Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[Paratus]

This dude is a riot. :awe:

Tag! Your in!

It's an impressive performance indeed but I gotta go to bed now.

 

[Poptech]

So you are denying the observable measurements made by the Argo floats?

The Argo floats measure imaginary missing heat? Since when?

This is an example of denier behavior. Denying observable facts.

This statement is incoherent.

 

[Poptech]

Tag! Your in!

Taking one out of the Skeptical Science playbook?

Skeptical Science: "Drown Them Out"

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

 

[theeedude]

Don't care about your blog or "Sceptical Science", whatever that is. Go fight it out somewhere else, why do you need to bring this pseudo-science nonsense to AT. Are you trying to be the food babe for climate science?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Why even give free attention to some stupid medieval figurehead stuck in the dark ages? Bleh.

 

[Poptech]

Don't care about your blog or "Sceptical Science", whatever that is. Go fight it out somewhere else, why do you need to bring this pseudo-science nonsense to AT. Are you trying to be the food babe for climate science?

What pseudo-science would that be?

 

[nickqt]

Don't care about your blog or "Sceptical Science", whatever that is. Go fight it out somewhere else, why do you need to bring this pseudo-science nonsense to AT. Are you trying to be the food babe for climate science?

Skeptical Science is anything but pseudo-science.

The criticism of their site is over tactics that the critics themselves use.

Mostly because freedom, but also likely because of AlGoreIsFat™.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[Jaskalas]

97%

When you're done lying, perhaps we can return to a discussion of the science. Until then...

 

[theeedude]

What pseudo-science would that be?

Blogs parading as scientific meta-analysis.

 

[Poptech]

Blogs parading as scientific meta-analysis.

That has nothing to do with my site then.

 

[theeedude]

That has nothing to do with my site then.

Fine, you can characterize it as you please. It's not experimental science done by you, it's not scientific meta-analysis of experimental science done by others. It's basically adding nothing to the scientific debate, or objective analysis thereof, except noise.

 

[Poptech]

Fine, you can characterize it as you please. It's not experimental science done by you, it's not scientific meta-analysis of experimental science done by others. It's basically adding nothing to the scientific debate, or objective analysis thereof, except noise.

This is a strawman argument as I have never claimed my site to be either experimental science or a meta-analysis of experimental science. My site is effectively various rebuttals and resources that can be used by skeptics for debating this topic. These resources include scientific references and analysis.

You statement is also hypocritical as you have failed to apply these same standards to the others here. You should be attacking the OP for starting this topic since it has nothing to do with experimental science or scientific meta-analysis.

Why are you acting like a hypocrite?

 

[theeedude]

This is a strawman argument as I have never claimed my site to be either experimental science or a meta-analysis of experimental science. My site is effectively various rebuttals and resources that can be used by skeptics for debating this topic. These resources include scientific references and analysis.

You statement is also hypocritical as you have failed to apply these same standards to the others here. You should be attacking the OP for starting this topic since it has nothing to do with experimental science or scientific meta-analysis.

Why are you acting like a hypocrite?

Do you apply same standards to man made global warming theory skeptics as you do to proponents? Do you have rebuttals of articles skeptical of global warming too? Or resources for proponents of global warming to use for debating this topic?
Do you also realize that if supporters of man made global warming theory are wrong, maybe we'll be more efficient than we needed to be, transition to renewables when we could have been burning hydrocarbons? But if skeptics are wrong, the consequences for humanity are far more severe. So if anything, you should be applying the burden of proof on the skeptics, who are asking you to wager the future of humanity on them being right, far more heavier than the proponents. But you are doing the exact opposite. Are you a fool?

 

[Paratus]

The Argo floats measure imaginary missing heat? Since when?


This statement is incoherent.

Non-sequitur.

The Argo floats exist and are used to measure ocean temperatures

Their measurements exist. You rebuttal to the data they provide is the same one my children use when I tell them it's bed time - Nuh Uh.

Provide an explanation for the existence of this evidence or admit you aren't a skeptic but a denier of scientific evidence.

 

[xBiffx]

So from this definition of natural convection it's obvious that Venus has winds caused by natural convection. All thats required is gravity, a fluid and a temperature gradient.

If you'd like to know more there appears to be several studies underway into how the Venusian atmosphere behaves. :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...on-create-odd-pattern-astronomers-reveal.html


Anyway Venusian winds are an observable fact.

Holy Transistors Batman! Do you even read what you post? I'm starting to think Parakeet was a fitting nickname. Look, when I asked you to explain the temperature difference between the top of Everest and the base you claimed it was due to convection. Now that you've gone and looked up what convection is and posted the definition (good job) why can't you see the flaw in that? It's right in front of you. What is one of the things that is required for convection, a temperature gradient. Where do you think this temperature gradient comes from? Here is another hint: pressure differences.

I have no idea where you think you are going with this convection is the cause of differences in temperature argument but its ridiculous. You want to claim convection causes changes in temperature but the fact is that it's the other way around. Changes in temperature are required for and are what cause convection.

Interesting that you just glossed over my last post. If you have gas at a high pressure and a low pressure, the gas at higher pressure is hotter. Why do you continue to act like this isn't the fact and somehow convection has anything to do with that? Again, convection not required.

 

[dphantom]

Venus is the poster child for the runaway greenhouse effect as caused by CO2

That is almost certainly not the case.

A more likely scenario that researchers are looking at is that as the sun brightened over the last 4 billion years, water that once existed on Venus (either on land or in the atmosphere) began to evaporate and break up under intense UV radiation. That freed the Hydrogen molecules to escape into space. CO2 became a byproduct of the loss of other gases, not the cause of the green house Venus has become.

The Vsper satellite was launched to investigate this further. I have not followed up to see what results if any have been published.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...es-explore-mysteries-of-venus-atmosphere.html

 

[xBiffx]

Look, its quite simple when comparing Venus to Earth. Just ask yourself a simple question. What would it be like on Earth if tomorrow the atmospheric pressure increased 90X. Hint: the answer is with a formula already mentioned more than once in recent posts. No convection required, no more CO2 required. This should make it clear why Venus' temperature is the way it is and why it is so hot compared to Earth.

 

[dphantom]

Since we are on the topic. Article describes updates to the UAH dataset. Briefly, UAH now more closely coincides with RSS data and shows a decrease in the overall warming rate per decade. This continues to show actual data is at odds with most GCMs. Surface thermometer temperature are also at odds with satellite data. An area that is seeing increased research.

Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record, wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend.

I'll see if I can find the actual report. Prefer it to highlights in a news article that may or may not tell everything.

excerpt:
This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”

“Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.

 

[dphantom]

I believe this is the updated report. I have not gone thru the dataset itself, simply the summary report.

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/march2015/march2015GTR.pdf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Perspective.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is incorrect. While the energy stored in the atmosphere has slowed the energy stored in the ocean has increased by the energy equivalent to 1/3 of the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs.

Otherwise known as 0.02C.

But yes... let's speak of it in terms of dino killers.

 

[dphantom]

[/SIZE]

Otherwise known as 0.02C.

But yes... let's speak of it in terms of dino killers.

I was going to do the same, but dino killer sounds so much more scary.

Most lay people simply do not understand the capacity of Earth's oceans to uptake and release heat. The oceans are a massive heatsink and as research just might be beginning to show, play a larger role in climate than CO2 emissions than current GCMs allow for.

 

[Paratus]

Holy Transistors Batman! Do you even read what you post? I'm starting to think Parakeet was a fitting nickname. Look, when I asked you to explain the temperature difference between the top of Everest and the base you claimed it was due to convection. Now that you've gone and looked up what convection is and posted the definition (good job) why can't you see the flaw in that? It's right in front of you. What is one of the things that is required for convection, a temperature gradient. Where do you think this temperature gradient comes from? Here is another hint: pressure differences.

I have no idea where you think you are going with this convection is the cause of differences in temperature argument but its ridiculous. You want to claim convection causes changes in temperature but the fact is that it's the other way around. Changes in temperature are required for and are what cause convection.

Interesting that you just glossed over my last post. If you have gas at a high pressure and a low pressure, the gas at higher pressure is hotter. Why do you continue to act like this isn't the fact and somehow convection has anything to do with that? Again, convection not required.

Have you been hit on the head recently. Convection currents, aka wind, is caused by temperature differentials. Differentials you so helpfully point out come naturally with pressure gradients. This is the rebutal to your clueless comment that Venus wouldn't have wind.

You thought the slow day night cyclle helped prove your point. You didn't know that the atmosphere distributes the heat between the day and night side. Then you flat out denied Venus has winds despite direct measurements of them. Man up and admit you were ignorant.

 

[xBiffx]

Have you been hit on the head recently. Convection currents, aka wind, is caused by temperature differentials. Differentials you so helpfully point out come naturally with pressure gradients. This is the rebutal to your clueless comment that Venus wouldn't have wind.

You thought the slow day night cyclle helped prove your point. You didn't know that the atmosphere distributes the heat between the day and night side. Then you flat out denied Venus has winds despite direct measurements of them. Man up and admit you were ignorant.

I never denied anywhere that Venus has winds. What I did say is winds do not explain the temperature, nor the fact that there is no difference between day and night. I also stated that in order to have winds you need a temperature change. Nice strawman you got there.

You know what, I'm tired of this little game. My patience has run out. Go fuck yourself.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

Venus Atmosphere


Surface pressure: 92 bars
Surface density: ~65. kg/m3
Scale height: 15.9 km
Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 1020 kg
Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
Diurnal temperature range: ~0
Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)

Earth has speeds wind speeds 100X Venus. Winds or convection isn't the answer.

 

[jhbball]

Perspective.

Oh cool, graphs. You should probably let the scientists know you have graphs.