Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[GSH]

As for the snow fall, its not a very difficult explanation either. Water vapor content of a parcel of air is tied to its temperature. The warmer the air, the more water it is able to hold. As air is pushed over mountains, you get adiabatic cooling as that air rises. This is what leads to higher precipitation amounts on mountains and rain shadows behind them. In essence, they squeeze the moisture out of the air that is pushed over them because of they incredible amounts of lift they provide.




Not interested in generalized crap about how most studies are wrong or misleading. The vast majority of studies are dry technical papers that don't have an agenda of any sort with the exception of informing you of new - and most likely - incredibly boring findings and research. Hearing someone say this tells me they are very much not familiar with peer review work much less "most" of peer reviewed science.

Oh, and nice try with the adiabatic cooling. But not with saturated air from the warm Indian Ocean rising up, as you describe. Of course, you need it to be adiabatic, to explain why it wouldn't be accretive to the supposed warming problem already in place. You either don't understand the process, our you do and you didn't think anyone could call you on it. As it is, you just made yourself look either stupid or dishonest. I'm going with the latter, as that is the way things are done in your religion.

I knew you wouldn't be interested in reading anything that challenges your religious beliefs. If you had said that you were familiar with it, or that you might read it, I would have given you some credit. Instead, you proved to be the typical religious zealot, unwilling to challenge dogma.

I'll leave you alone, and let you spew your nonsense at people who don't know any better. You simply aren't worth the time.

[MannyIsGod]

Heh... more deflection and subject-changing. I can see why you would want to move away from the Himalayas. But let's not just yet. Instead, how about just answering some very simple questions about your faith?

I'll ask again. If the Himalayas were losing ice due to rising temperature, how can they retain the ice from the new water you claim is being deposited?

I'll answer again. They lose ice at lower elevations where its warmed enough to melt ice. They gain ice when the humid air precipitates more heavily in the higher elevations that have not yet warmed enough to thaw the ice. The result is a net gain in ice because more snow falls than ice melts.

And if there is warm, humid air coming up from the Indian Ocean, why is all that additional heat not accelerating the ice melt that was supposedly already present?

Because as air rises it cools. Google adiabatic lapse rates and learn a thing or two about it.

Oddly, you claim that the "new ice" in the Himalayas is from this warm, humid air. So what you were really saying, although you didn't take the time to think about it, is that the ice was disappearing from lack of water. Because as soon as there was additional water, the ice quit disappearing. It didn't even matter that the water was in the form of warm, humid air. Somehow it froze, yet didn't add to the "warming" that was supposedly taking place.

Ice was never disappearing. It was melting. And of course the water favor in the air can freeze. Once again, look up what happens when warm air is forced over 20,000 feet into the air because of the world's largest mountain range. Orographic lift from the biggest mountain range in the world tends to be quite large.

The only alternative is that you somehow believe that this new ice is more resistant to warming. You don't believe that, do you?

Yes, this new ice has a melting point much higher. Its super ice that has resulted due to climate change. The water is infused with CO2 which has led to mightier water molecules than has ever been seen.

You're either incredibly stupid or you're trolling.

If you can't answer my questions, you're the one who looks like a dumbass. And you can't answer them, because there's no way you can twist logic far enough to encompass everything that's wrong with the "Indian Ocean humidity" theories.

I can answer them and I can break it down for you very simply but its either not working because you have a very poor understanding of spatial differences in temperature and basic atmospheric sciences. You think that the somehow a mountain is the same temp at 25,000 ft as it is at its base.

No - Al Gore is no climate scientist. And yet, there he is, standing in front of the UN, IPCC, etc., and shaping climate policy around the world. You zealots used to worship him, until he got exposed for the charlatan he is. Now you've tossed him under the bus. You used to refer to AGW, like it was the Holy Grail of Science. Now you've thrown it under the bus in favor of Global Climate Change. Every time something gets proven false, you simply say that it never really existed in your religion, and move on to the next thing.

When the link you posted is proven false, you'll deny any connection to it as well. There will always be another mercenary willing to supply you with some new holy relics.

I worshiped him? When exactly? My religion?

Nothing like someone with an extremely poor understanding of science giving lectures like this. Seems to happen quite a bit in this forum. And yet, somehow, all those with scientific training don't ever seem to side with people like you. I wonder why?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and nice try with the adiabatic cooling. But not with saturated air from the warm Indian Ocean rising up, as you describe. Of course, you need it to be adiabatic, to explain why it wouldn't be accretive to the supposed warming problem already in place. You either don't understand the process, our you do and you didn't think anyone could call you on it. As it is, you just made yourself look either stupid or dishonest. I'm going with the latter, as that is the way things are done in your religion.

Yeah, I don't understand one of the most basic processes involved in our atmosphere. Its adiabatic because the only reason its temp is dropping is not because heat is being removed but because the air is being forced up into an upper level of the atmosphere where the pressure is lower. Thus, the parcel of air in question expands while also dropping in pressure. So, there is no heat transfer but the temp still drops. Open a bottle of soda and watch the same process in place.

Orographic precipitation occurs on the windward side of mountains and is caused by the rising air motion of a large-scale flow of moist air across the mountain ridge, resulting in adiabatic cooling and condensation. In mountainous parts of the world subjected to relatively consistent winds (for example, the trade winds), a more moist climate usually prevails on the windward side of a mountain than on the leeward or downwind side. Moisture is removed by orographic lift, leaving drier air (see katabatic wind) on the descending and generally warming, leeward side where a rain shadow is observed.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(meteorology)

In other words, Delta U is equal to the negative W of the expanding gas since Q is 0. You get this, right?


But yes, I'm just making up that I don't understand.

I knew you wouldn't be interested in reading anything that challenges your religious beliefs. If you had said that you were familiar with it, or that you might read it, I would have given you some credit. Instead, you proved to be the typical religious zealot, unwilling to challenge dogma.

I'll leave you alone, and let you spew your nonsense at people who don't know any better. You simply aren't worth the time.

Oh no please, continue. This is quite entertaining.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, I knew many of you were damn stupid and disputed some of the basic tenets of climate science but this is the first person I've come across who disputes something as basic as the adiabatic nature of orgraphic lift.

SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

So, how high does air that is 80 degrees F have to go if it is saturated with water vapor in order to get down to the freezing point of water? 4500 meters or so. How high are the Himalayas again?

Just a bit higher than that, right? Just a bit.

[GSH]

One last thing before I go, dumb . Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?

And those audiences that Gore presented to? They were FULL of climate scientists. But not one of them stood up and refuted, or even questioned, any of the junk "science" being vomited by Gore and company. Instead, they all corroborated, and insisted that the "science" was irrefutable. At least until Jeffry Kargel exposed them. Jeffry Kargel - a freaking adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. But it had to be an adjunct, because everyone else was afraid of the backlash.

They ALL said the Himalayas were melting, or at least went along with it.

The one irrefutable truth is that climate "science" has become an academic circle-jerk. And every time the intellectual dishonesty is exposed, they close ranks and jerk faster. And then there's people like you, who would just love to get in the circle.

Adiabatic cooling my ass. In an open system. With saturated air from the AGW-warmed Indian Ocean. And that sounds believable to you? Like I said, you're either a fake, or a liar. Either way, I'm not interested in your local circle-jerk. I just wanted to give the other people here a little info that I knew you would neglect. B'bye.

[MannyIsGod]

Adiabatic cooling can't happen with saturated air?

Holy this is gold!

[MannyIsGod]

One last thing before I go, dumb . Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?

And those audiences that Gore presented to? They were FULL of climate scientists. But not one of them stood up and refuted, or even questioned, any of the junk "science" being vomited by Gore and company. Instead, they all corroborated, and insisted that the "science" was irrefutable. At least until Jeffry Kargel exposed them. Jeffry Kargel - a freaking adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. But it had to be an adjunct, because everyone else was afraid of the backlash.

They ALL said the Himalayas were melting, or at least went along with it.

The one irrefutable truth is that climate "science" has become an academic circle-jerk. And every time the intellectual dishonesty is exposed, they close ranks and jerk faster. And then there's people like you, who would just love to get in the circle.

Adiabatic cooling my ass. In an open system. With saturated air from the AGW-warmed Indian Ocean. And that sounds believable to you? Like I said, you're either a fake, or a liar. Either way, I'm not interested in your local circle-jerk. I just wanted to give the other people here a little info that I knew you would neglect. B'bye.

Dude complains about subject changing then does it. Scientists didn't stand up and interrupt an Al Gore speech so therefore climate science is a circle jerk.

I don't blame for tucking tail and taking off, GSH. I just think it makes you a pussy as well as stupid.

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/...118/index.html

Most scientists believe that over the long term those glaciers will melt. 8 years of observations that show a small gain don't change that anymore than a cold day in winter means that it won't warm up in Summer.

[Wild Cobra]

Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bull out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?

Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.

You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.

Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago.

He's a shill for the AGW crowd. I don't think he has ever been able to explain things in his own words. just always linking other people's work. I doubt he even understands it.

[GSH]

I decided to write this before going to bed, to give Manny a chance to humiliate himself. I'll post when I wake up, and everyone else can see if my predictions are right. I'd bet on it. Climate zombies are a pretty predictable lot.


Manny claims that "no climate scientist" believes that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt quickly. I handed him the specific name of an Argentinian climate scientist who published a paper for the UN that said they will melt by 2035, and a bunch of others who obviously believed it, or they would have questioned it. Manny will ignore that, and simply say that nobody believes it today (and by inference that they didn't believe it before). In other words, completely ignore the facts. And the fact, Manny, is that they totally bought the idea that the glaciers would melt by 2035. They believed it because it conformed with their agenda. They even made climate policy based on it. The reason they no longer believe it is because they got exposed by a simple adjunct professor in Arizona. And now they say, "We knew it all along." Just like you.

BTW dip - nobody questions that adiabatic cooling takes place, but it isn't the ONLY thing that takes place. You tried to change the subject again. The question is whether the heat from the (supposedly) AGW-warmed air would further contribute to the ice melt. You took the position that adiabatic cooling would be sufficient to make that a reality - that it would cause additional ice to form on the slopes, thereby masking the true warming taking place, but not causing any additional warming. That's just incredibly stupid. I could point you to a dozen easy real-life examples, but nothing is going to shake your faith in the true religion.



When I get up tomorrow, I'll just hit "post". If I'm wrong, and Manny admitted that the climate scientists believed that the glaciers were rapidly melting, I guess I'll look pretty stupid. Somehow, I'm not worried about it happening. Tomorrow I'll be back to important things - like basketball.

[MannyIsGod]

I decided to write this before going to bed, to give Manny a chance to humiliate himself. I'll post when I wake up, and everyone else can see if my predictions are right. I'd bet on it. Climate zombies are a pretty predictable lot.


Manny claims that "no climate scientist" believes that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt quickly. I handed him the specific name of an Argentinian climate scientist who published a paper for the UN that said they will melt by 2035, and a bunch of others who obviously believed it, or they would have questioned it. Manny will ignore that, and simply say that nobody believes it today (and by inference that they didn't believe it before). In other words, completely ignore the facts. And the fact, Manny, is that they totally bought the idea that the glaciers would melt by 2035. They believed it because it conformed with their agenda. They even made climate policy based on it. The reason they no longer believe it is because they got exposed by a simple adjunct professor in Arizona. And now they say, "We knew it all along." Just like you.

Links please.

BTW dip - nobody questions that adiabatic cooling takes place, but it isn't the ONLY thing that takes place. You tried to change the subject again. The question is whether the heat from the (supposedly) AGW-warmed air would further contribute to the ice melt. You took the position that adiabatic cooling would be sufficient to make that a reality - that it would cause additional ice to form on the slopes, thereby masking the true warming taking place, but not causing any additional warming. That's just incredibly stupid. I could point you to a dozen easy real-life examples, but nothing is going to shake your faith in the true religion.

LOL?

When I get up tomorrow, I'll just hit "post". If I'm wrong, and Manny admitted that the climate scientists believed that the glaciers were rapidly melting, I guess I'll look pretty stupid. Somehow, I'm not worried about it happening. Tomorrow I'll be back to important things - like basketball.

LOL

[RandomGuy]

There will now be a brief intermission, while certain parties consult the Holy Book of Gore for a rebuttal.

"Yea, the warming doth cause the ice to melt. But verily I say unto you - when warm moist air doth enter that same region, it shall not cause further melting. Yea, instead it shall cause more ice to form.

And it came to pass that more ice formed. And, lo, the new ice melteth not like the old, but resisted the new heat of the evil Indian Ocean and remained. And though the old ice continueth to melt, yea the new ice formeth and replaceth it. And then some.

And ice for an ice, and a truth for a truth. As it is written, so shall it be Gore. Forever and ever, amen."

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.

[DarrinS]

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.

Wow. Did you just punt?

[RandomGuy]

One last thing before I go, dumb . Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?

It would help if you spelled his name correctly, and if the gentleman involved actually wrote any papers on the Himalayas at all.

From what I could find of his work, it appears to be focused on the hydrology of South America.

Can you actually provide a link to any of his papers and cite the actual work where he claims that Himilayan glaciers will melt by 2035?

FWIW, here is an IPCC statement on the subject, admitting they ed up.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations...anuary2010.pdf

Here is the paragraph:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at
the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)"


The 2035 figure was from a WWF paper that repeated what amounts to a typo in the 2001 IPCC assessment that has come back to haunt them.


Here is a pretty good article in the Christian Science Monitor about it:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/...taken/(page)/2


"People are not reading the details and they are only looking at the executive summaries and commenting," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi.

But he also worries that those trumpeting the IPCC mistake are also jumping to false conclusions. "The glacier debate is playing into the hands of the polluters – by rubbishing the IPCC report, which I think it correct to question. But to say that climate change is not happening because someone wrote 2035 in chapter 10 is taking it too far."
-----------------------------------------------------


I think hanging one's hat on what amounts to a typo that no one caught in a thousand page report in order to claim to have debunked the all the work of thousands of other scientists over decades is a bit of a stretch.

Is that what you are implying?

[RandomGuy]

Wow. Did you just punt?

Not really. But you are cute for thinking so.

(rubs the top of your pointy head)

[TeyshaBlue]

Thread delivers.

[Wild Cobra]

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

True.

Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Just because 90% or more of the people don't understand, isn't cause. Even if people like me are wrong, that oil depletion will hamper continued used of fossil fules and make the scare tactics of the AGW crowd meaningless anyway.

Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.

It appears coal will last the longest, but it isn't portable like oil and gas. At some point, new technologies and/or nuclear will naturally take the place of fossil fuel.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. Did you just punt?

If that was a punt, he was at least reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

If that was a punt, he was at least reasonable.

I still think the science, typos aside, provides enough evidence to conclude w that 1) We are probably the cause of the CO2 e in our atmosphere, and 2) the CO2 is probably driving a warming trend.

That is why it was not a punt, as I have not seen anything presented that will outweigh the work of the actual scientists involved.

I can note, that the debate about the issue is moot in my mind, and hijacked by people with ideological axes to grind on both sides, one far more so than the other, as noted by the OP's theme.

[Wild Cobra]

I still think the science, typos aside, provides enough evidence to conclude w that 1) We are probably the cause of the CO2 e in our atmosphere, and 2) the CO2 is probably driving a warming trend.

And we disagree. now i will concede that CO2 is higher than the equilibrium point, but that's only because equilibrium isn't instantaneous. With a system as large as our globe, equilibrium takes a pretty long time.

That is why it was not a punt, as I have not seen anything presented that will outweigh the work of the actual scientists involved.

What about them ignoring the factors that would detract from their end result?

I can note, that the debate about the issue is moot in my mind, and hijacked by people with ideological axes to grind on both sides, one far more so than the other, as noted by the OP's theme.

My biggest concern is the economic expenditures of trying to force a world agenda that is expense, and will do no good in the end. If that's an ideological agenda, then so be it.

[RandomGuy]

My biggest concern is the economic expenditures of trying to force a world agenda that is expense, and will do no good in the end. If that's an ideological agenda, then so be it.

"do no good in the end"

Shifting now to renewables and cutting CO2 will insulate ourselves from the disruption that will be caused by the depletion of the cheap fossil fuels that is just on the horizon.

Let other countries have the coal power plants and gasoline cars, and spend their money on infrastructure for energy that gets more expensive at faster and faster rates.

This, unfortunately, is a long-term trend that short-term focused private-market companies will ignore until it is too late to avoid a lot of disruption.

"stay the course" didnt work out too well for Captain Edward Smith.

I would hate for people who can't internalize the fact that their underlying assumptions are faulty and that the world has changed around them drive our public policy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.

You ing disgusting hypocrite. You are the one trying to pigeonhole this discussion to ice on the Himalayans. You are the one trying to say that the NIST report claims the warming has stopped using cooked graphs from mailers.

This is tired bull . If you read the NIST reports or any of the others the scientists do not fixate on a single region of the world. Thats what you and your handlers do.

[Wild Cobra]

"do no good in the end"

Shifting now to renewables and cutting CO2 will insulate ourselves from the disruption that will be caused by the depletion of the cheap fossil fuels that is just on the horizon.

This is a process that will happen naturally through the laws of supply and demand economics. It doesn't need to be forced upon us.

[Agloco]

Adiabatic cooling can't happen with saturated air?

Holy this is gold!

Indeed.

[Wild Cobra]

Thank God for Global warming, or it would really be cold!

Danube River freezes for first time in 25 years

Venice's canals freeze over

Scenes From Europe's Frozen Cities

Europe's Danube freezes over One of the greatest rivers in Europe

The Black Sea freezes over!