analysis of the situation. If there is indeed global warming going on that is man made they are preventing an honest assessment of the situation. With all the political machinations being implemented and the subsequent distorting of research there is no way it is possible to get an accurate reading of the science. All the politicians, journalists and scientists at Copenhagen should agree to a moratorium and agree to open and honest science before meeting again in 5 years to discuss it rationally. Of course they will not do this but because of this they should be fought as hard as possible. I suggest that those who want an alternative opinion on this by someone who says warming is going on, watch the following by one of the major climate persons in the world. http://reason.tv/video/show/ron-bailey-talking-with-bjorn We are not going to get anything positive at Copenhagen. We are watching a travesty unfolding.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

vjtorley It is always nice when you agree with me on something. Your web site looks rather a useful resource.Mark Frank_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank I have to say that on this occasion I agree with you, when you write that "scepticism should either be based on your own deep knowledge of the subject or your trust of other experts." If my experience of following the global warming debate over the past few years has taught me nothing else, it is this: that the only person who can successfully critique a climatologist's theories is another climatologist. (Non-specialists can of course question the reliability of their data, or their use of statistics, but that is another matter.) I often keep up with the latest on global warming at http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/ , which is a very useful resource for those following the debate on a daily basis. During the past few months, I have seen a professor of geology (Ian Plimer) routed in debate by a journalist (George Monbiot), after he got basic facts wrong in his book (e.g. that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans). The authors of Superfreakonomics were no fools either, but they made a claim (that black solar panels exacerbate global warming) which, it turns out, could have been easily refuted with simple arithmetic. Nowadays, I tend to listen carefully to what climatologists such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen have to say. I'm especially impressed with Roy Spencer, because he never overstates his arguments, he never gets hot under the collar, he isn't afraid to criticise other sceptics whose theories he might disagree with, and he admits when he's got something wrong. He's a scientists whom I respect.vjtorley_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

#27 Deric As I say there is no way I can read the Haydon book in a reasonable timescale. I have always understood that the crude relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature increase is logarithmic. So every doubling of CO2 concentration leads to the same absolute increase in temperature. Look for example at this sceptically oriented web site: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html which discusses the relationship between CO2 and temperature in great detail and concludes: The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. As discussed, the key thing being the positive feedback. You talk of "other sources" which say the increase in temperature is asymptotic. Maybe you could be explicit about those sources?Mark Frank_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

#24 Jerry I am sorry, I should make it clear that my comment was not directed at you. You admit your ignorance of the subject and are quite explicit in basing your opinions on your faith in the minority of experts who are sceptical.Mark Frank_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

That should be 200ppm. Sorry.deric davidson_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Mark, thank you for your comment. Hayden explains the Venus situation: Venus has 250,000 times the CO2 concentration compared with Earth. That is it make up virtually 100% of the Venusian atmosphere. As such the CO2 molecules are so numerous that they will be absorbing virtually all the IR radiation. Hence the estimated surface temps of about 400C. (Also I'd imagine the solar intensity in watts/m2 on Venus is significantly higher than that on Earth). Other sources suggest that on Earth the initial 200pmm of CO2 absorbs the bulk of "absorbable wavelengths" so further addition of CO2 shows a marked reduction in absorbtion capacity. Not zero but reducing rapidly and progressively (asymptoticallY) towards zero.deric davidson_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

"ID, however, is about inferring the signature of ‘design’ by arguing that the actions of an unknown designer would be manifestly, qualitatively different from natural processes." I do not think it is disingenuous. I thought the comment was extremely insightful. The global warming controversy is trying to eliminate naturalistic causes so what is left is intelligent based. It is similar to the basis of forensic science which often tries to eliminate one form of intelligence from another and from naturalistic causes. So it is a form of design detection because the evidence does not fit any naturalistic pattern. Just because it is not what is usually argued in ID, does not mean it not the same process. Yes it was flippant but any time I can rub it in to automatons who are anti ID here and appear to be reflexively pro global warming, I will do it. The correlation between the two is not a perfect 1.0 but it seems like it is pretty close.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

#23 Deric Please read the book “A Primer on CO2 and Climate” by Howard C. Hayden. Hayden is Professor of Physics at the University of Conneticut. Read in particular pp54-59. It would take a long time for me to get access to this book. However, I have done a formal class on climate change with the Open University which discussed the same point which is well known. Without positive feedback loops increasing CO2 and other GHGs would cause diminishing increases in temperature. In one sense the whole debate is about the effect of those positive feedback loops. Venus provides evidence that sufficient CO2 can cause very large increases in temperate. I am not claiming it is remotely comparable to earth - the atmosphere is mostly CO2 - but the result is a surface temperature of over 400 C (while it would be about 0 C without any CO2).Mark Frank_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

"The accepted science has often proved wrong in the past. All I am saying is that scepticism should either be based on your own deep knowledge of the subject or your trust of other experts." See http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html This is an indication that the science could be wrong and given the political nature of this and the revealed emails, it almost makes it assuredly a farce. We have a model on how they do it in science in the evolutionary biology arena and on that I am extremely well informed so I can be an expert in how the academy works (taught at a university for 8 years) and how intellectually and morally bankrupt it is. "To raise technical objections of your own when you do not understand the subject is jumping to conclusions and actually to potentially weaken the sceptical position in the long run." I am not personally raising technical objections except a lot of knowledgeable people question the basic data. After listening to the depth of the dissenting opinions and the rapid politicization of this by the left, I can be almost positive it is a fraud. If it wasn't a fraud, they would take a completely different approach. (I can be an expert on human behavior.) Especially regarding the remedies that are being recommended. It is one thing to control pollution, it quite another to try to change the complete behavior of a society to fit some pre determined norms. Yes your comment was knee jerk. I haven't seen a remark from you yet that didn't fit a pattern that was more political than logical like it was pre determined by a template you are reading from. I haven't read all your comments here but as of today those I have read look like they have been scripted by something you have been given to read. So the fact that you support the global warming agenda, is just another reason to be skeptical since you have proven to be a reflexive and intransigent bellwether for non response to rational discussions. Just as an example, I gave anyone reading my comment an opening and they did not even venture through it, especially you. That was the rapid politicization of the issue. But no, you did not bite and there is the fact that people who agree that the climate is warming believe the proposed solutions are counter productive and harmful. So one has to question the motives of those who are in Copenhagen and whether they actually believe it is true but see an opportunity to advance a political agenda. Your comments fit that mold perfectly. They are best described by political motivation, not interest in science. You pretend to respect science but at every turn here it appears at best superficial so as I said to me you are a bellwether of bad thinking. If you were interested in science your remarks over the last couple years would be quite different. Sorry for the frank analysis (pun intended) but all your comments fit a stereotype and are knee jerk and your pretense for an interest in science is questionable.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Please read the book "A Primer on CO2 and Climate" by Howard C. Hayden. Hayden is Professor of Physics at the University of Conneticut. Read in particular pp54-59. In a nutshell CO2 can only make a limited contribution to warming. Increased CO2 doesn't produce ever increasing warming effects. It can't do this because of the limited absorbtion capacity (wavelength restricted) of IR radiation by CO2 molecules. Read the book and the cited pages. This book is a science based discourse not a superficial "comment" from a scientifically ignorant politician.deric davidson_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

bFast,
Does this not look like evidence of design? The more precise the intronic data must be, the less likely that evolution did it.
Very cool. Hopefully Conrelius Hunter or Paul Nelson will want to tackle it.Jehu_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

#7 Jerry I am not quite sure why you call this a knee jerk reaction. It is actually based on quite a lot of consideration of how we should relate to "accepted expertise". The overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that there is significant AGW and it will grow. It is, of course, completely reasonable to be sceptical about their view. The accepted science has often proved wrong in the past. All I am saying is that scepticism should either be based on your own deep knowledge of the subject or your trust of other experts. (I have great respect for Steve McIntyre). To raise technical objections of your own when you do not understand the subject is jumping to conclusions and actually to potentially weaken the sceptical position in the long run.Mark Frank_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

"So emissions trading could establish a new world order for a sustainable planet, one based on the sharing of the earth's ability to absorb harmful emissions. To allocate that 'resource' fully and properly will, in turn, require resourcefulness and imagination across the globe."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14294 Nevermind that crazy talk, there never was a conspiracy for acheiving a single global government...PURELY coincidental... just stay in vogue with your views and ignore those crazy conspiracists. Denial and apathy of this clear trend will leave people waking up with their children as slave in a formerly sovereign nation - ruled by super rich cartels.JGuy_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Here's a thoughtful post, well worth reading, from Watts Up With That: Climategate reaches the British House of Lords I loved this quote:
There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people's faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. – Lord Turnbull, December 8th, 2009.
And there's more:
We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear, for example, the quite disgraceful government advertisement which tried to frighten young children - the final image being the family dog being drowned - and of claims about having "10 days to save the world". Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help. – Lord Turnbull, December 8th, 2009.
To put it all in perspective:
There are major controversies not just about the contribution of CO2, on which most of the debate is focused, but about the influence of other factors such as water vapour, or clouds - the most powerful greenhouse gas - ocean currents and the sun, together with feedback effects which can be negative as well as positive. Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic. They are not direct observations but are melded together from proxies such as ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings. Given the extent to which the outcome is affected by the statistical techniques and the weightings applied by individual researchers, it is essential that the work is done as transparently as possible, with the greatest scope for challenge. That is why the disclosure of documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit is so disturbing. Instead of an open debate, a picture is emerging of selective use of data, efforts to silence critics, and particularly a refusal to share data and methodologies. It is essential that these allegations are independently and rigorously investigated. Naturally, I welcome the appointment of my old colleague, Sir Muir Russell, to lead this investigation; a civil servant with a physics degree is a rare beast indeed. He needs to establish what the documents really mean and recommend changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data. This is not just an academic feud in the English department from a Malcolm Bradbury novel. The CRU is a major contributor to the IPCC process. The Government should not see this as a purely university matter. They are the funders of much of this research and their climate change policies are based on it.
vjtorley_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Any suggestions on what CO2 can be converted to and what sort of bomb might be required to bring it about?
Plants in Space anyone?Mung_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

a bit off the topic: Would it not be interesting to know the Meyers-Briggs profiles from all the comments on this subject and the correlative profiles of ID? Sorry if this is far TOO off topic (heaven forbid) , but I would be curious to know.toc_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Jerry - that is fairly disingenuous, even if you are quoting this flippantly. I don't think that climate scientists are detecting 'design', are they? We are aware of our input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; this is what makes it feasible in theory to separate a human-caused signal from natural processes. ID, however, is about inferring the signature of 'design' by arguing that the actions of an unknown designer would be manifestly, qualitatively different from natural processes.paulmc_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

I just read a great comment over at telic thoughts. One of the commenters named Todd said that those who support Global Warming are using ID to support their position. In other words they have determined that it was intelligent intervention that has caused our climate problems. Here is his comment: "ID is relevant to climate science because AGW detection is design detection. Indeed, the science is attempting to demonstrate an anthropogenic 'signal' in climate from natural 'noise'." So let's hear it for all the Global Warming enthusiasts here and elsewhere. They are practicing ID science.jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Al Gore answers:
Q: Why does the Copenhagen meeting matter? A: We face the gravest threat that civilization has ever confronted.
...really... If you take just the fact that within the last thousand years that it was much warmer than today, or just the fact that any warming trends up to the present began before the industrial revolution, how can any rational person take this guy serious? Al Gore's only "power" is given to him by the media. If the media were doing what a truly free press should do, then Al Gore would have been publicly and politicaly discredited on this discussion a long ago. And AGW would be in it's place in the hstory boooks as a hoax. Thank God for the internet.JGuy_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Al Gore has cut his throat so many times with his own words on AGW and GW... does it really matter what he says anymore?JGuy_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don't be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., "no longer with us."Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

olin_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

I wish I had a nice warm blanket of CO2 surrounding my apartment just now to help keep the heat in =p. I suggest that we work on a CO2 bomb. If things get too warm we explode the bomb (or however many are required) in the atmosphere and convert the CO2 to something else. Any suggestions on what CO2 can be converted to and what sort of bomb might be required to bring it about?Mung_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

"I’m still waiting to hear about the group of scientists who are both evolutionary biologists and climatologists." Diid you ask this? It is a rather stupid question so that may be the reason it wasn't answered.jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

I'm still waiting to hear about the group of scientists who are both evolutionary biologists and climatologists. It is clear that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation effectively. Any organic chemistry student looking an the infrared spectrum can tell you that independent of climate science. (Duh.)olin_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

"What interests me is how many people know that the majority of climatologists are wrong without knowing much about this complicated subject." I do not pretend to be knowledgeable let alone an expert on climate. But I find the above comment to be typical knee jerk. Two things: The rapid politicization of this area with vast social changes seen as a result. The affirmers are the usual suspects so it leads many to suspect the motives of these suspects especially when adherents within the community think the proposals being formulated are ill conceived. Second there is a large disagreement within the community as to the actual science with the subsequent attempt to silence them. I am sorry but human nature leads me to fight such an approach. There is no way I believe the proponents have the betterment of the planet, climate wise as their objective. Their motives lie elsewhere.jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

#4 Second, I thought that the geological information says that heat changes precede changes in CO2, not the other way around. So as the temperature rises, we expect to see rises in CO2 to follow. I am certainly not very knowledgeable on this but I believe this was one of the criticisms of Al Gore’s dog and pony shows and his movie. Jerry It has been known for a long time that temperature rises cause an increase in CO2 (for a number of reasons) as well as CO2 causing an increase in temperature. So when the temperature increases for other reasons - which happens - you can expect to see a subsequent increase in CO2. This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms that the climatologists try to model. What interests me is how many people know that the majority of climatologists are wrong without knowing much about this complicated subject.Mark Frank_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

A couple of asides. DARPA was originally set up to be the space program in the US but political battles led to the organization of NASA. DARPA which had no reason for being then set out to do other projects. One of them was the monitoring of nuclear explosions by the Soviets. They set up listening stations all over the world and to get real time information connected them to the telephone lines. Thus, the invention of the internet. But as a side benefit of this was a monitoring of seismic movements all over the planet and a confirmation of plate tectonics. Second, I thought that the geological information says that heat changes precede changes in CO2, not the other way around. So as the temperature rises, we expect to see rises in CO2 to follow. I am certainly not very knowledgeable on this but I believe this was one of the criticisms of Al Gore's dog and pony shows and his movie.jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

"Gore may be right. It depends what is covered by The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat." The only problem is that Gore equivocates on global warming to the same extent that Darwinists equivocate on evolution. Global warming can mean natural variances in temperature which no one disagrees with just as evolution can mean small changes brought about by natural selection. But in each case very little actual knowledge/science is claimed to be the equivalent of knowledge of biblical proportions, i.e. knowledge of the sort that the Jewish prophets claimed. What most people are interested in are these vast claims of prophetic knowledge about the past and the future.mynym_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply