Post by Dr. Ryan Maue (cross posted at my Policlimate)
“Must watch TV: Nye expounds on theory of racism”
Much “debate” has erupted in the liberal mainstream media concerning the effects of global warming on Hurricane Irene. With a few notable exceptions (Henry Fountain awesome), many of the journalists butchered the science and generally constructed disjointed narratives that quoted a variety of favorite experts which left me wondering why they even bother (Politico). Rush Limbaugh provided a compelling alternative explanation for the hurricane hype: “Politics is part of everything. The weather’s been politicized; the climate’s been politicized…Both Obama and the media were hoping for a disaster to revive his presidency and help prove climate change theory…The New York Times is trying to say that this violent hurricane is indeed indicative of global warming. It was a tropical storm when it left New York.”
But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business with my KFI 640 Saturday friend Charles Payne and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television! But, alas, Media Matters thinks Nye owned Payne (h/t to Andrew Revkin to Tweeted this). And CBS News headlines it as a story! Unbelievable!
The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota.
Video is embedded or to go to CBS News and watch the Fox Business embedded video there. “Heady stuff, but Nye receives my respect for retaining his patience in outlining a life’s worth of work in a six-minute segment.” says Andrew Nusca. He has no idea that what Bill Nye is saying is disjointed and amateurish. Intricacies? Nye got almost everything wrong.
I transcribed my own transcript from the first 3 minutes of this (all I could take). Emphasis — bold and italics are my comments.
Charles Payne: While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it’s revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote “the new normal”. Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.
Ok Bill, I’m going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?
Bill Nye: Oh, I don’t think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here’s what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program. A very sophisticated computer program. So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather say in North America or the Gulf of Mexico as this storm moves into it. Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.
(Ryan: First of all, charitably, I think Nye is confusing a real-time operational weather forecast with a climate model. Climate models do not assimilate satellite observations of a given event — and it wouldn’t take months and months to compile the data. I have everything sitting on my server which generates my old FSU weather map page. Check back with them in March — that’s when they’ll have their climate model results back proving Irene was the result of more energy? This is a pretty unconventional way of doing climate or extreme event attribution. Bill Nye follows the “anti-scientific” method: I’ll give you the answer now, and then in 6-months, check back when I have the proof. )
CP: But here’s the thing here bill, ever since Katrina, right, we’ve heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven’t seen that. So how can Newsweek say “hey, this is a new normal”? is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?
(Ryan: this is a great question by Payne. Since global hurricane activity — the number of storms, hurricanes, and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is at historical lows — collapsing since Katrina — as I showed in my recent GRL peer-reviewed paper, how on earth can you attribute one hurricane (Irene) to climate change.?)
BN: well there’s a lot more science behind that than just saying it’s not. But, uh, that aside. That’s only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.
(Ryan: no kidding Nye, however, you haven’t come up with any science. Nye then launches into a tortured explanation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation warm phase — El Nino where the waters in the tropical Pacific cyclically become anomalously warm. But, it’s not “tens-of-thousands nautical miles away” — that’s more like the distance to the moon. There is actually little consensus in the climate community about the future of El Nino as the planet slowly warms. The CMIP3 models used for the IPCC AR4 report fail to reproduce historical ENSO events or variability, and therefore are useless prediction devices for the future. We already have a pretty good handle on the “teleconnection” effects of El Nino and La Nina on Atlantic hurricane development with research pioneered by Dr. Bill Gray and furthered by Dr. Phil Klotzbach who produces Colorado State’s seasonal hurricane forecasts. 2011 is a neutral-to-building La Nina year, so we should expect weaker vertical shear in the Main Development Region of the tropical Atlantic. It’s bizarre that Nye brought up El Nino which contradicts his original assertion that Irene was evidence of global warming.)
CP: But Bill, that’s not…
BN: This is another thing that’s very hard to show.
CP: But the Pacific Ocean, getting warmer, but that’s not from man.
(Ryan: excellent point again Charles. The tropical Pacific does not have a strong global warming signal over the past 30-years, which is due to the cyclical nature of ENSO on 2-7 year time scales. Our sea-surface temperature (SST) records get worse as you go backwards from the beginning of the satellite era in 1979. Nye has no answer.)
BN: (waving hands): you’re acting that you are dismissing those things like they they are not relevant.
(Ryan: Nye is defeated, and he knows it. After wagging his finger like Judge Judy, he pretty much has spent his arsenal of facts on this issue.)
CP: I’m not dismissing it, but you have so much information, I want to get to all of it. Are you saying though that it’s manmade, though?
BN: Well the world is getting warmer, uh, everybody, the world is getting warmer. I believe the debate is whether humans are causing it…Do we not agree that the world is getting warmer?
(Ryan: The world is getting warmer — so Irene has to be influenced by global warming. Maybe Irene did NOT reach its maximum potential because of global warming — has anyone considered that. Why must ALL of the climate change effects be a certain sign? Why didn’t Irene reach Category 5? Why did it weaken so fast if the SSTs were so warm? This is where the real tropical cyclone researchers will take over from the media hacks, and, yes, they will come with an answer in March. But, they will follow the “scientific” method and not the “I’ll get the proof later” Bill Nye “anti-science” method.)
CP: I have no idea. Someone told me that it’s warmed 1-degree over the past 100-years. I’ll take their word for it.
(Ryan: Charles is right.)
Show continues to talk about racism and shows the Al Gore “racism” clip – but Nye then really goes off into a different realm discussing that. I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post.
DAV:
Thankyou for your reply at August 31, 2011 at 4:16 pm to my post at August 31, 2011 at 11:29 am.
You seem to be agreeing with me except that you commend a book I feel no need to read. Am I missing something?
Richard
Funny how R. Gates’ hypotheticals tend to stir folks up. He’s really good at it.
Hypotheticals are imagined. Why argue over someone’s fantasy? Might as well argue over religion.
Richard S Courtney August 31, 2011 at 4:43 pm Am I missing something?
Probably so. My point is: it’s the correlation of the variables itself that’s important. Nothing else is required. Judea’s book explains the why and how of that. IOW, your On its own correlation says nothing about causation is not true. The current causality algorithms use only correlation when identifying cause. Understanding of the underlying mechanism is nice but not important to the task.
Davidmhoffer,
First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference to your perspective or understanding of how the basic systems of the earth are all interrelated nor the greater truth that in reality no man, or woman, or whale, or even cloud exists without the interactions and existence of the whole.
Dave Worley says:
August 31, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Funny how R. Gates’ hypotheticals tend to stir folks up. He’s really good at it.
Hypotheticals are imagined. Why argue over someone’s fantasy? Might as well argue over religion.
————————————————————–
I think that some of the more “animated”, shall we say, threads on here have been about religion actually.
Don’t worry about the R Gates thing though. Several of us are contacted by a Project Manager at the Central Planning Dept. of Big Oil, Inc., as to who responds and when. It doesn’t take long for each individual and we get paid handsomely. Of course, we all suspect that he’s on their payroll too – this time running pretend, lousy straw man cover for Bill “the end is” Nye.
PS I was promised a bonus if I could get those last five words in my post.
Richard,
If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing? Maybe, you argue, because temperatures are now reaching their “upper limit”, at which it is warm enough to melt glaciers. But what is driving temperatures to the upper limit just now?
For centuries, the Chechua Indians have been following a way of life dependent on cool temperatures and run off water from glaciers. This has changed within the last 20 – 30 years — to the extent that their traditional habitat and way of life are being destroyed. The change has occurred at the same time that atmospheric CO2 has risen noticeably.
And, the rise in atmospheric temperature along with the rise in atmospheric CO2 is more than just fortuitous. It’s according to the laws of physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation coming from the Earth’s surface, warms as it does so, and then becomes a transmitter of infrared itself — in all directions, one of these directions being back down to Earth.
I finally listened to Al Gore’s “racism” spiel and I’m appalled. It is much more insidious and evil than I could have imagined it to be. It is preaching the doctrine of “Group Think”. It advocates the unenlightened use of peer pressure to suppress free thought and ideas. You can ~start~ with something you “know” is right. But will it end there? It never has in the past. I am so glad this vermin was never made President. I shudder to think what the results might have been.
Philip N. says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Richard,
If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing?
……….. It’s according to the laws of physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation……..
==============================================================
Phillip, I hate to interrupt, but I’m a bit bored.
You talk as if those glaciers had always been there and that they are suppose to be there. They weren’t nor should they be there. They are remnants of the last ice age.
But then you go on to talk about physics…….. ok, Phillip, other than a general increase in temps of the tropics, is there any other physical reason why ice could disappear from the tropics? (Hint, it is well documented in regards to Kilimanjaro.) Why are we losing glaciers? Indeed.
R. Gates says:
August 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Davidmhoffer,
First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference to your perspective or understanding of how the basic systems of the earth are all interrelated nor the greater truth that in reality no man, or woman, or whale, or even cloud exists without the interactions and existence of the whole.>>>>
1. Your comment that you don’t sneer is followed by a sneer.
2. You side stepped the question. Again.
3. You resorted to an answer that is predicated on me being too stupid to understand the answer.
Sneering as charged. Sidestepped the issue as charged. No answer of any sort predicated upon facts, logic, or reasonable explanation. As charged.
R. Gates says:
August 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Davidmhoffer,
First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2,
========================================================
Sorry Gates, but as I said, I’m bored…….
ahahahahahahah!!! If a frog had a glass……. atmospheric CO2 is of little or no consequence….. but our little plants need the stuff……then the cycle…..etc…. what sort of sophistry are you peddling?
Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.
Butterflies make waves…….
Is R. Gates Amusing?
No he is not. He is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with this debate. Don’t believe me? Engage a 17 year old in a discusssion of global warming and what causes it. You’ll get drivel for the most part, assumptions of fact without any thought toward the underlying facts and logic. And a lot of it will sound just like R. Gates. On this forum he gets exposed regularly for his complete lack of knowledge and repeated bluffing on science. He throws comments around as if he has some basis in fact, science, and authority, but when challenged he’s all smoke and mirrors. Ask him to justify any of his claims, and he retreats immediately into “well you don’t understand chaos theory so there’s no point trying to explain to you” or something similar. He’s got nothing but claims that sound like good stories, and that is all they are: stories.
On this forum he gets debunked. I don’t know if he posts in other forums, but many like him do, and they represent the majority of commenters out there, that’s why the average 17 year old thinks he makes sense.
Debunk his bull every chance you get. Because every so often one of those 17 year olds googles something and just might get the chance to read an honest explanation to his totaly bogus claims.
R. Gates;
Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference >>>
BS #1. Well over 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapour and other gases. Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over, so your initial premise is bull.
BS #2. Hurricanes and any other weather for that matter are driven by temperature gradient. Since the tropics would cool the least, and the poles the most, in a cooling scenario, along with most cooling at night time lows and the least at day time highs, and the most in the depths of winter and the least at the height of summer, a cooler planet would have INCREASED temperature gradients and hence INCREASED storm frequency and intensity.
BS #3. The reverse of the above is also true. In a warming planet, the tropics would warm the least and the poles the most, and so on. Hence, the temperature gradients would DECREASE and the result would be REDUCED storm frequency and intensity.
Fact: NASA GissTemp and Hadcrut both show that there has been a warming trend over the last 150 years, it has been least at the tropics and the most at the poles.
Fact: The warming trend of the last 150 years shows no significant difference between those years before CO2 increases became significant, and those years afterward. Further, global temperatures have been FLAT for the last 15 to 20 years, and CO2 is the highest on record, yet the catastrophic accelerated warming predicted as a consequence is no where to be found, only the continued rise that was in place before fossil fuel consumption became significant, and is clearly decelerating to zero.
Fact: Commensurate with my explanation of the basic physics above, not only is what I said about the tropics verying in temperature the least and the poles the most, summers the least and winters the most, day time highs the least and night time lows the most born out by the temperature records themselves, my comments regarding reduced temperature gradients resulting in reduced storm frequency and intensity are also born out by the record, as Ryan Maue and others have shown with actual data.
Now Mr. Gates, will you please explain how CO2 and hurricanes is a parallel with whales and the oceans? Or will you neatly side step, sneer, and pontificate about chaos theory or sand piles or three body equations or some other meaningless drivel?
stevo says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm
[Snip. Don’t post like an insulting idiot. You are commenting on our host’s site. ~dbs, mod.]
_____________________________________________________
I caught that post, as I was watching Daryl Hannah on the O’Reilly Factor.
She had more credibility than Bill Nye !!!!
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
R. Gates;
Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference >>>
BS #1. Well over 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapour and other gases. Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over, so your initial premise is bull.
————-
Mr. Hoffer,
Your inability to understand even the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases, leads me to my previous conclusion that discussion of even more advanced concepts is pointless. If you honestly believe that the earth would not become an ice planet without CO2, then whatever odd laws of physics you believe in do not match this reality and we have little common ground.
James Sexton says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.”
____
Alright, let’s break this down a bit, despite the rather gross generalization, (i.e. “everything” is pretty general, don’t you agree?)I think I can sort of get what you’re trying to insinuate.
First of all, do you agree that we need liquid flowing water? If you answered yes, then of course, behind that statement is a whole host of other things that brought about liquid flowing water in this part of the universe, such as the explosion of a supernova long before our sun existed that created that wonderful oxygen atom that of course, along with hydrogen, makes up water…so those wonderful flora and fauna needed supernova to have existed…and perhaps that’s part of “everything” that you never even thought about, but I digress.
Let’s go back to flowing liquid water on earth. Do you agree that flora and fauna need that? Of course the answer is yes. Now, the odd thing about water as a vapor is that it does make a wonderful greenhouse gas that, along with the other greenhouse gases, helps to keep our planet warm enough to have liquid water on the surface, but, it is a condensing greenhouse gas, and is quickly removed from the atmosphere when temperatures cool. So much so, that, in the absence of the major non-condensing greenhouse gas, CO2, the water would continue to condense and the earth’s surface would continue to cool, and the atmosphere would get more and more dry, (not unlike the center of Antarctica by the way) until the earth was locked into a snowball state. Hence the reason we should all respect that little “trace” gas called CO2.
But back to your flora and fauna statement. The entire biosphere can be considered as a system of interrelated pieces, but some pieces are a bit more important than others, such that we have key species that support entire ecosystems. These species need not be the largest, but they are key in terms of the exchange of energy. One such key species would be plankton, which support entire ocean ecosystems. Take away plankton, and the ocean’s ecosystem would be in peril as the flow of energy (as food) would collapse.
So, is “everything” necessary for flora and fauna? Like any house of cards, you might successfully remove a few here and there, but take away a few of the key cards, or enough other ones, and down it comes. From supernova to water and CO2, these little pieces of “everything” are critical to flora and fauna existing on earth,
G. Karst says:
August 31, 2011 at 1:47 pm
My question (to R. Gates) is: What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma?
_____
How is the fact that CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas, and water vapor is not, dogma? It is not dogma to state that CO2 is critical to maintaining the wonderful greenhouse world we enjoy, and without it, not only would we all never have existed, the world would be quite cold.
Mr. Hoffer,
Your inability to understand even the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases>>>>
And once again.
1. Sneer.
2. Side step the question.
3. Posit yet another new claim with no explanation, no backup material, nothing.
So explain Mr Gates. You can’t seem to step up to your own BS about whales and oceans being somehow an analogy for Co2 and hurricanes, I just destroued your ridiculous claims about CO2 and snowball earth with theh ACTUAL physics, backed it up with the ACTUAL facts from the ACTUAL temperature record and the ACTUAL cyclone energy trends and guess what? MY PHYSICS AND ACTUAL REALWORD MEASUREMENTS MATCH!
And what is your stinging retort? Having neatly and totaly sidestepped the “well whales and oceans are like Co2 and hurricanes” challenge to explain yourself, you posited instead the ridiculous “well, if you don’t even understand thata planet with no CO2 turns into a snowball” which I also tore to shreds with facts and data that you don’t even TRY to refute, now you coming back with…
“well, your inability to understand the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases”
Ohmigod! Sneer! Side step! Posit a new claim equally ridiculous, equally full of it, and pntificate from on high how stupid I am.
SIR
The only stupid person is the one who would read your constant sneers, constant side stepping of the question, and constant introduction of yet another new, off topic, sneeering remark that has nothing at all to do with the previous discussion, and come away believeing that your eyes are blue. Because the only way your eyes are blue is if you are 1 quart bull sh*t low.
You haven’t answered my first point, my second, or my third. When you’ve grown the balls to actually answer any of those directly, with even a modicum of facts and logic, we can then get to your totaly offensive and comepletely without foundation comment about what I do or no not understand about condensing and non condensing gases. And no, you don’t get to suggest I go first, because you’ve had THREE opportunities to substanitate a SINGLE one of your claims and all you’ve done is change the subject, sneer, and claim superior intellect that makes engaging further not worth your time.
Tell me Sir Gates. If it isn’t worth your time, if I am so stupid that it isn’t worth it to you to even try and explain it to me, then why do you keep changing the subject? If I’m that dumb, you’d think you could provide an explanation that makes me look as dumb as you claim I am.
Countdown to yet another change in subject….three…two…
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
“Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over.”
_____
Flatly, clearly, unequivocally wrong. Why would I waste my time with further discussion when you spout such nonsense as this? I will even tolerate your constant ad hominems toward me, but when you can’t even get the basic science right, why bother going on with any more?
“Like any house of cards, you might successfully remove a few here and there, but take away a few of the key cards, or enough other ones, and down it comes.”
One of the advantages of the human mind is its ability to view (and rotate) objects solely within our imaginations in three dimensions. That advantage may also be used by manipulative individuals to conjure images such as a “house of cards” climate system, with “tipping points” looming on the horizon.
Too bad the house of cards is a poor metaphor for our planet. It assumes that the climate and the ecosystem that adapts with it are inherently unstable. The many peaks and valleys in the climate record (and the fossil record) indicate that it just is not so.
Notice also that Gates’ statement quoted above includes sublime imagery of humans “taking away” things from the planet. The imagery skillfully implies that we are a destructive lot.
One simple example that I like to bring forward when confronted by folks attempting to portray humans in that manner is the wonderful gardens that most folks tend at their homes. They range from simple decorative shrubbery to some of the most extrordinary works of living art. Regardless of their level of complexity, all are an attempt to improve and beautify, not destroy, our world. There are too many similar examples in art, architecture, music, etc to name, and they are real, not imagined. That is our real nature, so don’t let any cynic get away with using hypothetical imagery of a destructive mankind to convince you otherwise. It’s simply not so.
R. Gates says:
August 31, 2011 at 9:23 pm
James Sexton says:
August 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.”
____
Alright, let’s break this down a bit, despite the rather gross generalization, (i.e. “everything” is pretty general, don’t you agree?)I think I can sort of get what you’re trying to insinuate.
First of all, do you agree that we need liquid flowing water? If you answered yes, then of course, behind that statement is a whole host of other things that brought about liquid flowing water in this part of the universe, such as the explosion of a supernova long before our sun existed that created that wonderful oxygen atom that of course, along with hydrogen, makes up water…so those wonderful flora and fauna needed supernova to have existed…and perhaps that’s part of “everything” that you never even thought about, but I digress…….
=============================================================
Uhmm…… Gates, ……explosion of a supernova…….. sure prove that. You’re living a belief system based on superstition, it is a plausible explanation, but not a provable one. But, I appreciate that you have faith. I have a similar one.
Yes, life on this planet needs flowing water, but as I insinuated earlier, flowing water isn’t dependent upon a butterfly.
“….and is quickly removed from the atmosphere when temperatures cool. ….”……yes! So the mechanism for such cooling is??? Please present a winter time scenario where there’s no snow…… More, you don’t explain how the CO2 got here. It is fairly well accepted that the earth was a snowball, in the past on a few occasions. So, if CO2 is the cause for us not slipping back into being a snowball, from whence did the CO2 come?
In your “flora and fauna” paragraph, plankton is a great example! You are correct, the ocean would devoid of life with out plankton…… oddly that stuff seems to have survived the most extremes the history of this earth could provide!?!?! But, how can this be? If such cold kills everything, and if such CO2 acidifies so much that it kills even plankton……why is it still with us? The earth has been much warmer and colder, atmospheric CO2 levels, so we are told, have been much lower and higher. Yet, life persists!
Gates, when you put it all together, you’ll be scary! You’re a sharp guy but you’re not considering things in their totality. It isn’t a house of cards! It is a house built on solid ground! The Spark that ignited your super nova ensured it would be this way. This earth is durable. It sustains life throughout all of the extremes. It cannot be any other way and still explain current given knowledge, nor the current condition. Evidence shows that the earth and its flora and fauna isn’t nearly as fragile as you make it to be. Nor, are we as significant as many believe we are.
Best wishes,
James
James Sexton,
According to one theory the snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing owing to a combination of a) direct sublimation of glacial ice, bypassing the melting stage, and b) a snow drought. The authors of the chief study advancing this thesis say that the weather in the region of Kilimanjaro appears to be dependent on wind patterns over the Indian Ocean, which they say may well have been disrupted by global warming.
The authors of this study — a scientifically rigorous one, to take nothing from it — had not been to the summit of Kilimanjaro when they wrote their study. Members of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University have been there, within the last four years, and they found small ponds of melt water everywhere. Melting is very strong evidence of warming, in my book.
This is something new since Hemingway published his famous story in 1936; Hemingway could use the whiteness of the snow cap as a symbol of death, because, like death, it was an eternal feature of existence.
Of courser glaciers haven’t always been there — they’ve only been around for tens of thousands of years. Of course, they would disappear in the natural course of things. But why so quickly, all of a sudden, and now?
R. Gates says:
August 31, 2011 at 10:13 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
“Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over.”
_____
Flatly, clearly, unequivocally wrong.>>>
1. A statement presented as fact without a single shred of evidence. No theoretical explanations of the physics, no calculations based on theory, and no observational evidence presented in support. In other words, BS.
Why would I waste my time with further discussion when you spout such nonsense as this?>>>
2. Sneer. Unable to respond with any facts, physics, calculations, or observational evidence to support a single one of his claims, R. Gates resorts to a condescneding sneer, and expects his devoid of facts opinion to be a waste of his time to defend.
I will even tolerate your constant ad hominems toward me, but when you can’t even get the basic science right, why bother going on with any more?>>>>
3. Change of subject. Unable to defend a single point he made, unable to defend even his claim that he doesn’t sneer, unable to answer cogently a single question asked of him, R. Gates changes the subject to claim that he isn’t answering because of my constant “ad hominems”. If he would answer even ONE SINGLE QUESTION, DEFEND EVEN ONE SINGLE CLAIM with anything but sneers, condescending remarks about the stupidity of others being his excuse for not needing to answer, changing from one subject to another as if each was an answer to the one previous, and in each one implying that he needn’t answer the question because I’m too stupid to understand it anyway.
And then he claims that I’m given to ad hominem remarks?
Tell me R. Gates, what would be the right word for someone who makes claims they cannot substantiate, responds to questions about them by changing the subject, and/or claiming that the person asking the question isn’t smart enough to understand the answer, and then when exposed for spouting nothing but BS, complains they’ve been the victim of an ad hominem attack? I can think of several.
All you have to do R. Gates, to get some respect, is to respectfully answer the questions asked of you. Just defend your claims with the actual laws of physics, calculations, and observational evidence asked of you. No sneering, no condescending remarks about the inability of others to understand the science, no changing the subject, no “why should I even bother”, no excuses.
Just answer the questions. Just one.
Change of subject coming in three….two….
Philip N:
At August 31, 2011 at 3:58 pm I pointed out to you;
“
A negative feedback prevents tropical ocean surface temperatures rising above 305K (i.e. present maximum ocean surface temperature). This was first discovered as long ago as 1991
(ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) )
and has been confirmed by several studies since then.
”
And I explained the matter.
You have responded at August 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm by changing the subject and asking me;
“If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing?”
and by making irrelevant comments concerning radiative physics.
James Sexton answered both those responses at August 31, 2011 at 7:09 pm and I thank him for that.
Now, at September 1, 2011 at 1:20 am, you have completely changed the subject and attempt to dispute the excellent post by James Sexton. We have a fine troll by the name of R Gates who behaves like that, and we do not need another.
If you have a point you wish to present then present it. When your point is shown to be wrong then be grateful for the new knowledge you have been given.
Richard
Dave Worley:
At August 31, 2011 at 10:22 pm you say to R Gates;
“Notice also that Gates’ statement quoted above includes sublime imagery of humans “taking away” things from the planet. The imagery skillfully implies that we are a destructive lot.
One simple example that I like to bring forward when confronted by folks attempting to portray humans in that manner is the wonderful gardens that most folks tend at their homes.”
I think you may be amused by the following sermon illustration I have often used.
A Cotswold village had a new vicar. The Sun was shining on the vicar’s first morning in his new parish, so he decided to stroll through the village with a view to meeting his parishoners.
Very soon he came across a wall surrounding a garden with a Cotswold cottage at its center. The garden was beautiful. It was a riot of colourful flower beds among mown green grass. Among the flowers was a gentle stream that fell over a waterfall and made a pleasant sound as it sparkled in the sunlight. And a gravel path connected the front door of the cottage to a gate in the wall.
A man stood on the path and was using a hoe to do mysterious things to a flower bed. So, the vicar leant on the fence with a view to starting a conversation. The gardener noticed the vicar and his collar but said nothing and continued working with the hoe.
After a minute or two, the vicar decided to start a conversation, and he said;
“You know, when I see a the beauty of a garden like this I am in awe of God’s Creation.”
And the gardener replied;
“Aye, Vicar, but you should have seen the garden when God had it to himself.”
Richard
@ur momisugly Philip N.
Phillip, it is the local land use that effect the glaciers more than anything else. As you know, ice, especially glacial ice, is in constant motion. As such, there will always be sublimation and melt. But, something needs to replace the loss of ice, and that is the cause of the loss. Nothing is replacing the ice. Local land use changes and normal as well as abnormal variations in the weather patterns cause this.
Coincidentally, specific to Kilimanjaro, it seems the weather patterns have oscillated back to replacing the snow and ice.
Here’s a couple of articles you may find interesting.
“Vertical wall retreat that governs the retreat of plateau glaciers is irreversible, and changes in 20th century climate have not altered their continuous demise. Rapid retreat of slope glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century implies a strong departure from steady state conditions during this time. This strong imbalance can only be explained by a sudden shift in climate, which is not observed in the early 20th century. Results suggest glaciers on Kilimanjaro are merely remnants of a past climate rather than sensitive indicators of 20th century climate change.”
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0616/2006GL027084/2006GL027084.xml
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/jd1103/2010JD014712/2010JD014712.xml