moonbattery.gif


« Moonbats Respond to Tea Parties | Main | Open Thread »


July 7, 2009

As CO2 Rises, Temperatures Continue to Fall

Via Minnesotans for Global Warming:

AIT-Index-7_09.jpg

Temperatures have fallen .74°F since the release of The Goracle's science fiction fraud "An Inconvenient Truth." In that same time, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has continued to rise, to the great benefit of the plant life we rely on for food. C02 up, temperatures down: this means that the fundamental principle upon which the entire global warming hoax rests is provably false.

Not even the leftist lowlife dominating Congress is too stupid to understand this. Yet they continue to exploit Gore's greedy lie as an excuse to steal our money, restrict our liberty, and destroy our way of life. No politician who participates in this swindle is a responsible leader. Any journalist who participates is a liar.

On a tip from BURNING HOT. Hat tip: The Blogprof.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 7, 2009 8:23 AM

Comments

"Not even the leftist lowlife dominating Congress is too stupid to understand this"

Unfortunately this statement is wrong. The lowlifes in congress are just too stupid. I just got a response back from my senator Sherrod Brown stating that global warming is supported by scientists and is a given fact. There is now way to sway the mind of the jackass once it is made up.

Posted by: Stephana at July 7, 2009 8:36 AM

This is yet another reason to get rid of the Despicable 8.
The left is too corrupt to stop their Cap and Trade efforts under any circumstances or evidence, but the right needs to take action. Even if the C&T bill is killed in the Senate, getting these bottom-feeders out of office would be a good step toward reversing the GW looting fiasco.



Bono Mack (CA--of course) 202-225-5330


Michael Castle (DE) 202-225-4165


Mark Steven Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835


Leonard Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361


Frank LoBiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572


John McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611


Dave Reichert (WA) 202-225-7761


Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765



The GW "evidence" is lame both theoretically and empirically, and the scientists schilling this farce ought to be ashamed of themselves...Right.
As if a liberal could have any shame whatsoever.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 7, 2009 9:01 AM

You guys keep shooting yourself in the foot, here. :\ Anyone who looks at that graph ought to be able to immediately dismiss it as being too short of a sample time. I know what you really want to argue is that the threat is overblown and the response unnecessary due to cost (both true statements), but cherry-picking a segment of a graph with too small of a timescale to categorically deny any human influence isn't helping the cause.

Posted by: I'm A Lasagna Hog at July 7, 2009 9:23 AM

I'm no expert, but I have read the bible, torah, koran, book of mormon, origin of species, paradise lost/found, hell even Dante's Inferno (among many others I'm not listing). And never once, NEVER ONCE, did I see any footnote that stated that the ideal temperature of the earth is X (0.0 on that chart).

Posted by: Eric at July 7, 2009 9:23 AM

You guys keep shooting yourself in the foot, here. :\ Anyone who looks at that graph ought to be able to immediately dismiss it as being too short of a sample time.


What, like using 100 years worth of data when the planet is billions of years old?


Posted by: Naqamel at July 7, 2009 9:29 AM

Shooting ourselves in the foot? Looking at all of the data, the shit that Mann, Hansen, Gore, Gavin etc. spew is total bullshit. Has been demonstrated every time they release new shit. Get rid of their stuff, and guess what? All of the data shows that the world will not end tommorow in a ball of fire. As for timescale's the above agree that 11 years is enough for a trend and it looks like the temp is dropping over the 11 year period.

Posted by: Stephana at July 7, 2009 9:33 AM

So far as short time spans are concerned, the span upon which the whole Global Warming, OOPS, it is now Climate Change (ignore that no longer warming bit) canard is based. A decade or two is a drop in the bucket. Again, I remember the 'coming ice age' scare of the mid 70's.
As pointed out above, there is no 'ideal temperature' for a constantly changing environment.

Posted by: Viking04 at July 7, 2009 9:38 AM

"Posted by: I'm A Lasagna Hog at July 7, 2009 9:23 AM"

How long would you like to go back in time to start our graph? To a period that was colder than today, or a period that was warmer. We can show a move in either direction if we cherry pick the start date carefully.

And I'm not "categorically denying" any human influence. I'm rejecting the bad science and apocalyptic conclusions made by climate alarmists without presuming to have all the answers myself. the only thing I'm sure of is that the "science" was politically motivated, and their conclusions and predictions are being destroyed by reality as each cool year goes by.

The one thing this short graph does show is that the computer models and prognoses climate alarmists were issuing to scare people 5-10-15 years ago have all turned out to be wrong. they have no credibility anymore.

Posted by: forest at July 7, 2009 9:40 AM

SUVs are not cuasing GLOBAL WARMING JET AIRLINERS are not cuasing GLOBAL WARMING ITS THE SUN STUPIDHEA GREENPEACE MOONBAT FREAKS and the same to stupid AL GORE

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at July 7, 2009 11:50 AM

We are so very very lucky the moonbats in Congress haven't yet implemented any global warming remedies; if they had, they would be taking credit for the cooling now, and we would be stuck with those remedies for generations.

Posted by: Alan at July 7, 2009 1:08 PM

Lasagna Hog shoots himself in the foot.

Proof of concept does not require evidence contrary to the concept. Rather, the burden of proof is with positive evidence for the concept.

So what time interval has been used by advocates of GW to demonstrate GW?
Unspecified.
What is the time course that can demonstrate a causal relationship between CO2 and GW?
Unspecified.
How far out of range should the temperature go and for how long before the trend can be attributed to anthropogenic causes?
Unspecified.
What levels of CO2 should produce observable GW?
Unspecified
What is the lag time following increased CO2 levels that GW should occur?
Unspecified.

As with any poorly thought out hypothesis, there are myriad specifications and predictions that simply can't be satisfied. And the above criteria specifications I've listed here do not even begin to touch on the technical problems in predicting or accounting for GW.

There is also a bit more to the graph than a specially-selected time interval. The data (apparently) indicate an interval in which temperature stays within range during an increase in CO2. What is the specified prediction? We should see warming--we don't. This does not invalidate a hypothesis that GW exists, or that CO2 can cause global warming, but data that can be made available are not consistent with the hypothesis.

The advocate needs to propose a reason for the lack of consistency to support the hypothesis of GW; not simply dismiss it as being a problem with sample resolution. Even if such an argument could be made, the case for GW per se would not have been made.

This is how science works, Lasagna Breath.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 7, 2009 1:22 PM

I'm A Lasagna Hog, I have a REALLY easy question for you.

list 5 NON MECHANICAL source that produces the most CO2?

Oh and the bounu question is How does photosynthesis work?

I learned those in kindagarden, if you or Gore knew the answers which I'm sure both don't you probably would realize how dumb you actually are.

Posted by: Michelle at July 7, 2009 1:28 PM

I wonder what happened to that guy, I think he was from realclimate, that used to come here and try to counter the topics on global warming and climate change? Never see him here anymore.

Posted by: Kevin R at July 7, 2009 2:45 PM

Actually, Signor Lasagna, I agree with you that the time interval is short in general terms, however it is fine in specific terms.
Specifically, predictions were made that the temperature would keep rising in this very time scale. Specifically, upper atmosphere temperatures would rise and would demonstrate a hot spot - not later, but there if we look. Specifically, there would be a rise in ocean temperatures. As I say, all within this very time interval shown above.
No upper atmosphere hot spot, oceans cooling if anything, air temperatures not rising or cooling.
The mistake the AGW's made was to make predictions of heating on a short demonstrable time scale, basically to demand action NOW!!!
What may have saved us, incredible as it seems, was apathy.
Apathy works sometimes.

Posted by: Jim at July 7, 2009 2:46 PM

For you advocates of GW who attempt to semi-engage in what we skeptics like to call, "thinking", let me follow up Michelle's question with another:

It has been proposed by the IACC that CO2 levels have reached high enough concentrations to swamp the buffering systems of the world oceans, lowering the overall pH since preindustrial times.
(notice I said "proposed"...there is no evidence.)

How then, would there be enough CO2 to defeat the vast, enormous CO2 buffering system of the earth's oceans while having virtually no (i.e., near zero) effect on the planet's surface, ground-based plant life?
At these supposed concentrations of CO2, we should see prehistoric sized trees, grasses, jungles, etc.

(I think that Lasagna's done what all liberals do in debates: hit and run.)

Posted by: Fiberal at July 7, 2009 2:53 PM

There is a very neat thing about carbon dioxide. It is a symetrical molecule and as such the bending and stretching going on between its component atoms leads to a very sharp band of absorption of infrared energy. This band is extremely sharp. Although the absorption is intense, it is not really wide enough to absorb much energy. Radiant energy is spread over a wide wavelength and if you have something like water vapor or hydrocarbons like methane or, even funnier, chloroflourocarbons (remember the idiots who made us take flourocarbons out of the refrigeration units and air conditioners. Well, the replacement is chloroflourocarbons and they leak into the atmosphere and stay there basically forever--they are thousands of times as effective as carbon dioxide for interacting with radiant energy),--anyway, a lot of things will suck out a hell of a lot more energy molecule for molecule than carbon dioxide. If you double, triple, even make carbon dioxide so high it suffocates oxygen breathing critters, it doesn't actually have unlimited ability to heat the world from radiant energy absorbed. (By the way, carbon dioxide is a trace gas--doubling or tripling it would still make it a trace gas--there just is not much there.) Once carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has done its work on a bunch of light, that's it. It can remove by absorption its wavelength and then has to watch the rest of the wavelengths which contain relatively all the energy go past. In other words, the amount of absorption of energy and the amount of carbon dioxide are not proportional.

What this all amounts to is that if somebody tells you they are a chemist and that they believe in global warming--they are lying or they are not really a chemist. In fact, it is so stupid a thing for a chemist to say that it should be grounds for immediate termination for cause.

Posted by: SnowSnake at July 7, 2009 3:54 PM

Oh come now Snow, EVERYBODY knows the CO2 is a "poisonus & deadly" gas and kills everything it comes in contact with and it also causes cancer or possibly could be responsible for every war in history...

That's what the Huffpo said and they're always right about smart people stuff ya'know

/sarc

Humans expell CO2 plants impell it! Duh!! To think that most 3rd graders know MORE than the adults who fall for this load of garbage.

Posted by: Michelle at July 7, 2009 4:06 PM

"Not even the leftist lowlife dominating Congress is too stupid to understand this."

Are you shitting me? For Gods' sake. Stupid is their middle name. Remember, Obama's the smart articulate one. The rest are cumsuckers.

Posted by: Corona at July 7, 2009 5:59 PM

Back in the 70s we were suppost to be having a NEW ICE AGE and now its this GLOBVAL WARMING bull kaka and we get the stupid crap from GREENPEACE and the fruadulent ads from ENVIROMENTAL DEFENSE and the blabber bunk from T BONEHEAD NOSEPICKER SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

Posted by: Flu-Bird at July 7, 2009 9:23 PM

When the molecules in asphalt (black-body radiation) get excited by the suns radiation, they flip and rotate against each other. This friction causes heat, which then releases CO2.

Carbon dioxide is a [product] of warming, not a [producer] of it.

Posted by: RICH at July 8, 2009 10:15 AM

Jim,


Actually, one prediction from the Clinton administration held that a 0.07 C decrease over a 50 year interval could be obtained if all developed countries were to multilaterally decrease CO2 emissions.

Even this is probably inaccurate, due to the already low concentrations and very poor energy absorption properties of the CO2 molecule as very nicely described by SnowSnake above.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 8, 2009 10:17 AM

Hey Van,
"Not even the leftist lowlife dominating Congress is too stupid to understand this."

Remember, that no matter how stupid they were, with Franken now a senator--they just got on the average a lot more stupid, vapid, foolish, silly,
inane, irrelevant, and crazy. One has to wonder if he isn't a sort of Minnesota Manchurian candidate sent, unknown to him and not suspected by him, with the purpose of blowing the senate up when he demonstrates to the American people just how damn bad a senator can be! The result might be more than conservative could ever hope for.

Posted by: SnowSnake at July 9, 2009 12:00 PM