Author Archives: zombieprocesses

The Thrill of Discussing Mature Topics with Children

In talking about an article I came across, one AGW true believer punctuated his immaturity by starting most of his posts with “liar liar pants on fire” and ending with “You are stupid.”  It didn’t help his public image by having an avatar of a semi-nude girl.

That is when you realize you are a philosopher debating with a clown.  I’m not getting full of myself by calling myself a “philosopher” because compared to this guy, I’m awesome.

But let’s not waste any time on that.  The article was about a graph comparing CO2 levels and changes in temperature.  It showed that there is no correlation.  Too bad they didn’t go with absolute temperatures rather than deltas.

 

 

Another Judicial Decision Ignored by White House

Original Article

Despite a Supreme Court Ruling that the EPA does not have the power, BHO says it does…

President Barack Obama will impose even steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.

Dieting

In early May I went to the doctor to get my prescriptions refilled.

The shocker:  I weighed 320 pounds!!!  One way or another, I could not live with that.

First thing I did was cut out all the junk I  had been eating.  I would eat two of those Hostess-like desserts a day.  I was eating 1 a week.  Then it the “what the heck” factor kicked in and BLUUP!

Also, the bottled green tea.  Those little puppies are deceiving.  Green tea’s gotta be good for you, right?  Well, it turns out that they are pretty much as bad for you as Pepsi.  Just like candy bars in a bottle.  They have as many calories as a full meal.  So, you have a choice: a bottle of green tea or a meal…

Once that had stabilized in my life (3 weeks of dropping 500 calories every 4 days), I got serious.

I chose the Mifflin-St Jeor method of determining calories.  It takes into account age, weight, height.  I then factor in activity level and fast loss versus easy loss.

At first, I said I was “sedentary.”  But then I found out that was for folks who are essentially bed-ridden.  I had my calorie in-take too low.  I tallied my weight as 314 pounds on 6/3.  307 on 6/10.  Too fast.

Now, on 8/1, I’m hovering around 290 pounds.  The 30 pound mark!

 

Introduction

Welcome. Today I will give you a quick intro to me.

I am what you may call a hard-core ultra-liberal. I prefer the term “progressive,” though. My thoughts are so forward and evolved.

Exceptions to the Liberal Tag…

Global Warming

It may be happening (just not in these past 18 years), but there is no way to show it is caused by humans. Quite the opposite. Water vapor comprises 96% of green house gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is a trace gas amongst the trace greenhouse gases. Man’s contribution to CO2 is trivial at most.

Government

The government needs to have minimal involvement in our lives. There is a role for government, but that role is limited.

Taxes

Many of us pay way too much while others pay more. The obscene comment that the rich must “pay their fair share” does not take into account the fact that our abusive “progressive” tax code already

Rush Limbaugh

I love him.

The Military

If you don’t like the military, I have no time for you.

Planned Parenthood

Why are we funding these people?

Affordable Care Act

An abomination. They say we need to repeal and replace this mess. No. The mere concept is an abomination. The disaster our government has foist upon us is inexcusable.

Favorite WEB Sites

Drudge Report

News Busters

Newsmax

Dilbert

Sometimes Fox News

Sun Power

Radiation from the planet is nearly all in the range 6-100 microns. CO2 absorbs/emits only at 15 microns (at sea level, pressure etc. broadens this to approximately 13-17 microns).

At sea level, it takes 10 microseconds for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon after it absorbs one but only about 0.0001 microseconds to thermalize the energy that the photon contained so thermalization prevails.

Water vapor has more than 400 absorption lines (absorption opportunities) per molecule in the range of terrestrial EMR compared to only one per molecule for CO2. Also, there are on average approximately 15,000 ppmv water vapor compared to the 100 ppmv or so increase in CO2. Thus the increase in CO2 has increased absorption
opportunities by only 1 in about 60,000.

Search “agwunveiled” to find out how this is part of the explanation of why CO2 change has no significant effect on climate change. Also, discover the identity of the two natural drivers that do, with 95% correlation since before 1900.

The Fallibility of Mann

Evidence that Dr Michael Mann misled a court..

This memorandum sets out evidence of falsehood with intent to mislead a court by Dr Michael E. Mann in a case in the District of Columbia against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review.

First, it will be demonstrated that Dr Michael Mann, the plaintiff and appellee in the case, materially misled the court in his Brief of Appellee filed 3 September 2014 by falsely stating (1) that the finding of Sir Muir Russell in an inquiry into revelations of malpractice by climate scientists in the “Climategate emails” that a depiction of three graphs of northern-hemisphere temperature changes from 1000-2000 AD, reconstructed from tree-rings and published on the front cover of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999 on the WMO’s 50thanniversary in 2000, was misleading “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Mann or with any graph prepared by him”; and (2) that “Dr Mann did not create this depiction”.

Second, it will be demonstrated that Dr Mann had reason to know each of these two statements was false in every material particular and was calculated to mislead the court on issues central to the proceedings.

Third, it will be demonstrated that a graph by Dr Mann and a depiction by him and others of his graph together with two similar graphs on the front cover of a widely-circulated official publication gravely misrepresented the scientific data so as to mislead policymakers into the adoption of costly regimes of taxation and regulation calculated to occasion substantial losses to taxpayers, and that Dr Mann knew the depiction was misleading, and that he was given an opportunity to correct it but did not correct it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/

Atmospheric Gases

H2O = 4% of atmosphere
CO2 = .04% of atmosphere
man-made CO2 = <1% of CO2

CO2 is a rare trace gas that is essential to our biosphere.  Why would we want to limit it?

CO2 hit 500+ PPM in 1800s, according to Slocum’s unedited data.
http://junkscience.com/2013/05/13/warmist-waterloo-did-the-atmosphere-hit-500-ppm-co2-in-the-1800s/

Mann makes no predictions?  A scientist put forward a theory with no predictions?  How on earth can that theory be validated without predictions?

Confidence in Models

Kristy624 said:

So those who link here from Drudge are uneducated and ignorant, yet you are the one posting a bunch of
talking points and conspiracy theories from some left wing website. So let’s talk
about the science. The hypothesis of CAGW is that as CO2 rises, global
temperatures will rise.

Here are the predictions made by climate models we are supposed to have COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN:

According to the IPCC, between the years 2000-2009, growth in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning was, on average, 3% per year, which exceeds the growth estimated by 35 of the 40 SRES scenarios. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the “worst case” scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. AR3 in 2001 projected a temperature rise of about 0.2
°C per decade for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

So we should be 0.3 C warmer by now, but we aren’t.

In 2007 we were told:

The new model developed at the Met’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci…

We should now be 0.3 C warmer than 2004, but we aren’t.

Then in 2009 we were told the latest super-duper models would silence the skeptics:

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

http://www.theguardian.com/env…

This study states we should have been 150% warmer by now than the IPCC predicted and we are nowhere near that.

That is a hypothesis fail.