The American Spectator

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.09 @ 10:46AM

Thank you for the heads up, Chris.
We are on it! http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Bob| 9.7.09 @ 11:04AM

Well, Chris, thank you for the science lesson. Let's see, CO2 levels have risen 38% since the industrial revolution and 25% since 1950, it really shouldn't make difference, right?

Here's a chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ux_Rev.png

But please, don't let facts get in the way. Since CO2 exists in nature, I have a proposal. I'll set up a room for you and increase the levels of CO2. We'll see how long you last. After all, it's harmless, right? But I guess you don't want the global warming agenda to be forced down YOUR throat.

Now I don't know if the EPA program will work -- it probably won't -- but claiming that CO2 levels are harmless is about as scientifically accurate as you riding a dinosaur.

adaw| 9.7.09 @ 1:07PM

www.ugggo.com

www.buytimberlandboots.com

Truth to Power| 9.7.09 @ 3:08PM

3/5 Bob is moving more and more out of the closet. Chris Horner makes a constitutional argument and 3/5 Bob recites CO2 levels. I don't expect much from our Huffington Post regurgitating troll but it is not a surprise that 3/5 Bob is willing to do and say anything to force his elite view on the pubic. If he was a real person he would have convinced himself to be a Democrat a long time ago.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.7.09 @ 4:08PM

Note that Bob's experiment takes place in a closed room. That's important, and I wonder if he knows why. I suspect he does, and deliberately constructed his experiment the way he did because of his knowledge.

You see, Grasshopper Bob, trees and other green plants take in CO2 and turn it into good, pure oxygen. Taking the trees out of your experiment, therefore, removes your experiment from the realm of reality. If you want a real experiment, have it take place in a greenhouse, with lots of plants. Oh, and give the plants lots of room to grow in--they'll need it, since more CO2 means they can photosynthesize more food, so they'll grow and reproduce faster.

In fact, by attempting to reduce CO2 levels, you, Grasshopper, are working to starve our trees, flowers, and other green plants! I'm sure you can feel real proud of that, now can't you, Grasshopper?

Bob| 9.7.09 @ 4:21PM

Actually, Wanderer, you missed the entire point (as I might have expected). Nature is a BALANCE. You not only require oxygen to survive, but other gaseous elements as well. The point of the room was that you can make this balance change. This is what is called an ECOSYSTEM. Plants cannot take all of the CO2 created.

However, as usual, your oversimplification of data is expected. I guess I cannot expect any more from the undereducated.

On a larger scale, the planet is a "closed system" just like the room. Our atmosphere is finite held in place by a gravitational pull. Increasing the levels of any particular element changes the structure. Just like in the room, an overbalance of one element changes the ability for the ecosystem to survive.

Your oversimplification comes directly from that uneducated Limbaugh and Beck. I'd suggest learning from a different source next time.

Bob| 9.7.09 @ 4:26PM

Wanderer, let me give you another example. You breathe O2, right? So if some is good, a lot more is better, right? Is that your logic? Please breath high levels of O2 for a long period of time and see what happens.

The normal concentration of oxygen is about 21%. If it goes above 23.5%, you are in trouble. Just bow and say, "Yes, Sensei".

ConservativeWanderer| 9.7.09 @ 4:29PM

Yes, Grasshopper Bob, the earth is a closed system. But that system includes plants as well as humans. Your experiment removed one crucial part of that system; the plants. I called you on it. And now, instead of admitting it, you'd rather spin and call me names.

Yes, nature is also a balance. And if you put humans and plants in a sealed greenhouse, you'll also get a balance after a while... one that contains both CO2 and O2.

Your arguments are those of a non-scientist, so they're easy for someone who knows whereof he speaks to refute. Perhaps you should be the one who does some more research.

Oh, and next time, don't try to construct an experiment that's so obviously out of whack with reality--that way you won't have to spin so much when you attempt (futilely) to defend it.

Skip MacLure| 9.7.09 @ 6:47PM

So like a greenie liberal.....Bob I can invent non-peer reviewed graphs too..but I have a better solution to the problem..if you'd only stop talking.......

Bob| 9.7.09 @ 8:21PM

Wanderer, you are funny. You don't even realize you don't understand ecosystems. But I really like this line:

"Your arguments are those of a non-scientist, so they're easy for someone who knows whereof he speaks to refute."

How much chemistry and physics have you taken? You don't even understand the scientific method and you think you can refute anything. You are absolutely humorous. I would suggest taking a course in organic chemistry and perhaps even p-chem as I have.

But I really feel sorry for those AmSpec readers (most of them) who don't understand science and data like you and Skip. Hey, Skip, I didn't "invent" that graph -- it is peer reviewed data. If you think it is wrong, then please find expository data yourself. You won't, because your mind, and that of Wanderer, is weak -- you can't seem to handle objective data.

I really like how you ultra-right wing nuts combat real data with spin. I can only come to one of two conclusions, either I am totally right and you can't come up with contradictory data (because it doesn't exist), or you don't know how to look at data. Perhaps both.

Curtis Rasmussen| 9.7.09 @ 9:42PM

CO2 is a following indicator, not a leading one. Carbon Dioxide levels fluctuate as a function of earth temperature.

I heard the carbonated drink analogy. The CO2 in the soft drink stays in solution while it's in the refrigerator but comes out of the solution in hot weather due to heat transfer. If it's cold it goes in. If it's hot, it comes out. FOLLOWING.

The oceans are a vast depository for atmospheric carbon. We will be experiencing several years of minimal solar flare activity with accompanying sea surface temperature drops. We'll see what happens to the CO2 counts then.

Yosemeti Sam| 9.7.09 @ 11:00PM

Speaking of 'balance':

Ya know, South America and Africa have
for decades been engaged in MASSIVE
deforestation. For GREED and for FUEL respectively.

Trees have leaves. Which happily absorb
CO2. Less trees equals less leaves equals
less CO2 absorption equals - say, an increase
of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is the
horrific number now - 350, maybe 400
parts per million. Gasp - we're choking on
CO2. Quick - grab a bag and breath deeply
into it.

Where, oh where, have the self-styled enviro
caretakers of this planet been on this phenomenon?

Environmentalism is a lucrative business - when it's safe to engage in.

Take Brazil - where billions of US tax-payer monies will be loaned to drill for - gasp, OIL!

Further:

Try going down to, say, to the Amazon and
scream about deforestation to those engaged in this harmful - the planets' CO2 balance; not to mention havoc to undocumented flora and fauna - activity; and you might not come back.

That's right - continue to chase whaling ships for the planetary damage they inflict upon mankind.

spiff| 9.8.09 @ 2:08AM

geez Bob, you act like the Earth is here for humans or something. Tell me, what's the optimum CO2 level and temperature for the world? And why do you think that optimum level occurred in the last 100 years of the Earth's 4.6 billion year existence?

PhyCon| 9.8.09 @ 4:03AM

Nice suggestion about taking chemistry/physics classes, Bob. In fact I majored in physics and minored in math...could have done chemistry but really didn't want to go any further than organic.

As for the Scientific Method, your experiment can only go so far and removes many hundreds of thousands of variables from the equation. Even CW's experiment only adds back in some of the flora which still leaves out several thousand variables. However, his experiment is a bit more complete than yours. You know the SM? Good. Then you understand that 'starting small' is a good thing but, in order to 'get it right', any experiment MUST control nearly all (preferably all) of the available variables. Furthermore it must be able to be repeatable. So, yes, start with yours and see what happens. Then move onto CW's and see what happens. Then add is a somewhat variable heat source, cosmic rays, the gravitationally limited atmosphere of an Earth-sized analogue and all of the nice little things that entails.

There is an extremely simple explanation why every single one of the models currently used by AGW proponents are false and it is this: they are not able to take in all of the variables that affect global climate. Because of this, each and every one of those models FAIL to predict 'future climate' when fed historical data. In case you don't understand that sentence, allow me to explain it using explicit years. Pick a model and feed it data from 1900-1950 and ask the model to predict 2000-2008 global temps. (I won't even ask for global mean temps.) The model you pick and every single other model available will fail to even come close to what we know has happened. This simple fact discredits every single 'prediction' foisted by the AGW crowd.

Now, we could discuss the fallacious 'greenhouse effect' as well if you'd like. A greenhouse is a closed system (providing you never open the door). However, the problem with comparing the Earth to a greenhouse is it takes out too many variables like sufficient atmosphere for clouds to form, radiative infra-red energy, and insulating/reflective properties of various surfaces such as snow/ice/water/etc. You see, a greenhouse does not make an Earth-sized laboratory.

The closest sized analogue we have is Mars. Granted, there are a whole host of variables missing in that particular lab but, at least, it is appropriately sized. With your eminent use of the Scientific Method, please explain exactly what has caused the increase of temperature on Mars in the last, say, 50 years. Then, maybe, you can inform my local weatherman so he will be able to predict the exact conditions I will experience for the next 3 days. Sure would have come in handy this weekend to have that accurate information…alas, they were wrong as usual. Then, and only then, will I give credence to the doom and gloom of AGW supporters. (And I didn’t even have to get into CO2 levels of the Pleistocene either…imagine that.)

Skip MacLure| 9.22.09 @ 10:42PM

PhyCon...Nice...mine was geology....
Please don't do anything to wake him up. He's been snorting Co2 in his grow rm again......Also lets get him explaining the solar variable and the impending cooling period. That should be a gas (no pun intended)...well not much anyway:)
Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

asd| 9.8.09 @ 5:10AM

2 day diet,
2 day diet,3 day fit,3 day fit,Imelda perfect slimImelda perfect slim
2 day diet , 3 day fit, 3X Slimming Power, Imelda perfect slim, Japan Lingzhi Cleaned Slim Tea, Power Slim Tea, lida daidaihua, Fruit & plant weight loss capsules, Health Slimming Coffee, Super Slim Pomegranate, meizitang, magic slim, Miracle Slim Tea, Instant Slim Target Belly Fat, pai you guo, Japan Lingzhi Slim Express Tea

Pecos Pete| 9.8.09 @ 9:19AM

Hey Bob, let's here your answer to PhyCon!

BOB| 9.8.09 @ 9:24AM

TOOOOOOT! I AM “BOB THE EDUCATED”! POSSESSOR OF VARIOUS DEGREES AND TAKER OF CLASSES THAT SUIT MY FANCY! TOOOT! DO NOT STARE AT THE FUNNEL ATOP MY HEAD THAT EMITS STEAM AND TOOTS! YOU ALL KNOW NOTHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, LIKE I DO AS I HAD SOME EXTRA TIME DURING IVY LEAGUE BRAINDIUM SCHOOL TO DABBLE IN ASTRO PHYSICS AND SCIENTIFIC LAB DABBLING! TOOOT!

YOU UNEDUCATED DOCTORS, PILOTS AND OTHER STATE UNIVERSITY DEGREE HOLDERS, KNOW NOTHING COMPARED TO AL GORE’S IVY LEAGUE COMMUNICATION’S DEGREE AND OTHER IVY LEAGUE EDUCATED PEOPLE, LIKE VAN JONES! TOOTY TOOT-TOOT! WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO COULD DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT WHERE WE PUT A HUMAN IN A BOX AND REPLACE THE AIR WITH CO2 JUST TO WATCH HIM DIE AND THEN CLAIM THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DUING WITH OUR ATOMOSPHERE AND NOT HAVE THE MEDIA QUESTION US! TOOOOOOOT! SMART PEOPLE, LIKE TOM BROKAW AND CATIE CURRIC! TOOOOOOTY TOOOOOT! NOT STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND THE OTHER UNEDUCATED DOCTORS, PILOTS AND STATE UNIVERSITY TRAINED ENGINEERS! YOU RABBLE ROUSING RUFFIAN RUCKUS ROMPERS! NOW BACK TO YOUR DRAB, UNEDUCATED LIVES! WE WILL KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND CORRECT, LIKE THE TIME WE WARNED ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING AND WANTED TO PAINT THE ICE CAPS BLACK WITH ASH! NOW SHEW! SCAT! SCRAM! TOOOOOOOOT!

ConservativeWanderer| 9.8.09 @ 5:35PM

In my own defense, PhyCon, I wasn't attempting to build a completely realistic experiment... I was merely attempting to point out that Bob had left a critical element out of his experiments by proposing one that added that element back in.

With that said, nice lecture. :)

Bob Is An Ass| 9.9.09 @ 1:26PM

Bob ALWAYS ends up looking like an ass. I wonder why that is: Any ideas, folks?

PhyCon| 9.9.09 @ 7:05PM

Understood, CW. And you will note that I gave you credit for taking the 'next logical step' in the experimentation process (for which I gave you credit). I also left out a LOT of variables associated with 'climate studies' simply because there are too many to quantify in a comment...or for that matter in any current computer model. Perhaps in the next 10 - 20 years computers will be developed to a point they can handle 100k+ variable models. Now they can only handle low hundreds.

Unfortunately, AGW supporters such as BOB all tend to EPIC FAIL when it comes to the actual application of the Scientific Method. They tend to utilize the European approach to Anthropology/Archaeology wherein the 'researcher' forms a hypothesis and then fits the evidence into it instead of revising the hypothesis when the evidence shows the need for revision.

Bob| 9.10.09 @ 6:48PM

Well, PhyCon, it seems as if your simple minded analysis missed the point completely. I actually majored in math and chemistry with a minor in physics.

But you and Wanderer couldn't see that my "experiment" wasn't an experiment at all, it was a simplistic response to a ludicrous and uneducated statement about global warming. If you had remembered the principles of analysis, you'd know there is a difference between macro and micro analysis -- you utilize totally different variables. Did you forget your classes in number theory and boolean algebra?

Of course there are lots of variables, that was exactly my point. The oversimplistic statement that we breath oxygen and plants breath CO2 and therefore all is right is just simply dumb -- and you know it. There is an ecosystem out there with variables.

The fact is that in this last century of industrialization that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 38%. That is not a millenium or hundreds of thousands of years (you probably believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old) but 100 years.

When you get into a discussion of modeling, you must certainly know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, right? Forecasting is extrapolation and in a complex system like the atmosphere or even economics, it is not extremely accurate.

What you look for in macro analysis are substantial changes from the norm. There has been a huge increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Capish? We've seen a long term trend in global warming over the recent past which corresponds to this increase in CO2 levels. Is there a dependent relationship? We must go to probability theory (you did study that, right?) to calculate an R factor on that data. In fact, the R factor is quite high -- higher than on other variables.

The statement that you make regarding "revising the hypothesis when the evidence shows the need for revision" again shows you have not studied the data. In the early 1900's and in the mid-1900's we saw decade long declines in average temperatures. Well, another 50 years have passed and we are witnessing another decade long downturn. This is a CYCLE with a long term upward slope. To make an assumption that this is a change in the long term trend line when we have evidence it has occurred before shows that you don't remember much of your math/analysis training.

I would ask your college for a refund on that math training. Perhaps you spent more time in applied math than theoretical math. Actually, I specialized in algebraic topology.

PhyCon| 9.14.09 @ 4:57PM

Bob:

But you and Wanderer couldn't see that my "experiment" wasn't an experiment at all, it was a simplistic response to a ludicrous and uneducated statement about global warming. If you had remembered the principles of analysis, you'd know there is a difference between macro and micro analysis -- you utilize totally different variables. Did you forget your classes in number theory and boolean algebra?

Pot/Kettle moment, Bob. When one oversimplifies in an attempt to ridicule, one tends to deserve such ridicule in return.

Of course there are lots of variables, that was exactly my point.

Gee, maybe...just maybe, CO2 isn't THE ONE variable AGW supporters should hang their hats on. Of course, your 38% increase in CO2 levels = temp rise must needs be concrete for your argument to hold water. Allow me to return to prior Geologic eras such as the Pleistocene when CO2 levels were 500-1000% higher than today's. Explain to me why life flourished then as opposed to what, in your AGW Armageddon-like belief, must happen if global temps rise even as much as 5 deg C.

The fact is that in this last century of industrialization that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 38%. That is not a millenium or hundreds of thousands of years (you probably believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old) but 100 years.

Nice ad-hom there, Bob...you wantonly missed the Pleistocene portion of my earlier comment. Tell me, do you have a nice dataset from 1AD - 1000AD? How about earlier or later time frames? The only information you can hang your hat upon is contemporary. Roughly 1850-present. The Geologic spectrum is referential as well yet you ignore it simply because there was no 'industrialization' in previous eras. Again, Bob, I ask you to explain the Pleistocene to me. You can't.

When you get into a discussion of modeling, you must certainly know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, right? Forecasting is extrapolation and in a complex system like the atmosphere or even economics, it is not extremely accurate.

Accurate as far as the differences...and interesting how you agree that extrapolation is "not extremely accurate". To add insult to this logical injury, your 'extrapolation' is based upon insufficient data flawed by 'weighting' factors placed into an incomplete mathematical model. Show me ONE model that takes historical data (conditions) and is able to predict more recent historical data (conditions). Just ONE, Bob, and I'll sign onto AGW as fervently as High Priest Algore.

What you look for in macro analysis are substantial changes from the norm. There has been a huge increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Capish? We've seen a long term trend in global warming over the recent past which corresponds to this increase in CO2 levels. Is there a dependent relationship? We must go to probability theory (you did study that, right?) to calculate an R factor on that data. In fact, the R factor is quite high -- higher than on other variables.

Probability theory...ah, yes. Flip a coin and you will see... Yes, Bob, I studied it and I completely agree with you on the R factor associated with CO2...at least with your myopic view of 'all of the variables' associated with climate. Do you know all of the variables? Are you able to accurately ascribe values, weighting factors, and other such fancy 'math-stuff' to them? Take a look at how accurate all of those models are again, Bob, and you will see you don't exactly 'Capish' as well as you claim.

Macro versus Micro: With extremely complex systems that's about all one can do...see a 'large change' and then go to micro. Climate is a macro system and cannot be simulated, in total, via micro experimentation. Micro experimentation can only point a plausible direction for subsequent macro experimentation. This is the largest flaw of AGW supporters' arguments and falls nicely into their circular arguments. Simply because 'we' find such a change, 'verify' the change could be responsible for the macro system, and then attempt to extrapolate via modeling...and FAIL should tell you your approach is flawed. Again, explain to me once more why Mars (and all of the other planets for that matter) have experienced an equivalent increase in global temperatures as the Earth over the same time frame? Notice, this is a direct-linking R factor you have have ignored - Solar output to planetary temp rise.

The statement that you make regarding "revising the hypothesis when the evidence shows the need for revision" again shows you have not studied the data. In the early 1900's and in the mid-1900's we saw decade long declines in average temperatures. Well, another 50 years have passed and we are witnessing another decade long downturn. This is a CYCLE with a long term upward slope. To make an assumption that this is a change in the long term trend line when we have evidence it has occurred before shows that you don't remember much of your math/analysis training.

Trend analysis/cycles/revisions:
Classic. You completely fail to see the lack of logic in your own statements. SM requires us to revise when the evidence shows what we 'thought would happen' didn't happen. You base all of your arguments upon one thing: strong correlation between temperature rise and atmospheric CO2% rise. Yet you have absolutely no idea how Computer models CAN NOT predict recent conditions using historical data.

Why is this the case, Bob? Could it be that those who claim to know everything there is to know about the global climate actually don't? Could it be some other variable or set of variables responsible? I don't dispute the planet has warmed...just that humans are the cause.

You want me to get a refund on my math training...perhaps you should do the same but for science ethics.

PhyCon| 9.14.09 @ 4:58PM

Apparently blockquotes do not function here :(

PhyCon| 9.14.09 @ 5:07PM

(Will re-post with italics instead)
Bob:

But you and Wanderer couldn't see that my "experiment" wasn't an experiment at all, it was a simplistic response to a ludicrous and uneducated statement about global warming. If you had remembered the principles of analysis, you'd know there is a difference between macro and micro analysis -- you utilize totally different variables. Did you forget your classes in number theory and boolean algebra?

Pot/Kettle moment, Bob. When one oversimplifies in an attempt to ridicule, one tends to deserve such ridicule in return.

Of course there are lots of variables, that was exactly my point.

Gee, maybe...just maybe, CO2 isn't THE ONE variable AGW supporters should hang their hats on. Of course, your 38% increase in CO2 levels = temp rise must needs be concrete for your argument to hold water. Allow me to return to prior Geologic eras such as the Pleistocene when CO2 levels were 500-1000% higher than today's. Explain to me why life flourished then as opposed to what, in your AGW Armageddon-like belief, must happen if global temps rise even as much as 5 deg C.

The fact is that in this last century of industrialization that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 38%. That is not a millenium or hundreds of thousands of years (you probably believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old) but 100 years.

Nice ad-hom there, Bob...you wantonly missed the Pleistocene portion of my earlier comment. Tell me, do you have a nice dataset from 1AD - 1000AD? How about earlier or later time frames? The only information you can hang your hat upon is contemporary. Roughly 1850-present. The Geologic spectrum is referential as well yet you ignore it simply because there was no 'industrialization' in previous eras. Again, Bob, I ask you to explain the Pleistocene to me. You can't.

When you get into a discussion of modeling, you must certainly know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, right? Forecasting is extrapolation and in a complex system like the atmosphere or even economics, it is not extremely accurate.

Accurate as far as the differences...and interesting how you agree that extrapolation is "not extremely accurate". To add insult to this logical injury, your 'extrapolation' is based upon insufficient data flawed by 'weighting' factors placed into an incomplete mathematical model. Show me ONE model that takes historical data (conditions) and is able to predict more recent historical data (conditions). Just ONE, Bob, and I'll sign onto AGW as fervently as High Priest Algore.

What you look for in macro analysis are substantial changes from the norm. There has been a huge increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Capish? We've seen a long term trend in global warming over the recent past which corresponds to this increase in CO2 levels. Is there a dependent relationship? We must go to probability theory (you did study that, right?) to calculate an R factor on that data. In fact, the R factor is quite high -- higher than on other variables.

Probability theory...ah, yes. Flip a coin and you will see... Yes, Bob, I studied it and I completely agree with you on the R factor associated with CO2...at least with your myopic view of 'all of the variables' associated with climate. Do you know all of the variables? Are you able to accurately ascribe values, weighting factors, and other such fancy 'math-stuff' to them? Take a look at how accurate all of those models are again, Bob, and you will see you don't exactly 'Capish' as well as you claim.

Macro versus Micro: With extremely complex systems that's about all one can do...see a 'large change' and then go to micro. Climate is a macro system and cannot be simulated, in total, via micro experimentation. Micro experimentation can only point a plausible direction for subsequent macro experimentation. This is the largest flaw of AGW supporters' arguments and falls nicely into their circular arguments. Simply because 'we' find such a change, 'verify' the change could be responsible for the macro system, and then attempt to extrapolate via modeling...and FAIL should tell you your approach is flawed. Again, explain to me once more why Mars (and all of the other planets for that matter) have experienced an equivalent increase in global temperatures as the Earth over the same time frame? Notice, this is a direct-linking R factor you have have ignored - Solar output to planetary temp rise.

The statement that you make regarding "revising the hypothesis when the evidence shows the need for revision" again shows you have not studied the data. In the early 1900's and in the mid-1900's we saw decade long declines in average temperatures. Well, another 50 years have passed and we are witnessing another decade long downturn. This is a CYCLE with a long term upward slope. To make an assumption that this is a change in the long term trend line when we have evidence it has occurred before shows that you don't remember much of your math/analysis training.

Trend analysis/cycles/revisions:
Classic. You completely fail to see the lack of logic in your own statements. SM requires us to revise when the evidence shows what we 'thought would happen' didn't happen. You base all of your arguments upon one thing: strong correlation between temperature rise and atmospheric CO2% rise. Yet you have absolutely no idea how Computer models CAN NOT predict recent conditions using historical data.

Why is this the case, Bob? Could it be that those who claim to know everything there is to know about the global climate actually don't? Could it be some other variable or set of variables responsible? I don't dispute the planet has warmed...just that humans are the cause.

You want me to get a refund on my math training...perhaps you should do the same but for science ethics.