Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[Poptech]

Alas we probably won't have that discussion. As he already said, he won't consider discussing the causes of global warming with me until I reconsider my "intellectual dishonesty" about his position on the 97%.

No your intellectual dishonesty regarding my discussion with eskimospy. Show some integrity there and I may reconsider.

On a slightly different subject, I don't know if you clicked the link on Judith Curry from that site, but holy crap. He calls her a "hurricane alarmist".

I take it you are new to this debate and were not around for her alleged epiphany and conversion after Climategate? Did you fail to check the extensive sources provided in that article?

There are many scientists who have always been legitimate skeptics - Judith Curry is not one of them. There are also many scientists who stayed out of the debate and then later came out as skeptics - Judith Curry again is not one of them. Judith Curry was an alarmist scientists who ridiculed skeptics right up to and for some time after Climategate. She now has marketed herself as some moderate voice and many people fell for it. She also extensively censors inconvenient facts from her blog comments that she cannot answer or wants to pretend does not exist.

 

[bshole]

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

Yea with a 97% CO2 composition..... meanwhile here on earth it is less than 0.04%. I believe 150 million years ago, earths atmosphere was more like .3% co2 and there was PLENTY of life flourishing. So by objective scientific observation of the earths fossil record, it can be seen that we are nowhere near a catastrophic life ending CO2 level. Why do you choose to ignore evidence from your own earth's past? The earth is screaming very loudly and very clearly that the CO2 levels on earth are nowhere near levels that are incompatible with life.

It is an impossibility for man to release enough carbon to exceed levels of the earth's past. We are only capable of releasing carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago and only a percentage of that. You ignore earths own history and tell us that the rising CO2 levels are dangerous. Now explain the scientific basis for your hypothesis. I certainly cannot see it.

 

[Poptech]

CO2 is definitely pollution. Too much anything can kill you, and basically anything in small enough doses will not harm you. That doesn't make nothing a pollutant.

CO2 is not air pollution, it does not make the air "dirty", it does not cause or contribute to smog and it is not toxic. This is what the average person thinks of when you discuss "pollution". They also frequently confuse Carbon Dioxide (CO2) with Carbon Monoxide (C0).

1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are only at 0.04% (400ppm)
2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
3. Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
4. OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
5. Submarine crews live and work in a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) rich environment of 3,500 to 4,100 ppm on average

We have no remote chance of reaching atmospheric levels that would cause harm to humans.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food.

 

[Poptech]

He'll just ignore it because he can't answer it....it's not part of his script.

Megaphone, don't be such a bandwagon hypocrite and why not see if you can get eskimospy to answer the questions he has dodged...

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

3. Where are the rebuttals to the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper?

4. Where is the peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper?

5. If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to the journal's scope does it mean the paper contains errors or is wrong?

6. Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

7. Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

8. How many authors have contacted me to remove papers from my list?

9. Why was Pielke et al. (2009) originally included on my list?

 

[Poptech]

Btw, I find it a bit amusing a helpdesk support lackey would criticize John Cook as a cartoonist, when he is more accurately described as a solar physicist (at least in terms of education).

More like IT Infrastructure. I find it amusing another bandwagon clown would show up and not know the secret history of the cartoonist.

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

 

[fskimospy]

More like IT Infrastructure. I find it amusing another bandwagon clown would show up and not know the secret history of the cartoonist.

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

This gets better and better.

 

[Poptech]

This gets better and better.

While the list of questions you have dodged gets longer and longer.

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

3. Where are the rebuttals to the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper?

4. Where is the peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper?

5. If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to the journal's scope does it mean the paper contains errors or is wrong?

6. Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

7. Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

8. How many authors have contacted me to remove papers from my list?

9. Why was Pielke et al. (2009) originally included on my list?

 

[Paratus]

How on Venus (he he) does the atmosphere circle the planet every 4 days. That would require wind. Wind requires temperature changes. The temperature doesn't change on Venus.

It doesn't matter where the high albedo comes from. What matters is that it negates the fact that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore receives more energy from the sun, at least at the top of the atmosphere that is.

Just a quick question. Why is the temperature at the top of Everest so much colder than at the base? I'll give you a hint: pressure.

First off the quote I gave you about the wind is from direct measurements by a European Space agency Probe. So feel free to deny it but the only way you are right is gross negligence of hundreds of scientists and engineers at ESA or a nefarious conspiracy by the same. Or your just wrong. :hmm:

Now on to the wind.

Interesting you mention how cold it is at the top of Everest and how that's due to pressure.

Well it's obvious you don't understand how convection works. That wind is largely driven by temperature and pressure gradients. The warm air at the base of Everest rises while the cold air at the top falls creating wind.

On Venus the surface temperature is 860F and 90+bar. As you so helpfully pointed out pressure and temperature fall the higher you go. Same on Venus. Except on Venus you have 900F differential driving convections currents where as on Earth your limited to about 100F or so.

As for albedo I totally agree with you. The important part is it reduces the amount of energy that the surface received.

Venus receives about 2200W/m^2. Only 25% makes it through, so about 450W/m^2. In fact without the greenhouse effect calculating the surface temperature of Venus via energy balance the temperature should be colder than Earth! Why is it hotter than Mercury Biff? If there's no greenhouse effect there's no way to capture enough energy to maintain the pressure.

Pv=NRT Biff. The sun only provides enough energy without the greenhouse effect for an average surface temperature of around 200-300K not 750K. At 200-300K Venus wouldn't have a 90+bar atmosphere.

So where's the energy coming from Biff. I mean wattsupwiththat?

 

[Paratus]

Yea with a 97% CO2 composition..... meanwhile here on earth it is less than 0.04%. I believe 150 million years ago, earths atmosphere was more like .3% co2 and there was PLENTY of life flourishing. So by objective scientific observation of the earths fossil record, it can be seen that we are nowhere near a catastrophic life ending CO2 level. Why do you choose to ignore evidence from your own earth's past? The earth is screaming very loudly and very clearly that the CO2 levels on earth are nowhere near levels that are incompatible with life.

It is an impossibility for man to release enough carbon to exceed levels of the earth's past. We are only capable of releasing carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago and only a percentage of that. You ignore earths own history and tell us that the rising CO2 levels are dangerous. Now explain the scientific basis for your hypothesis. I certainly cannot see it.

What was the price of corn a million years ago. What was your flood insurance like back then?

Oh you weren't around back then? Neither was any of the farms or cities you depend on now. So why should I care about how good it was for life back then. I care about my quality of living right now and in the immediate future. So do you. The science says we can pay more later or less now.

I know which one I want.

Here's something else to think about. I don't care if you don't want to share the answer with us I just want you to think about it.

Since I assume you think you are a reasonable person you probably think if the signals of MMGW and its impacts were loud enough you would be willing to do something about it to prevent a worse outcome in the future.

What would the rate of temperature increase year over year need to be for you to do something?
(Example 1F/year)

How long at that rate would it take for your average summer time temperature to be 150F?
(example average (150F-90F)/1F/Yr = 60years)

Is that long enough to do something?

 

[umbrella39]

This gets better and better.

Someone's resurrected ALT account is sure getting their money's worth...

 

[Poptech]

What would the rate of temperature increase year over year need to be for you to do something?
(Example 1F/year)

How long at that rate would it take for your average summer time temperature to be 150F?
(example average (150F-90F)/1F/Yr = 60years)

Is that long enough to do something?

That is all completely ridiculous since the temperature has only increase a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age and there has been no warming for almost the past 20 years.

 

[Poptech]

Someone's resurrected ALT account is sure getting their money's worth...

Why do so many people here suffer from conspiratorial delusions?

 

[Paratus]

CO2 is not air pollution, it does not make the air "dirty", it does not cause or contribute to smog and it is not toxic. This is what the average person thinks of when you discuss "pollution". They also frequently confuse Carbon Dioxide (CO2) with Carbon Monoxide (C0).

1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are only at 0.04% (400ppm)
2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
3. Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
4. OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
5. Submarine crews live and work in a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) rich environment of 3,500 to 4,100 ppm on average

We have no remote chance of reaching atmospheric levels that would cause harm to humans.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food.

CO2 is exhaust and is a waste gas. If it's not removed from your immediate surroundings it will kill you. We have alarms at work and three or four methods of CO2 removal so our folks stay safe in confined areas. Our folks also can't just surface and pop the hatch like submariners can.

And as I linked earlier at the PPMs we are seeing it's causing the earth to absorb an extra 100TW of power by direct measurement.

 

[Paratus]

That is all completely ridiculous since the temperature has only increase a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age and there has been no warming for almost the past 20 years.

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.

When speaking of global climate change you have to include the whole globe not just the parts that support your position, otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.

(Besides I thought you said no skeptic denied the climate was changing. This is how it's changing. It's gaining energy. )

 

[Poptech]

CO2 is exhaust and is a waste gas. If it's not removed from your immediate surroundings it will kill you. We have alarms at work and three or four methods of CO2 removal so our folks stay safe in confined areas. Our folks also can't just surface and pop the hatch like submariners can.

It can only "kill" you via asphyxiation - if it reaches ridiculously high levels (50,000ppm) and replaces the available oxygen in a confined environment. Just like you can drown underwater but water is not consider pollution. It is effectively impossible for these levels to be reached in the atmosphere.

 

[xBiffx]

-Snip-

Convection? Um, sorry buddy but you don't get temperature changes like what you see between the base of Everest and the top merely from convection.

Perhaps you need to relearn what temperature is and how it works. Funny thing happens when you increase the pressure of gas. It's temperature goes up. Why? You even cited the equation that tells us this. PV=nRT. If the pressure goes up and the volume is constant, the temperature goes up. Last time I checked the volume of the atmosphere isn't changing, so if the pressure goes up, so does the temperature. If it goes down, again, so does the temperature.

So again, the temperature changes due to altitude changes because of pressure. No convection required.

 

[Poptech]

This is incorrect. While the energy stored in the atmosphere has slowed the energy stored in the ocean has increased by the energy equivalent...

That is not incorrect those are the actual global Satellite temperature readings not your imaginary missing heat.

(Besides I thought you said no skeptic denied the climate was changing. This is how it's changing. It's gaining energy. )

All skeptics believe the climate changes but they do not believe in your imaginary missing heat or other alarmist memes.

 

[bshole]

What was the price of corn a million years ago. What was your flood insurance like back then?

Oh you weren't around back then? Neither was any of the farms or cities you depend on now. So why should I care about how good it was for life back then. I care about my quality of living right now and in the immediate future. So do you. The science says we can pay more later or less now.

I know which one I want.

Here's something else to think about. I don't care if you don't want to share the answer with us I just want you to think about it.

Since I assume you think you are a reasonable person you probably think if the signals of MMGW and its impacts were loud enough you would be willing to do something about it to prevent a worse outcome in the future.

What would the rate of temperature increase year over year need to be for you to do something?
(Example 1F/year)

That is not I would base it on. You aren't getting it. If it effects my quality of life NOW, then I would be on it. We have had a century of MMGW and if scientists didn't tell me, I wouldn't even know. The climate change I have experienced is completely imperceptible to me. What I HAVE noticed is a very noticeable increase in the air quality and far far fewer polluted waterways. I have clean water, breathe clean air, live in a nice neighborhood, enjoy the seasons, life is extremely good.

 

[Poptech]

Einstein's Successor: Freeman Dyson (Interview) - Earth is actually growing greener (23min)

Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941); B.A. Mathematics, University of Cambridge, UK (1945); Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945); Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947); Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948); Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949); Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951); Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953); Fellow, Royal Society (1952); Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994); Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964); Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965); Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966); Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968); Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968); Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969); J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970); Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975); Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975); Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1977); Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981); National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984); Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988); Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988); Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989); Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989); Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991); Britannica Award (1990); Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990); Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991); Enrico Fermi Award, U.S. Department of Energy (1993); Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994); Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994); Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996); Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996); Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999); Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999); Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000); Templeton Prize (2000); Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004); Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present); 21 Honorary Degrees

 

[Victorian Gray]

More like IT Infrastructure. I find it amusing another bandwagon clown would show up and not know the secret history of the cartoonist.

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

Wow! That's a well hidden secret. Wait, what?

 

[Poptech]

Wow, so now the discussion is about CO2 being a pollutant or not? Who cares? It doesn't change the core climate change discussion.

It does for those global warming bandwagon members who are simply "anti-pollution" as in air pollution. I cannot tell you how many people think the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will make the air toxic or dirty in some way or physically harm them by breathing. In almost each case they either confuse Carbon Dioxide (CO2) with Carbon Monoxide (CO) or have no idea what the atmospheric safe levels for human health are for CO2.

 

[Paratus]

Convection? Um, sorry buddy but you don't get temperature changes like what you see between the base of Everest and the top merely from convection.

Perhaps you need to relearn what temperature is and how it works. Funny thing happens when you increase the pressure of gas. It's temperature goes up. Why? You even cited the equation that tells us this. PV=nRT. If the pressure goes up and the volume is constant, the temperature goes up. Last time I checked the volume of the atmosphere isn't changing, so if the pressure goes up, so does the temperature. If it goes down, again, so does the temperature.

So again, the temperature changes due to altitude changes because of pressure. No convection required.

Natural convection, or free convection, occurs due to temperature differences which affect the density, and thus relative buoyancy, of the fluid. Heavier (more dense) components will fall, while lighter (less dense) components rise, leading to bulk fluid movement. Natural convection can only occur, therefore, in a gravitational field. A common example of natural convection is the rise of smoke from a fire. It can be seen in a pot of boiling water in which the hot and less-dense water on the bottom layer moves upwards in plumes, and the cool and more dense water near the top of the pot likewise sinks.

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

When astronomers first started taking ultraviolet images of Venus, they were somewhat baffled by a mysterious ‘Y’ shape that covered the entire planet.

But now researchers say they have an answer - high intensity winds are distorting a ‘wave’ of clouds to produce a stretched effect.

Anyway Venusian winds are an observable fact.

 

[Paratus]

That is not incorrect those are the actual global Satellite temperature readings not your imaginary missing heat.


All skeptics believe the climate changes but they do not believe in your imaginary missing heat or other alarmist memes.

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

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

 

[Paratus]

That is not I would base it on. You aren't getting it. If it effects my quality of life NOW, then I would be on it. We have had a century of MMGW and if scientists didn't tell me, I wouldn't even know. The climate change I have experienced is completely imperceptible to me. What I HAVE noticed is a very noticeable increase in the air quality and far far fewer polluted waterways. I have clean water, breathe clean air, live in a nice neighborhood, enjoy the seasons, life is extremely good.

No I totally get it. Out of sight out of mind. Everything is fine now everything will continue to be fine.

It's very human behavior. Shortsighted but human.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This dude is a riot. :awe: