That doesn't quite make sense. I get paid by the USDA; at the same time, I bought lunch at Jimmy Johns.
Is it correct to say that the USDA gave money to Jimmy Johns by "laundering" it through me? That seems like a bit of a stretch. What's your evidence that Soros is using MoveOn to funnel cash into Media Matters without people knowing about it?
Why wouldn't he want people to know about it? If Soros wanted to give to MM, he could do so directly. Not every dollar MoveOn receives comes from Soros. Just because they have some money coming in from Soros and some money going out to MM doesn't prove that Soros is funding MM; particularly if Soros's gifts were all earmarked for other purposes (which they were.)
This "Soros funds Media Matters" is just nonsense well-poisoning, plain and simple. I mean, what exactly is supposed to be so bad about George Soros funding things is never specifically spelled out in the first place. I guess we're supposed to demonize him because he's a rich man with the audacity to not vote for Bush.
The problem isn't the scientists. The problem is the politics.
The problem is scientists who put politics ahead of the science. If people like George Taylor are going to make it obvious that they privilege political ideology over scientific evidence, in what capacity are they qualified to serve as "state climatologist?" (Keep in mind that, in fact, George Taylor has never been Oregon's state climatologist, because Oregon has no such position.
If you agree with me that the science abundantly supports the consensus view of anthropogenic climate change, then someone who disputes that view either has extra evidence - which they should share, immediately - or is ignorant of the evidence, or disregards evidence in favor of ideology. Of the three, the latter two should immediately disqualify someone as a scientist.
You could have been polite and come back with a reasonable response, agreeing that money is corrupting both sides but you have issues with the source, and that'd be just fine.
I don't think the money is corrupting both sides. Read what I wrote. There's a big difference between getting supervised government grant money to spend on research and getting completely unsupervised personal checks from the oil companies to spend on Ferraris.
Just having a steady job is enough to make most people compromise their principles.
Oh, for god's sake. So now, anybody who's employed can't be trusted?
Paranoid much?
And to top it all off, how often do men like Spencer and Christy get the kind of exposure that Newsweek gives to the alarmists?
All the damn time! You can't hardly turn on the TV without seeing something like "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which Christy appeared in. On the other hand, who can you think of, off the top of your head, who's actually come out supporting the scientific consensus on global warming?
Al Gore, pretty much. I can't think of a single actual scientist who's gained any notoriety as a result of this. That's because the legitimate climatology community leads with evidence, not with credentials and personalities.
I wonder what kind of car Richard Lindzen or Patrick Michaels drives?
Sen. Inhofe, who you linked to, has received more than $650,000 from ExxonMobil alone. Denialist Steve Milloy runs two organizations that each have received more than $40,000 from ExxonMobil. As for Lindzen and Michaels, I imagine they're both making out handsomely from their royalties from the "Global Warming Swindle" show. Anyway, if Lindzen doesn't drive a Ferrari, it's not for being unable to afford one - he was making more than $2,500 a day in the 90's to shill for the oil and coal industries.
Pat Michaels was the personal beneficiary of more than $150,000 from Colorado energy companies last summer. I'm not really a car guy - does $150,000 buy a Ferarri?
I was simply adding to a convenient omission on your part regarding your summary of Dr. Christy and cleaning up your sloppy attempt to paint him as an alarmist.
Now you're just being dishonest. I didn't at any point try to imply he was an "alarmist" - but, of course, that's the constant denialist refrain: anybody who recognizes the reality of anthropogenic climate change is an "alarmist."
Who was complaining about loaded terms, before?
Oh, but look, all but one of those eight are associated with volcanoes, too.
So what? You don't think it's possible to use things like "wind direction" to know if you're detecting volcanic outgassing or actual atmospheric CO2? They're at volcanoes because people were interested in measuring CO2 at volcanoes long before they were interested in measuring it in the atmosphere in general.
Every single monitoring station shows the same upward trend. You're saying that's just a coincidence?
No matter, I sincerely doubt volcanic activity would be changing so uniformly at each of those stations.
If it's no matter, why bring it up?
Because you're determined to smear whatever data you can't ignore. That's the denialist strategy.
That is, he thinks there is a human influence on the climate... he just doesn't go along with all the hand-waving hysteria that the alarmists do.
"Alarmists." "Hysteria." You act like the slightest suggestion of human culpability in climate changes that we're not going to find very pleasant (if not downright irrecoverably harmful to human activities like agriculture) is Chicken Little running around declaiming falling skies.
It's the old denialist routine. Al Gore shows flooded cities projected for 2107 - a century hence - and you guys think that's alarmism. That it's irresponsible to say such a thing without, apparently, three centuries of iron-clad data under our belts.
I think that the data more than supports the scientific consensus - and the vast majority of climatologists agree. Christy et al. have a minor disagreement about how a minor aspect of climate has been modeled, but it's not clear that the "corrected" assumption would have any noticeable effect on the data. Certainly it introduces a slight bit of uncertainty, but this is science - we prove things according to the weight of the evidence, not beyond all possible doubt.
And all of that said, I'd still like to see what the CO2 concentration in PPM is in a few other areas of the planet that aren't next to volcanoes.
Do you live near a volcano? What's stopping you from measuring the concentration where you are?
There is a continuum of opinion on climate change.
No doubt, but that continuum is not so wide that it includes "humans have no effect on climate, and there's no warming trend whatsoever." That's absolutely not a position you can support from the scientific evidence. Yet, that's the constant denialist position.
The rest of the continuum is minor disputes about how to model climate. Minor disputes and healthy debate are a feature of robust science - not of a "theory in crisis." Denialists blow that debate out of proportion completely to suggest that climatologists can't even agree on what lie to tell.
It's the same technique the creationists use. The similarities between the two movements - and the nearly complete overlap of their membership - continue to astound.
I like to think of it as the range between Limbaugh and Gore.
You've just listed two people who aren't scientists. Yes, there's a political side of this debate where people make arguments that the evidence may not support. When a person says that cities are going to be floods in a decade, and a century from now it'll be like "Waterworld", that person is being an irresponsible jackass.
None of that has anything to do with the scientific debate. And that debate is relatively constrained between "we can be 95% con
Wait - you're linking to Senator Inhofe? Not to argue personalities - but wouldn't a politician (especially a conservative one) be the least likely to be handing out accurate information?
Did you miss the massive red disclaimer at the top of the page? The one that says:
UPDATE: August 12, 2007 - Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' - Excerpt: A contributing editor of Newsweek, slapped down the Magazine for what he termed a "highly contrived story" about the global warming "denial machine."
I mean, an article that says something as stupid as "global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999." That's your source? Did you look that little factoid up? Or did you just take it at face value because a denalist was saying it?
But there's something wrong with Inhofe's numbers, that's abundantly obvious. ExxonMobil's own global-warming denial expenditures have been $55 million, and they're by no means the only players in the game.
What you posted just doesn't pass the smell test, but I suspect you didn't even try to smell it - because you saw corroborating evidence and went with it, without making any effort to validate the statements of a known global warming liar.
Even if Inhofe's information was true, though, what would be the relevance? There's a big difference between getting a research grant from the government and getting a personal check as compensation from the oil companies. The government looks over your shoulder to see that you're spending the money on actual research. The oil companies don't care if you go out and spend it on a Ferarri; in fact, that's kind of the point.
Research scientists don't drive around in Ferraris bought with research money. You're equivocating when you try to act like the money being spend on either side is comparable.
But did you also read just a little further and see where he said, "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation"?
What evidence?
You're still arguing personalities instead of science. "So-and-so agrees with me." "So-and-so can't be trusted."
Where's the evidence?
So I take it you weren't able to find other long-term studies of CO2 levels than the side of a single volcano either?
No, I'm just uninterested in doing your homework for you. But you should know that "Mauna Loa is a volcano" is one of the most-often rebutted claims of the global warming deniers. Look, if they're demolishing your argument at Gristmill of all places, you really need some new material. (You'll find a link to 8 other CO2 monitoring stations at that link, incidentally.)
Okay, then I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call bullshit and bet you that the CO2 levels in the middle of Iowa haven't shown the same increase that the side of an active volcano has.
What's your evidence that the geologic CO2 emissions of Mauna Loa have been increasing over time, coincidentally with a warming trend and an upwards trend in CO2 concentrations worldwide? That's a bit much to swallow.
Scientific papers are rarely written in a method quite so direct and blunt as the discussion you and I are having, so you need to watch carefully for the subtext.
Oh, come on. Scientific papers aren't direct and blunt because scientific conclusions are rarely direct and blunt. You're asking me to read a paper that says "our research improves one minor aspect of climate modeling" as saying "the entire edifice of global warming is about to come crashing down."
That's just nonsense. You're asking me to disregard my "lying eyes" and read in global warming denial where there actually is none. You're just proving my point - global warming denial isn't based on evidence, it's based on inventing a scientific dispute where there is none.
The phrase 'climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase 'holocaust denier.'
I don't know too many synonyms for "denial", I guess. I'm not using it in reference to anything but the fact that global warming deniers simply dismiss contrary evidence and invent supporting "evidence" from whole cloth, like you've been doing in your posts.
Sorry, but that's simply not behavior that can be described as "skepticism." Skepticism is the foundation of honest scientific inquiry - but you've absolutely turned your back on that. What you're doing can only be described as "denial."
If you don't like it, then by all means - abandon the position that makes it so easy to apply that term.
Sure, but it just highlights the disparity between the press releases and the actual research. The research you've linked to doesn't actually dispute any aspect of any climate model that shows warming; but put it in the hands of the deniers, and suddenly it's the source of a hundred press releases and interviews saying "there's no scientific consensus on global warming."
You know, like you just did. Have you even read the article? I went and looked it up in my campus library. Did you just read the abstract?
You also presented me with a handy "etc." that you claim makes an easy out, although the examples you cited might be just as easy to prove as rocks don't fall down and the sky isn't blue.
Well, look. You can't claim that something isn't falsifiable just because it isn't false. Those two things aren't the same at all. You can falsify the contention that rocks fall down; you're just going to have a hard time doing so, since that's not a false contention.
Things are unfalsifiable when there could be no conceivable way of knowing whether they were false or not. If anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally false we would discover that pretty quickly. There'd be a very good, obvious reason why the enormous tonnage of human CO2 emissions just disappeared in apparent violation of physical law, for instance.
'm sure there are long-term measurements coming from other sources, but I never see them in discussions about climate.
Who don't you go look up what you're looking for? Why are you still paying more attention to debates among laypeople than to the scientific evidence? If you want to know what's actually going on, then go to the primary research - on your own, instead of when asked to do so. If you just want to keep trying to score points in internet debates, you'll keep on doing what you've been doing, I guess.
Do you even know who John Christy is?
Sure. He's the guy who once said:
It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.
and discovered this warming trend in satellite-measured surface temperatures, over the same period that the Earth's total insolation (the energy incoming from the Sun) has been decreasing.
Your problem is that you allow the climate change deniers to blow the smallest level of scientific discourse and disagreement vastly out of proportion. A minor quibble in terms of how cloud cover should be modeled becomes a vast schism between enviro-nuts and oil barons.
The creationists do the exact same thing in their field, of course.
You might do well to understand something about the people you're dismissing as "selfish greedy bastards" who don't take the time to do the research.
And you might do better to present evidence instead of personalities. The fact that you're still more concerned about who is talking rather than what they're saying (and what data they're presenting) keeps on proving my point - that climate change denial has nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with feeling like you're part of the "elite" who, unlike the stupid masses, have got it "right."
Tell me, does one have to prove a single one of those items, or all from the list?
Just a single item from the list. If you could prove, for instance, that the Sun was actually not the source of the Earth's energy and heat, that it all came from something else, you could disprove global warming.
Personally I think that gives you great odds. The "etc" works in your favor. There's abundant opportunities for the entire structure of every climate model to be disproven. All you have to do is prove that the laws of physics and the known facts of physical reality are radically different than our understanding.
consider this little tidbit
Let's stick with peer-reviewed research, ok? This is a press release. Show me the science this is based off.
But how much? On what scale?
Remember Mount Pinatubo? The largest terrestrial volcanic eruption in either of our lifetimes?
Human society emits 100 times as much CO2 in a year as Mount Pinatubo did in its entire 1991 eruption. 100 Pinatubos every year - and rising.
You won't be able to tell me that, because CO2 records are maintained for only one place on the planet... the side of a volcano in Hawaii!
That's just false. We have CO2 measurements from all over the world; and the Hawaii measurements are hardly suspect, given the altitude of the measurements.
Back in the seventies, a number of states in the U.S. were closing down their state climatology departments. How much is being spent on it now?
And how much are the oil companies making? Oh, that's right - they posted the largest profits, last year, of any industry in the recorded history of human civilization. Oddly enough, though, I can't seem to find any climatologists with Ferraris, suggesting that even as climatology research expands, it's not exactly making people rich.
No, you have to get paid by the oil companies to deny climate change for that. They'll just cut you a check.
Remember this link?
The press release? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The climate change deniers are putting all their energy into making press releases and publishing articles in the newspaper - instead of publishing research in scientific journals.
Where's the research? Don't link to press releases. Link to primary research. You won't be able to - because there isn't any. It's a scam.
From where I sit, the political advocacy of global warming can only survive by smearing skeptics with ad hominem attacks, threats of reprisals, and bullying. There's no science there.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's politics. The science of global warming and the politics of global warming are two very different things. But why is it when I talk about science, you respond with politics?
Because, for the deniers, it's all about the politics. They don't have any science, after all; politics is all that they have. That's why you won't be able to find any primary research. That's why there's a unanimous scientific consensus (as proven by the Oreskes paper.)
That isn't to say it isn't a legitimate avenue for investigation, but the movement has been corrupted by greed and power lust, and co-opted by activists with a preconceived notion about a green utopia and an agenda to return humanity to a pre-industrial lifestyle.
I don't see what that has to do with the science. Sure, there's hippie weirdos in the environmental movement. There's selfish greedy bastards in the denial movement who don't even care if global warming is true or not - they simply don't want anything to get in the way if their profits.
We could sit around here all day and impugn the motives of people on both sides. At the end of the day - where's the science? It's abundantly on my side. You have nothing but a press release.
It's a notion with no falsifiability. A hypothesis with no clear way to disprove it.
But that's just idiotic. It's abundantly obvious what you would have to do to disprove it. You'd have to prove:
*Human activity doesn't produce gases like CO2 and SO2 *Those gases have a radically different absorption spectra than science currently understands *The sun doesn't actually provide energy for the Earth
etc. Anthropogenic global warming is based on basic physical facts like those. Of course, if the only thing you know about the issue is what you're hearing from the deniers, you'd naturally think that scientists sit around and say "damn, we're making a fortune off the global warming industry, what else can we assert is responsible?"
Which is pretty fuckin' stupid when you think about it. Climatology isn't exactly making people rich. Al Gore still makes a lot more off his political connections than on the royalties off Inconvenient Truth. Of course, there's a fortune to be made denying anthropogenic climate change, but don't let that fact get in the way of your ignorance.
Science, dear Crashfrog, isn't about a consensus.
That's abundantly false. Did you forget the last, most important step of the scientific method? "Communicate your results." Look, it's right there in the method. It's the most crucial step. If you don't share your results with the scientific community - with the consensus - you might as well not have even bothered.
Science is all about consensus. Our individual senses are too easily fooled to rely on the findings of just one person.
You've as good as admitted that people who don't go along with the "consensus" shouldn't be afforded the ability to pursue their own investigations.
Hell, let's see them investigate. I've never heard of a global warming "skeptic" (to use the charitable term) who didn't spend all his or her time mouthing off in the press about how it's all a conspiracy and "help, help, I'm being repressed" and approximately zero time in the lab or in the field, actually recording data and making observations.
Why is that? Because, like creationism, global warming denial is a movement that can only survive commensurate with its ability to convince ignorant laypersons like yourself. The reason they spend all their time mouthing off and none actually doing science is because they know their movement comes to an end the second it's put to any sort of scientific scrutiny.
No, it's not. It's a search for truth and understanding of the physical world. It's doesn't matter if people agree with you if your evidence supports your theory.
If you can't get people to believe you, in what sense, exactly, does the evidence support your theory? When you're the only one who can see something - that's a sign you're hallucinating, not a sign you're so much smarter than anyone else.
People always seem to forget the last step of the scientific method, even though it's the most important one. It's the step that says "share your results." If you never tell anyone the results of your experiment, you might as well not have bothered.
That's why science is a consensus endeavor - because one person can be wrong. One person can be delusional. If you're not collaborating and sharing, what you're doing just isn't science.
Any time I hear someone talk about the "scientific consensus", I know I can safely ignore everything they say after that, because they clearly don't understand what science is.
You're one of the people I was talking about, before. The people who get off on denial.
They are not interested in trying to present all the information of GW, they are interested in pushing the case that it is real and humans are causing it.
Right. Because that's the side that is substantiated by scientific evidence, and the position against anthropogenic climate change is substantiated by no facts.
I think you need to re-evaluate your idea of what "balance" means. If you think that it means pretending like both sides of an issue are the same, you've been watching too much Fox Noise.
So sorry, but I remain unconvinced and a site like realclimate.org does nothing to change that.
If the fact that the person sharing the data with you has been convinced by it is enough to lead you to be distrustful of the data, you've simply set yourself behind the same bulwark of invincible ignorance with the rest of the climate change deniers. Good luck with that.
What I need is what I consider to be good, unbiased research. So far, I've had real trouble finding it.
Because you defined it out of existence before you even started. Not uncommon when people are thinking with their politics hat on instead of their science hat.
Well, I wouldn't hire a geographer who thought the Earth was flat, either.
Science is a consensus endeavor. Someone who rejects the consensus, even though it's supported by a vast weight of data, because it doesn't agree with their politics should be marginalized from science.
They're called deniers in a sloppy but effective rhetorical trick to equate that kind of reasoning with holocaust denial.
The phenomena are markedly similar. Some people can't help but think that the stuff everybody knows is accurate (for good reason) is wrong, somehow. Some people get off on denial.
But look. If you're ignoring the vast weight of evidence that supports the contention of anthropogenic climate change, you aren't just a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who withholds support until they've seen the evidence. Someone who withholds support even after seeing the evidence is a denier, not a skeptic.
Cue the so-called "global warming skeptics" complaining that being shown corroborating data and having one's arguments rebutted is the same as being burnt at the stake as a heretic.
Oh, my bad. They were already here. Honestly, am I the only one who gets a little tired of the massive persecution complex of global warming deniers? Jesus, you'd think that being shown the evidence was precisely the same as having bamboo under your fingernails.
You'll notice that it includes a neoprene neck seal. Seriously - it's not that hard. Go down to the drug store and buy a pair of swim goggles - you'll see a seal around the edge that's more than sufficiently effective to hold back a pressure difference of several PSI when held against human skin.
First you claim that higher pressures do affect the solvency of the gas and then you claim they don't matter because of osmotic gradients....wha? Are you even reading my posts? I said bond enthalpy didn't have anything to do with it, and it doesn't.
If you pressurize something you affect the solvency.
Yes, abundantly. Specifically, if you increase the pressure of an enclosed container containing both a fluid and a gas, more of the gas dissolves into the fluid.
Simple chemistry. "Covalent bonds of CO", whatever you thought you meant by that, has nothing to do with it - the reactions occur spontaneously according to osmotic gradient.
And the question was, how does it work when there's these fundamental issues that are hard to see how it overcomes?
If you'd start by correcting your incredible misunderstandings of science, physics, and human physiology, you might understand how. It's not hard to maintain a seal against the human body - the gasket around a $2 pair of swim goggles does just that - and it's not hard to understand how increased gas pressure means more gas dissolved in solvent. It's why deep sea divers worry about the bends.
The parent's whole misconception was that a higher pressure in your lungs meant a decreased amount of oxygen entering your blood, but that's not true at all - an increased pressure of oxygen means more oxygen in your lungs - think back to the idea gas law - and because lung gas exchange is based on osmotic gradients, an increased amount of oxygen means your blood oxygenates even more thoroughly.
The classic example of this is that you cannot breath air in through a tube from the surface when on the bottom of a pool.
Yeah, but it's not from a failure to operate your diaphragm; it's from the fact that 14.7 psi of air pressure (from the open end of the tube) is less than the 19 psi pushing in on your lungs. They can't inflate because the air you're breathing in doesn't have enough pressure to inflate them.
Wrong. THere's a 16 pound difference you can't over come with your lungs. See above answer.
And, yet, there's a model, wearing the suit and (presumably, since we're not reading her obituary) breathing completely normally.
People breath all the time with mechanical pressure across their chest, for instance, women who wear bras. You don't have to overcome the 16 psi because it's not pushing on your lungs, it's pushing on your ribcage.
Wrong. basic chemistry at work.
Yeah. Basic chemistry. That's how you dissolve gasses in liquids - by increasing the pressure. That's why divers get the bends; the high-pressure air they're breathing forces nitrogen gas into their body fluids. Because it's under high pressure, there's more gas in their fluids at the bottom of the sea than there would normally be at 1 atm; as they return to the surface and the pressure decreases, the nitrogen begins to come out of solution. As it does it can create dangerous bubbles in the body.
The reason that divers have to return slowly is to give that nitrogen time to escape through the body's regular mechanisms - because the high pressure has super-saturated their blood and fluids with it.
Likewise the energetic cost of transfering gas o2 into the pressurized blood will be higher when the blood is pressurized higher.
Blood oxygenation relies a lot more on osmotic gradient than on bond enthapies. Maybe you're problem is that chemistry is all that you know.
(how do you seal the bubble without crushing your neck, for example.)
A neck seal, like they've used for ages. Again, with a working prototype right there in the article, all you people saying "that's impossible" are wrong from the outset.
Obviously I don't understand how this thing works or can work.
I think it's just that you don't understand how lungs work.
When you inhale you don't inflate your lungs by increasing their volume, like opening a bellows.
The way you inhale is by lowering the pressure in your chest cavity by means of the diaphragm, which contracts downwards, increasing chest volume. As the pressure in your chest (outside your lungs) decreases, air forces itself into your lungs and inflates them.
It seems to me that if this thing is mechanically applying 16 PSI in vacuum then it must apply 32 PSI when inside the capsule.
Yeah, but there's air inside your body pushing out, too, remember. That's what the 16 PSI is there for, in fact - to restrain the gases within your body. That's why the suit has to be pressurized - to push back on the pressures within your body that, normally, the atmosphere will push back against.
So, inside the capsule, you're facing 32 Psi minus the 16 psi pushing out from inside you, so you're only against the 16 psi tension of the suit. I imagine it's like breathing with an ace bandage (or, like, a bra) around your chest - more difficult but certainly not impossible.
And secondly even if you solved that, then you still have the problem of the 32 psi pressure making it harder to dissolve gas in your blood, so your cells cant get air or release CO2.
Higher PSI makes it easier, not harder, to dissolve gases in fluids.
Finally, I can't see how this works around your head. If the suit is not pressurized then how do you maintain 16psi pressure on the face?
Big bubble helmet pressurized to 16 psi, like always. I don't see the problem.
In answer to a graphic covering 600 million years which shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all, you reply with a selected 400kyr slot (far less than 1/1000th of the period) in which there is good correlation.... and that's supposed to be an effective response?
Uh, yeah, it is. It was completely effective. That's why you've come back with absolutely nothing at all.
It's just an extremely selective pick.
So select any time period you'd like. Show me a graph for that time period that isn't, like your is, so artificially smoothed. Prove to me that there's no correlation at all, at any scale.
What you're trying to do is akin to trying to show me that there's no dog in my backyard with Google Earth. Sure, you can't see the dog - you can't even see my backyard!
Show me something with finer resolution. I showed you, and you were completely wrong as far as I can tell. If you're not familiar with the idea of resolution of data then you simply don't have the requisite training to even deal with this issue.
What's more, correlation doesn't imply causation.
So, you're disputing the laws of physics? You're of the impression that a century of physical chemistry data on the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other gases are completely wrong?
What's your evidence for that?
To anyone with any clue about climatology, your curve says exactly the same thing as the good ol' Keeling Curve has always said, that with increased warmth you get increased biological activity and the net result of that is always short-term increase in atmospheric CO2 from decay at season end followed by long term increase in CO2 from oceanic upwelling once it pops out of the carbon cycle....which drives warming ahead of the insolation increase.
Thus, confirming the action of greenhouse gases - already known from physical experiments.
Over 600m years, you don't see any such effect.
At a data resolution designed to obliterate any such connection? Obviously you don't see what your "graph" was drawn to conceal.
The climate depends on numerous factors that vastly outweight that tiny contribution from CO2, and if it were not so then we would not have had a collosal ice age at the end of the Ordovician when CO2 was well over 4000ppm.
I just don't understand what you're trying to say, here. It's well-understood among climatologists that the ice age at the end of the Ordovician period was triggered by a catastrophic decline in CO2 levels.
Which would seem to completely contradict what you're saying. We did have an ice age at the end of the Ordovician, and it was triggered by a change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And that's why real scientists no longer give the GW zealots (both pseudo-scientists and simple wanabes like you) the time of day. You'll see, in due course.
Good luck with that, Karnack. I'll put that prediction with the guys who said evolution was about to be disproved.
In the meantime, you'd better find a reason why where is no correlation between CO2 and temperature even in the periods of calm between "geological boundaries".
I just showed you the correlation. Your only response was to complain that the data was too accurate. I appreciate the laugh, anyway. Your denial act is top-notch, I must say.
Just because there is no physical two anywhere does not mean that the concept of two does not exist independent of our own thoughts.
Well, then where does it exist? Some metaphorical Plato's cave where all ideals exist independent of our knowledge of them? Waiting to be discovered?
That's nonsense. To start with, if Plato's Cave holds only true ideas, then where do false ideas come from? If Plato's cave holds all possible ideas, then you're actually looking at a Library of Babel - and the problem there is that finding a specific book in the Library of Babel requires that you already know exactly what it says.
So, if Plato's cave holds all possible ideas, then you can't go "discover" an idea in Plato's cave unless you know what it is, first - that is, you have to make up the idea in your head before you can "get" it from Plato's cave.
Platonism just doesn't hold up, for that reason. Either way you look at it, human beings and their ideas - including our ideas about mathematics - are coming from our imaginations, our creativity, our invention - not "being discovered", as the Platonist mathematicians claim.
Quantity is also independent of humanity's existence.
Because you say it is? We might as well say that "beauty" is just as independent of humanity's existence; we might as well commit the fallacy of reification wholesale, if we're going to commit it at all.
The universe we live in is physical, and it operates according to laws of physics - some of which we model, inaccurately, in mathematical language. But to confuse our ability to do that with some actual property of the universe is to confuse the map with the territory. The map describes the territory because we've tried to draw it thus - but if you make a mark on the map, or even destroy the map, the territory remains unchanged. The territory is what's real. The map is how we model it in our minds.
An organism can use math without perceiving it --- take bees, which produce hexagonal honeycomb structures. Do you think they perceive the hexagon shape, or the number six?
No, but we do. The structure of a honeycomb isn't "hexagonal" until a human is there to call it hexagonal. Prior to that it's just a beehive, made in the way bees make beehives.
Imagine 2 apples. Until someone is there to count them, the "set of 2 apples" doesn't exist. The apples exist, sure; but the set that encompasses them, and is of cardinality 2, exists only in our minds.
Mathematicians would be a lot less Platonistic, I think, if they'd take courses in semiotics. There's a big difference between the symbol and its referent. Apples exist; but integers exist only when there's someone there to count them. That's why you can have human societies with no conception of "number" at all - where the only "amounts" of anything they can perceive are none, one, and many.
You can't escape from mathematics.
Sure you can. It's not inherent to the universe. Mathematics, being a language, is inherent to the way our minds model reality - with symbols that stand in for referents.
Armitage's comments to Woodward were in mid-June, not July.
15 days after Libby leaked it to Armitage, presumably. He certainly leaked it to everybody else, and we know Armitage and Libby met to discuss "the Wilson problem" and how to undermine his credibility.
Hence, the leaking.
Remember that the Wilsons lied about the entire thing that started this whole process in the first place.
Er, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Joe Wilson was vindicated on every substantial point. The stuff I'm sure you think he lied about is stuff he never claimed in the first place. (There's been a substantial conservative movement to discredit Wilson, and the press has played along.)
The British Government's own investigation into the connection confirmed the US claims on Iraq seeking nuclear material.
No, it didn't. Both the US and the UK claims were based, ultimately, on the same Italian forgeries. To the extent that they're both repeating flawed information from the same source, they can't corroborate each other.
as well that he lied about how his trip was arranged, by denying his wife's involvement in sending him there.
He's never lied about it. By the time his wife was involved - in an advisory capacity - they'd already made the decision to send him. He's never changed his story on that issue, conservative misinformation aside.
even their investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens came to the same conclusion.
Oh, sure, a right-wing drunk desperate to find support for the war in Iraq. There's a credible source.
What I find most hilarious about Hitch's attempt to refute Wilson's claims is that, at no point in his article, does he actually quote Wilson making any claims. Not surprising, since the conservative noise machine's tactic here has been to refute strawmen charactures of what Wilson has been saying all along.
As for yellowcake in Niger, it's important to remember that even the Bush administration has admitted that statements about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger "should never have been included" in Bush's State of the Union Address. Britain's "Butler Report", which is often held to support that conclusion, doesn't actually offer any evidence to support it. Indeed, the conclusions of the Butler report are based on the Italian forgeries.
There's not a single source supporting the Niger-uranium claim that doesn't come back to those forged documents, which made quite the circuit of American, British, and Italian intelligence services. And why would Iraq seek yellowcake from Niger? They already had their own.
The Plame affair, unfortunately, has been such a target of misinformation that it's no surprise you're so poorly informed about it. It's important to remember that, as long as you stick to what Wilson actually claimed - and not conservative strawmen - he was proven right on every point.
I'll see your 'Scooter Libby on June 23', and I'll raise you a 'Richard Armitage on June 13'.
I'll call with a "WTF?" From your article:
Armitage's calendar also shows that a week before Woodward's meeting with Armitage, the deputy secretary of state met for 15 minutes with Libby.
Well, wait now. If Armitage leaked at Libby's behest, which seems reasonable considering how Libby was basically calling everybody he had on speed-dial to get Plame's name and status out there, then I don't see how Armitage's disclosure is exculpatory for Libby.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be some kind of dipshit.
Where did anyone claim that? Wait, no one did.
Parent did. Where they say "Media Matters lied."
Why do you have to resort to lying about what was said in order to have something to refute?
Why are you lying about what was said in order to avoid dealing with a refutation?
And why am I arguing with an anonymous coward?
You can send me the ad; I don't understand why I'm under an obligation to look at it or why you have the right to demand that my computer display it.
What a surprise, Media Matters lied.
That doesn't quite make sense. I get paid by the USDA; at the same time, I bought lunch at Jimmy Johns.
Is it correct to say that the USDA gave money to Jimmy Johns by "laundering" it through me? That seems like a bit of a stretch. What's your evidence that Soros is using MoveOn to funnel cash into Media Matters without people knowing about it?
Why wouldn't he want people to know about it? If Soros wanted to give to MM, he could do so directly. Not every dollar MoveOn receives comes from Soros. Just because they have some money coming in from Soros and some money going out to MM doesn't prove that Soros is funding MM; particularly if Soros's gifts were all earmarked for other purposes (which they were.)
This "Soros funds Media Matters" is just nonsense well-poisoning, plain and simple. I mean, what exactly is supposed to be so bad about George Soros funding things is never specifically spelled out in the first place. I guess we're supposed to demonize him because he's a rich man with the audacity to not vote for Bush.
The problem isn't the scientists. The problem is the politics.
The problem is scientists who put politics ahead of the science. If people like George Taylor are going to make it obvious that they privilege political ideology over scientific evidence, in what capacity are they qualified to serve as "state climatologist?" (Keep in mind that, in fact, George Taylor has never been Oregon's state climatologist, because Oregon has no such position.
If you agree with me that the science abundantly supports the consensus view of anthropogenic climate change, then someone who disputes that view either has extra evidence - which they should share, immediately - or is ignorant of the evidence, or disregards evidence in favor of ideology. Of the three, the latter two should immediately disqualify someone as a scientist.
You could have been polite and come back with a reasonable response, agreeing that money is corrupting both sides but you have issues with the source, and that'd be just fine.
I don't think the money is corrupting both sides. Read what I wrote. There's a big difference between getting supervised government grant money to spend on research and getting completely unsupervised personal checks from the oil companies to spend on Ferraris.
Just having a steady job is enough to make most people compromise their principles.
Oh, for god's sake. So now, anybody who's employed can't be trusted?
Paranoid much?
And to top it all off, how often do men like Spencer and Christy get the kind of exposure that Newsweek gives to the alarmists?
All the damn time! You can't hardly turn on the TV without seeing something like "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which Christy appeared in. On the other hand, who can you think of, off the top of your head, who's actually come out supporting the scientific consensus on global warming?
Al Gore, pretty much. I can't think of a single actual scientist who's gained any notoriety as a result of this. That's because the legitimate climatology community leads with evidence, not with credentials and personalities.
I wonder what kind of car Richard Lindzen or Patrick Michaels drives?
Sen. Inhofe, who you linked to, has received more than $650,000 from ExxonMobil alone. Denialist Steve Milloy runs two organizations that each have received more than $40,000 from ExxonMobil. As for Lindzen and Michaels, I imagine they're both making out handsomely from their royalties from the "Global Warming Swindle" show. Anyway, if Lindzen doesn't drive a Ferrari, it's not for being unable to afford one - he was making more than $2,500 a day in the 90's to shill for the oil and coal industries.
Pat Michaels was the personal beneficiary of more than $150,000 from Colorado energy companies last summer. I'm not really a car guy - does $150,000 buy a Ferarri?
I was simply adding to a convenient omission on your part regarding your summary of Dr. Christy and cleaning up your sloppy attempt to paint him as an alarmist.
... he just doesn't go along with all the hand-waving hysteria that the alarmists do.
Now you're just being dishonest. I didn't at any point try to imply he was an "alarmist" - but, of course, that's the constant denialist refrain: anybody who recognizes the reality of anthropogenic climate change is an "alarmist."
Who was complaining about loaded terms, before?
Oh, but look, all but one of those eight are associated with volcanoes, too.
So what? You don't think it's possible to use things like "wind direction" to know if you're detecting volcanic outgassing or actual atmospheric CO2? They're at volcanoes because people were interested in measuring CO2 at volcanoes long before they were interested in measuring it in the atmosphere in general.
Every single monitoring station shows the same upward trend. You're saying that's just a coincidence?
No matter, I sincerely doubt volcanic activity would be changing so uniformly at each of those stations.
If it's no matter, why bring it up?
Because you're determined to smear whatever data you can't ignore. That's the denialist strategy.
That is, he thinks there is a human influence on the climate
"Alarmists." "Hysteria." You act like the slightest suggestion of human culpability in climate changes that we're not going to find very pleasant (if not downright irrecoverably harmful to human activities like agriculture) is Chicken Little running around declaiming falling skies.
It's the old denialist routine. Al Gore shows flooded cities projected for 2107 - a century hence - and you guys think that's alarmism. That it's irresponsible to say such a thing without, apparently, three centuries of iron-clad data under our belts.
I think that the data more than supports the scientific consensus - and the vast majority of climatologists agree. Christy et al. have a minor disagreement about how a minor aspect of climate has been modeled, but it's not clear that the "corrected" assumption would have any noticeable effect on the data. Certainly it introduces a slight bit of uncertainty, but this is science - we prove things according to the weight of the evidence, not beyond all possible doubt.
And all of that said, I'd still like to see what the CO2 concentration in PPM is in a few other areas of the planet that aren't next to volcanoes.
Do you live near a volcano? What's stopping you from measuring the concentration where you are?
There is a continuum of opinion on climate change.
No doubt, but that continuum is not so wide that it includes "humans have no effect on climate, and there's no warming trend whatsoever." That's absolutely not a position you can support from the scientific evidence. Yet, that's the constant denialist position.
The rest of the continuum is minor disputes about how to model climate. Minor disputes and healthy debate are a feature of robust science - not of a "theory in crisis." Denialists blow that debate out of proportion completely to suggest that climatologists can't even agree on what lie to tell.
It's the same technique the creationists use. The similarities between the two movements - and the nearly complete overlap of their membership - continue to astound.
I like to think of it as the range between Limbaugh and Gore.
You've just listed two people who aren't scientists. Yes, there's a political side of this debate where people make arguments that the evidence may not support. When a person says that cities are going to be floods in a decade, and a century from now it'll be like "Waterworld", that person is being an irresponsible jackass.
None of that has anything to do with the scientific debate. And that debate is relatively constrained between "we can be 95% con
Did you miss the massive red disclaimer at the top of the page? The one that says:
I mean, an article that says something as stupid as "global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999." That's your source? Did you look that little factoid up? Or did you just take it at face value because a denalist was saying it?
But there's something wrong with Inhofe's numbers, that's abundantly obvious. ExxonMobil's own global-warming denial expenditures have been $55 million, and they're by no means the only players in the game.
What you posted just doesn't pass the smell test, but I suspect you didn't even try to smell it - because you saw corroborating evidence and went with it, without making any effort to validate the statements of a known global warming liar.
Even if Inhofe's information was true, though, what would be the relevance? There's a big difference between getting a research grant from the government and getting a personal check as compensation from the oil companies. The government looks over your shoulder to see that you're spending the money on actual research. The oil companies don't care if you go out and spend it on a Ferarri; in fact, that's kind of the point.
Research scientists don't drive around in Ferraris bought with research money. You're equivocating when you try to act like the money being spend on either side is comparable.
But did you also read just a little further and see where he said, "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation"?
What evidence?
You're still arguing personalities instead of science. "So-and-so agrees with me." "So-and-so can't be trusted."
Where's the evidence?
So I take it you weren't able to find other long-term studies of CO2 levels than the side of a single volcano either?
No, I'm just uninterested in doing your homework for you. But you should know that "Mauna Loa is a volcano" is one of the most-often rebutted claims of the global warming deniers. Look, if they're demolishing your argument at Gristmill of all places, you really need some new material. (You'll find a link to 8 other CO2 monitoring stations at that link, incidentally.)
Okay, then I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call bullshit and bet you that the CO2 levels in the middle of Iowa haven't shown the same increase that the side of an active volcano has.
What's your evidence that the geologic CO2 emissions of Mauna Loa have been increasing over time, coincidentally with a warming trend and an upwards trend in CO2 concentrations worldwide? That's a bit much to swallow.
Scientific papers are rarely written in a method quite so direct and blunt as the discussion you and I are having, so you need to watch carefully for the subtext.
Oh, come on. Scientific papers aren't direct and blunt because scientific conclusions are rarely direct and blunt. You're asking me to read a paper that says "our research improves one minor aspect of climate modeling" as saying "the entire edifice of global warming is about to come crashing down."
That's just nonsense. You're asking me to disregard my "lying eyes" and read in global warming denial where there actually is none. You're just proving my point - global warming denial isn't based on evidence, it's based on inventing a scientific dispute where there is none.
The phrase 'climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase 'holocaust denier.'
I don't know too many synonyms for "denial", I guess. I'm not using it in reference to anything but the fact that global warming deniers simply dismiss contrary evidence and invent supporting "evidence" from whole cloth, like you've been doing in your posts.
Sorry, but that's simply not behavior that can be described as "skepticism." Skepticism is the foundation of honest scientific inquiry - but you've absolutely turned your back on that. What you're doing can only be described as "denial."
If you don't like it, then by all means - abandon the position that makes it so easy to apply that term.
Sure, but it just highlights the disparity between the press releases and the actual research. The research you've linked to doesn't actually dispute any aspect of any climate model that shows warming; but put it in the hands of the deniers, and suddenly it's the source of a hundred press releases and interviews saying "there's no scientific consensus on global warming."
You know, like you just did. Have you even read the article? I went and looked it up in my campus library. Did you just read the abstract?
You also presented me with a handy "etc." that you claim makes an easy out, although the examples you cited might be just as easy to prove as rocks don't fall down and the sky isn't blue.
Well, look. You can't claim that something isn't falsifiable just because it isn't false. Those two things aren't the same at all. You can falsify the contention that rocks fall down; you're just going to have a hard time doing so, since that's not a false contention.
Things are unfalsifiable when there could be no conceivable way of knowing whether they were false or not. If anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally false we would discover that pretty quickly. There'd be a very good, obvious reason why the enormous tonnage of human CO2 emissions just disappeared in apparent violation of physical law, for instance.
'm sure there are long-term measurements coming from other sources, but I never see them in discussions about climate.
Who don't you go look up what you're looking for? Why are you still paying more attention to debates among laypeople than to the scientific evidence? If you want to know what's actually going on, then go to the primary research - on your own, instead of when asked to do so. If you just want to keep trying to score points in internet debates, you'll keep on doing what you've been doing, I guess.
Do you even know who John Christy is?
Sure. He's the guy who once said:
and discovered this warming trend in satellite-measured surface temperatures, over the same period that the Earth's total insolation (the energy incoming from the Sun) has been decreasing.
Your problem is that you allow the climate change deniers to blow the smallest level of scientific discourse and disagreement vastly out of proportion. A minor quibble in terms of how cloud cover should be modeled becomes a vast schism between enviro-nuts and oil barons.
The creationists do the exact same thing in their field, of course.
You might do well to understand something about the people you're dismissing as "selfish greedy bastards" who don't take the time to do the research.
And you might do better to present evidence instead of personalities. The fact that you're still more concerned about who is talking rather than what they're saying (and what data they're presenting) keeps on proving my point - that climate change denial has nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with feeling like you're part of the "elite" who, unlike the stupid masses, have got it "right."
Tell me, does one have to prove a single one of those items, or all from the list?
... the side of a volcano in Hawaii!
Just a single item from the list. If you could prove, for instance, that the Sun was actually not the source of the Earth's energy and heat, that it all came from something else, you could disprove global warming.
Personally I think that gives you great odds. The "etc" works in your favor. There's abundant opportunities for the entire structure of every climate model to be disproven. All you have to do is prove that the laws of physics and the known facts of physical reality are radically different than our understanding.
consider this little tidbit
Let's stick with peer-reviewed research, ok? This is a press release. Show me the science this is based off.
But how much? On what scale?
Remember Mount Pinatubo? The largest terrestrial volcanic eruption in either of our lifetimes?
Human society emits 100 times as much CO2 in a year as Mount Pinatubo did in its entire 1991 eruption. 100 Pinatubos every year - and rising.
You won't be able to tell me that, because CO2 records are maintained for only one place on the planet
That's just false. We have CO2 measurements from all over the world; and the Hawaii measurements are hardly suspect, given the altitude of the measurements.
Back in the seventies, a number of states in the U.S. were closing down their state climatology departments. How much is being spent on it now?
And how much are the oil companies making? Oh, that's right - they posted the largest profits, last year, of any industry in the recorded history of human civilization. Oddly enough, though, I can't seem to find any climatologists with Ferraris, suggesting that even as climatology research expands, it's not exactly making people rich.
No, you have to get paid by the oil companies to deny climate change for that. They'll just cut you a check.
Remember this link?
The press release? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The climate change deniers are putting all their energy into making press releases and publishing articles in the newspaper - instead of publishing research in scientific journals.
Where's the research? Don't link to press releases. Link to primary research. You won't be able to - because there isn't any. It's a scam.
From where I sit, the political advocacy of global warming can only survive by smearing skeptics with ad hominem attacks, threats of reprisals, and bullying. There's no science there.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's politics. The science of global warming and the politics of global warming are two very different things. But why is it when I talk about science, you respond with politics?
Because, for the deniers, it's all about the politics. They don't have any science, after all; politics is all that they have. That's why you won't be able to find any primary research. That's why there's a unanimous scientific consensus (as proven by the Oreskes paper.)
That isn't to say it isn't a legitimate avenue for investigation, but the movement has been corrupted by greed and power lust, and co-opted by activists with a preconceived notion about a green utopia and an agenda to return humanity to a pre-industrial lifestyle.
I don't see what that has to do with the science. Sure, there's hippie weirdos in the environmental movement. There's selfish greedy bastards in the denial movement who don't even care if global warming is true or not - they simply don't want anything to get in the way if their profits.
We could sit around here all day and impugn the motives of people on both sides. At the end of the day - where's the science? It's abundantly on my side. You have nothing but a press release.
It's a notion with no falsifiability. A hypothesis with no clear way to disprove it.
But that's just idiotic. It's abundantly obvious what you would have to do to disprove it. You'd have to prove:
*Human activity doesn't produce gases like CO2 and SO2
*Those gases have a radically different absorption spectra than science currently understands
*The sun doesn't actually provide energy for the Earth
etc. Anthropogenic global warming is based on basic physical facts like those. Of course, if the only thing you know about the issue is what you're hearing from the deniers, you'd naturally think that scientists sit around and say "damn, we're making a fortune off the global warming industry, what else can we assert is responsible?"
Which is pretty fuckin' stupid when you think about it. Climatology isn't exactly making people rich. Al Gore still makes a lot more off his political connections than on the royalties off Inconvenient Truth. Of course, there's a fortune to be made denying anthropogenic climate change, but don't let that fact get in the way of your ignorance.
Science, dear Crashfrog, isn't about a consensus.
That's abundantly false. Did you forget the last, most important step of the scientific method? "Communicate your results." Look, it's right there in the method. It's the most crucial step. If you don't share your results with the scientific community - with the consensus - you might as well not have even bothered.
Science is all about consensus. Our individual senses are too easily fooled to rely on the findings of just one person.
You've as good as admitted that people who don't go along with the "consensus" shouldn't be afforded the ability to pursue their own investigations.
Hell, let's see them investigate. I've never heard of a global warming "skeptic" (to use the charitable term) who didn't spend all his or her time mouthing off in the press about how it's all a conspiracy and "help, help, I'm being repressed" and approximately zero time in the lab or in the field, actually recording data and making observations.
Why is that? Because, like creationism, global warming denial is a movement that can only survive commensurate with its ability to convince ignorant laypersons like yourself. The reason they spend all their time mouthing off and none actually doing science is because they know their movement comes to an end the second it's put to any sort of scientific scrutiny.
No, it's not. It's a search for truth and understanding of the physical world. It's doesn't matter if people agree with you if your evidence supports your theory.
If you can't get people to believe you, in what sense, exactly, does the evidence support your theory? When you're the only one who can see something - that's a sign you're hallucinating, not a sign you're so much smarter than anyone else.
People always seem to forget the last step of the scientific method, even though it's the most important one. It's the step that says "share your results." If you never tell anyone the results of your experiment, you might as well not have bothered.
That's why science is a consensus endeavor - because one person can be wrong. One person can be delusional. If you're not collaborating and sharing, what you're doing just isn't science.
Any time I hear someone talk about the "scientific consensus", I know I can safely ignore everything they say after that, because they clearly don't understand what science is.
You're one of the people I was talking about, before. The people who get off on denial.
Well, lots of luck with that.
They are not interested in trying to present all the information of GW, they are interested in pushing the case that it is real and humans are causing it.
Right. Because that's the side that is substantiated by scientific evidence, and the position against anthropogenic climate change is substantiated by no facts.
I think you need to re-evaluate your idea of what "balance" means. If you think that it means pretending like both sides of an issue are the same, you've been watching too much Fox Noise.
So sorry, but I remain unconvinced and a site like realclimate.org does nothing to change that.
If the fact that the person sharing the data with you has been convinced by it is enough to lead you to be distrustful of the data, you've simply set yourself behind the same bulwark of invincible ignorance with the rest of the climate change deniers. Good luck with that.
What I need is what I consider to be good, unbiased research. So far, I've had real trouble finding it.
Because you defined it out of existence before you even started. Not uncommon when people are thinking with their politics hat on instead of their science hat.
Well, I wouldn't hire a geographer who thought the Earth was flat, either.
Science is a consensus endeavor. Someone who rejects the consensus, even though it's supported by a vast weight of data, because it doesn't agree with their politics should be marginalized from science.
They're called deniers in a sloppy but effective rhetorical trick to equate that kind of reasoning with holocaust denial.
The phenomena are markedly similar. Some people can't help but think that the stuff everybody knows is accurate (for good reason) is wrong, somehow. Some people get off on denial.
But look. If you're ignoring the vast weight of evidence that supports the contention of anthropogenic climate change, you aren't just a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who withholds support until they've seen the evidence. Someone who withholds support even after seeing the evidence is a denier, not a skeptic.
Cue the so-called "global warming skeptics" complaining that being shown corroborating data and having one's arguments rebutted is the same as being burnt at the stake as a heretic.
Oh, my bad. They were already here. Honestly, am I the only one who gets a little tired of the massive persecution complex of global warming deniers? Jesus, you'd think that being shown the evidence was precisely the same as having bamboo under your fingernails.
please show me an example of a neck seal that can sustain a differential pressure of an atmosphere.
...wha? Are you even reading my posts? I said bond enthalpy didn't have anything to do with it, and it doesn't.
Well, here's one here.
http://www.subtechsystems.ca/genesis.html
You'll notice that it includes a neoprene neck seal. Seriously - it's not that hard. Go down to the drug store and buy a pair of swim goggles - you'll see a seal around the edge that's more than sufficiently effective to hold back a pressure difference of several PSI when held against human skin.
First you claim that higher pressures do affect the solvency of the gas and then you claim they don't matter because of osmotic gradients.
If you pressurize something you affect the solvency.
Yes, abundantly. Specifically, if you increase the pressure of an enclosed container containing both a fluid and a gas, more of the gas dissolves into the fluid.
Simple chemistry. "Covalent bonds of CO", whatever you thought you meant by that, has nothing to do with it - the reactions occur spontaneously according to osmotic gradient.
And the question was, how does it work when there's these fundamental issues that are hard to see how it overcomes?
If you'd start by correcting your incredible misunderstandings of science, physics, and human physiology, you might understand how. It's not hard to maintain a seal against the human body - the gasket around a $2 pair of swim goggles does just that - and it's not hard to understand how increased gas pressure means more gas dissolved in solvent. It's why deep sea divers worry about the bends.
The parent's whole misconception was that a higher pressure in your lungs meant a decreased amount of oxygen entering your blood, but that's not true at all - an increased pressure of oxygen means more oxygen in your lungs - think back to the idea gas law - and because lung gas exchange is based on osmotic gradients, an increased amount of oxygen means your blood oxygenates even more thoroughly.
The classic example of this is that you cannot breath air in through a tube from the surface when on the bottom of a pool.
Yeah, but it's not from a failure to operate your diaphragm; it's from the fact that 14.7 psi of air pressure (from the open end of the tube) is less than the 19 psi pushing in on your lungs. They can't inflate because the air you're breathing in doesn't have enough pressure to inflate them.
Wrong. THere's a 16 pound difference you can't over come with your lungs. See above answer.
And, yet, there's a model, wearing the suit and (presumably, since we're not reading her obituary) breathing completely normally.
People breath all the time with mechanical pressure across their chest, for instance, women who wear bras. You don't have to overcome the 16 psi because it's not pushing on your lungs, it's pushing on your ribcage.
Wrong. basic chemistry at work.
Yeah. Basic chemistry. That's how you dissolve gasses in liquids - by increasing the pressure. That's why divers get the bends; the high-pressure air they're breathing forces nitrogen gas into their body fluids. Because it's under high pressure, there's more gas in their fluids at the bottom of the sea than there would normally be at 1 atm; as they return to the surface and the pressure decreases, the nitrogen begins to come out of solution. As it does it can create dangerous bubbles in the body.
The reason that divers have to return slowly is to give that nitrogen time to escape through the body's regular mechanisms - because the high pressure has super-saturated their blood and fluids with it.
Likewise the energetic cost of transfering gas o2 into the pressurized blood will be higher when the blood is pressurized higher.
Blood oxygenation relies a lot more on osmotic gradient than on bond enthapies. Maybe you're problem is that chemistry is all that you know.
(how do you seal the bubble without crushing your neck, for example.)
A neck seal, like they've used for ages. Again, with a working prototype right there in the article, all you people saying "that's impossible" are wrong from the outset.
Obviously I don't understand how this thing works or can work.
I think it's just that you don't understand how lungs work.
When you inhale you don't inflate your lungs by increasing their volume, like opening a bellows.
The way you inhale is by lowering the pressure in your chest cavity by means of the diaphragm, which contracts downwards, increasing chest volume. As the pressure in your chest (outside your lungs) decreases, air forces itself into your lungs and inflates them.
It seems to me that if this thing is mechanically applying 16 PSI in vacuum then it must apply 32 PSI when inside the capsule.
Yeah, but there's air inside your body pushing out, too, remember. That's what the 16 PSI is there for, in fact - to restrain the gases within your body. That's why the suit has to be pressurized - to push back on the pressures within your body that, normally, the atmosphere will push back against.
So, inside the capsule, you're facing 32 Psi minus the 16 psi pushing out from inside you, so you're only against the 16 psi tension of the suit. I imagine it's like breathing with an ace bandage (or, like, a bra) around your chest - more difficult but certainly not impossible.
And secondly even if you solved that, then you still have the problem of the 32 psi pressure making it harder to dissolve gas in your blood, so your cells cant get air or release CO2.
Higher PSI makes it easier, not harder, to dissolve gases in fluids.
Finally, I can't see how this works around your head. If the suit is not pressurized then how do you maintain 16psi pressure on the face?
Big bubble helmet pressurized to 16 psi, like always. I don't see the problem.
In answer to a graphic covering 600 million years which shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all, you reply with a selected 400kyr slot (far less than 1/1000th of the period) in which there is good correlation .... and that's supposed to be an effective response?
...which drives warming ahead of the insolation increase.
Uh, yeah, it is. It was completely effective. That's why you've come back with absolutely nothing at all.
It's just an extremely selective pick.
So select any time period you'd like. Show me a graph for that time period that isn't, like your is, so artificially smoothed. Prove to me that there's no correlation at all, at any scale.
What you're trying to do is akin to trying to show me that there's no dog in my backyard with Google Earth. Sure, you can't see the dog - you can't even see my backyard!
Show me something with finer resolution. I showed you, and you were completely wrong as far as I can tell. If you're not familiar with the idea of resolution of data then you simply don't have the requisite training to even deal with this issue.
What's more, correlation doesn't imply causation.
So, you're disputing the laws of physics? You're of the impression that a century of physical chemistry data on the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other gases are completely wrong?
What's your evidence for that?
To anyone with any clue about climatology, your curve says exactly the same thing as the good ol' Keeling Curve has always said, that with increased warmth you get increased biological activity and the net result of that is always short-term increase in atmospheric CO2 from decay at season end followed by long term increase in CO2 from oceanic upwelling once it pops out of the carbon cycle.
Thus, confirming the action of greenhouse gases - already known from physical experiments.
Over 600m years, you don't see any such effect.
At a data resolution designed to obliterate any such connection? Obviously you don't see what your "graph" was drawn to conceal.
The climate depends on numerous factors that vastly outweight that tiny contribution from CO2, and if it were not so then we would not have had a collosal ice age at the end of the Ordovician when CO2 was well over 4000ppm.
I just don't understand what you're trying to say, here. It's well-understood among climatologists that the ice age at the end of the Ordovician period was triggered by a catastrophic decline in CO2 levels.
Which would seem to completely contradict what you're saying. We did have an ice age at the end of the Ordovician, and it was triggered by a change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And that's why real scientists no longer give the GW zealots (both pseudo-scientists and simple wanabes like you) the time of day. You'll see, in due course.
Good luck with that, Karnack. I'll put that prediction with the guys who said evolution was about to be disproved.
In the meantime, you'd better find a reason why where is no correlation between CO2 and temperature even in the periods of calm between "geological boundaries".
I just showed you the correlation. Your only response was to complain that the data was too accurate. I appreciate the laugh, anyway. Your denial act is top-notch, I must say.
Just because there is no physical two anywhere does not mean that the concept of two does not exist independent of our own thoughts.
Well, then where does it exist? Some metaphorical Plato's cave where all ideals exist independent of our knowledge of them? Waiting to be discovered?
That's nonsense. To start with, if Plato's Cave holds only true ideas, then where do false ideas come from? If Plato's cave holds all possible ideas, then you're actually looking at a Library of Babel - and the problem there is that finding a specific book in the Library of Babel requires that you already know exactly what it says.
So, if Plato's cave holds all possible ideas, then you can't go "discover" an idea in Plato's cave unless you know what it is, first - that is, you have to make up the idea in your head before you can "get" it from Plato's cave.
Platonism just doesn't hold up, for that reason. Either way you look at it, human beings and their ideas - including our ideas about mathematics - are coming from our imaginations, our creativity, our invention - not "being discovered", as the Platonist mathematicians claim.
Quantity is also independent of humanity's existence.
Because you say it is? We might as well say that "beauty" is just as independent of humanity's existence; we might as well commit the fallacy of reification wholesale, if we're going to commit it at all.
The universe we live in is physical, and it operates according to laws of physics - some of which we model, inaccurately, in mathematical language. But to confuse our ability to do that with some actual property of the universe is to confuse the map with the territory. The map describes the territory because we've tried to draw it thus - but if you make a mark on the map, or even destroy the map, the territory remains unchanged. The territory is what's real. The map is how we model it in our minds.
An organism can use math without perceiving it --- take bees, which produce hexagonal honeycomb structures. Do you think they perceive the hexagon shape, or the number six?
No, but we do. The structure of a honeycomb isn't "hexagonal" until a human is there to call it hexagonal. Prior to that it's just a beehive, made in the way bees make beehives.
Imagine 2 apples. Until someone is there to count them, the "set of 2 apples" doesn't exist. The apples exist, sure; but the set that encompasses them, and is of cardinality 2, exists only in our minds.
Mathematicians would be a lot less Platonistic, I think, if they'd take courses in semiotics. There's a big difference between the symbol and its referent. Apples exist; but integers exist only when there's someone there to count them. That's why you can have human societies with no conception of "number" at all - where the only "amounts" of anything they can perceive are none, one, and many.
You can't escape from mathematics.
Sure you can. It's not inherent to the universe. Mathematics, being a language, is inherent to the way our minds model reality - with symbols that stand in for referents.
2 anonymous sources? I don't know how it can be established that they were even there.
Not really exculpatory, in my book.
Armitage's comments to Woodward were in mid-June, not July.
15 days after Libby leaked it to Armitage, presumably. He certainly leaked it to everybody else, and we know Armitage and Libby met to discuss "the Wilson problem" and how to undermine his credibility.
Hence, the leaking.
Remember that the Wilsons lied about the entire thing that started this whole process in the first place.
Er, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Joe Wilson was vindicated on every substantial point. The stuff I'm sure you think he lied about is stuff he never claimed in the first place. (There's been a substantial conservative movement to discredit Wilson, and the press has played along.)
The British Government's own investigation into the connection confirmed the US claims on Iraq seeking nuclear material.
No, it didn't. Both the US and the UK claims were based, ultimately, on the same Italian forgeries. To the extent that they're both repeating flawed information from the same source, they can't corroborate each other.
as well that he lied about how his trip was arranged, by denying his wife's involvement in sending him there.
He's never lied about it. By the time his wife was involved - in an advisory capacity - they'd already made the decision to send him. He's never changed his story on that issue, conservative misinformation aside.
even their investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens came to the same conclusion.
Oh, sure, a right-wing drunk desperate to find support for the war in Iraq. There's a credible source.
What I find most hilarious about Hitch's attempt to refute Wilson's claims is that, at no point in his article, does he actually quote Wilson making any claims. Not surprising, since the conservative noise machine's tactic here has been to refute strawmen charactures of what Wilson has been saying all along.
As for yellowcake in Niger, it's important to remember that even the Bush administration has admitted that statements about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger "should never have been included" in Bush's State of the Union Address. Britain's "Butler Report", which is often held to support that conclusion, doesn't actually offer any evidence to support it. Indeed, the conclusions of the Butler report are based on the Italian forgeries.
There's not a single source supporting the Niger-uranium claim that doesn't come back to those forged documents, which made quite the circuit of American, British, and Italian intelligence services. And why would Iraq seek yellowcake from Niger? They already had their own.
The Plame affair, unfortunately, has been such a target of misinformation that it's no surprise you're so poorly informed about it. It's important to remember that, as long as you stick to what Wilson actually claimed - and not conservative strawmen - he was proven right on every point.
I'll see your 'Scooter Libby on June 23', and I'll raise you a 'Richard Armitage on June 13'.
I'll call with a "WTF?" From your article:
Armitage's calendar also shows that a week before Woodward's meeting with Armitage, the deputy secretary of state met for 15 minutes with Libby.
Well, wait now. If Armitage leaked at Libby's behest, which seems reasonable considering how Libby was basically calling everybody he had on speed-dial to get Plame's name and status out there, then I don't see how Armitage's disclosure is exculpatory for Libby.