2014 hottest year on record

[vintage cessna]

Well I think it is BS, those with "wealth" notice ridiculous energy costs with subdued annoyance. Those without wealth are significantly affected by these schemes and are forced to make a choice between a tank of oil or food and medicine, all over something that if you believe all the hype, even the offered "solutions" won't solve.

That is right on. If anything the wealthy are the ones in a position to capatalize and benefit the most in a "green" economy. It will be the poor who would suffer the most.

It is hard for someone sitting in the fantasyland of a college campus or a naval gazer to grasp that though.

 

[Henning]

Many people who accumulated great wealth, despite the idiocy of socialists, progressives, communists, and those like jimmy, who are so insanely jealous of those who have what they themselves want, had not only the vision necessary to gain their wealth, but took the risks to do so.

What you are saying is nothing but projection and pretense.

Those who attained the greatest levels of wealth did so brutally with no concern with who or what they damaged. I don't think you actually understand what 'great wealth' is and what it takes to accumulate billions in a lifespan.

 

[PaulS]

Those who attained the greatest levels of wealth did so brutally with no concern with who or what they damaged. I don't think you actually understand what 'great wealth' is and what it takes to accumulate billions in a lifespan.

You mean like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Paul McCartney, Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah et al????

 

[azure]

Of course the evidence has been falsified. You don't have to take my or anyone else's word for it. All you have to do is go directly to the source and read the climategate Emails. You won't read those Emails becuase they will tell you something you don't want to hear. You would rather read an apologists summary telling you it was no big deal.

I've read parts of the email archive but I'm not about to read 160 MB worth of emails, especially when I know they've been filtered by the hackers. Maybe you could point me to a specific email that casts doubt on the *instrumental* data? (not talking about proxies here - the graph I posted was from historical measurements only)

The graph you posted is based on that "fudged" data. If you ever look at a real graph where the numbers have not been " adjusted" ( adjusted for reasons unknown, no explanation offered, evidence destroyed) it is plain to see that there is no correlation of an increase of CO2 then temperature rise. Just in the modern temperature record there is evidence of the direct opposite of correlation.

Here is where you join the tinfoil hat brigade. The reasons for the NCDC adjustments were all documented clearly. Nothing was hidden, no evidence was destroyed.

How many studies of ice cores do you need to see? They all show temperature increase then an increase of CO2 . The increase of CO2 is at least a 500 year lag. You don't need a lot of resolution with that amount of lag to see that the increase of CO2 comes much later. The increase in CO2 is obviously not one of your idiotic feedback mechanisms to reinforce temperature.

As usual, you don't know what you don't know. When you characterize feedback mechanisms as "idiotic", you are displaying ignorance.

The lag is clearly visible in some transitions, and unresolvable in others. But contrary to what you say, feedbacks can act over timescales of much longer than 500 years. I don't have the time to argue point by point on that issue so I'll just refer you to a link that explains the results of some research a couple of years ago on the end-Pleistocene transition showing an initial warming confined mainly to the southern hemisphere, followed by a CO2 rise, followed by most of the warming in the northern hemisphere. They link to the paper itself too, though it's behind a paywall.

There has only been one experiment testing the Greenhouse theory. That was conducted by Robert Wood in 1909. Before you call Wood a crackpot you may want to check out his career. This man was a giant, but you never even heard of him, becuase the MMGW people would prefer he never lived. Wood's experiment disproved the Greenhouse theory. His experiment has been repeated successfully.

Bullhockey. Wood's experiment was poorly documented and has never been repeated in a way that would decide whether radiation trapping is a significant part of how an actual greenhouse works. If it turned out the effect was insignificant, it still wouldn't matter as there is a big difference between a thin pane of glass and a massive and optically thick layer of atmosphere. Wood's (and Nahle's) experiment have no bearing on what happens in the atmosphere.

It would be interesting to construct a graph with you and people like you on one axis, and the scientific method on the other axis. It would without a doubt show NO correlation!

Whatever...

 

[vintage cessna]

I've read parts of the email archive but I'm not about to read 160 MB worth of emails, especially when I know they've been filtered by the hackers. Maybe you could point me to a specific email that casts doubt on the *instrumental* data? (not talking about proxies here - the graph I posted was from historical measurements only)

Here is where you join the tinfoil hat brigade. The reasons for the NCDC adjustments were all documented clearly. Nothing was hidden, no evidence was destroyed.

As usual, you don't know what you don't know. When you characterize feedback mechanisms as "idiotic", you are displaying ignorance.

The lag is clearly visible in some transitions, and unresolvable in others. But contrary to what you say, feedbacks can act over timescales of much longer than 500 years. I don't have the time to argue point by point on that issue so I'll just refer you to a link that explains the results of some research a couple of years ago on the end-Pleistocene transition showing an initial warming confined mainly to the southern hemisphere, followed by a CO2 rise, followed by most of the warming in the northern hemisphere. They link to the paper itself too, though it's behind a paywall.

Bullhockey. Wood's experiment was poorly documented and has never been repeated in a way that would decide whether radiation trapping is a significant part of how an actual greenhouse works. If it turned out the effect was insignificant, it still wouldn't matter as there is a big difference between a thin pane of glass and a massive and optically thick layer of atmosphere. Wood's (and Nahle's) experiment have no bearing on what happens in the atmosphere.

Whatever...

Good regurgitatation of the party line .

 

[vintage cessna]

I've read parts of the email archive but I'm not about to read 160 MB worth of emails, especially when I know they've been filtered by the hackers. Maybe you could point me to a specific email that casts doubt on the *instrumental* data? (not talking about proxies here - the graph I posted was from historical measurements only)

Here is where you join the tinfoil hat brigade. The reasons for the NCDC adjustments were all documented clearly. Nothing was hidden, no evidence was destroyed.

As usual, you don't know what you don't know. When you characterize feedback mechanisms as "idiotic", you are displaying ignorance.

The lag is clearly visible in some transitions, and unresolvable in others. But contrary to what you say, feedbacks can act over timescales of much longer than 500 years. I don't have the time to argue point by point on that issue so I'll just refer you to a link that explains the results of some research a couple of years ago on the end-Pleistocene transition showing an initial warming confined mainly to the southern hemisphere, followed by a CO2 rise, followed by most of the warming in the northern hemisphere. They link to the paper itself too, though it's behind a paywall.

Bullhockey. Wood's experiment was poorly documented and has never been repeated in a way that would decide whether radiation trapping is a significant part of how an actual greenhouse works. If it turned out the effect was insignificant, it still wouldn't matter as there is a big difference between a thin pane of glass and a massive and optically thick layer of atmosphere. Wood's (and Nahle's) experiment have no bearing on what happens in the atmosphere.

Whatever...

Oh, BTW, hope your journey on the spacecraft to save mankind goes well.

 

[Henning]

You mean like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Paul McCartney, Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah et al????

Yes, you think Microsoft didn't slash and burn every competitor the could on their way up? You think Buffet acts out of altruism? Paul McCartney is barely wealthy, same for Oprah. Zuckerberg would sell your soul if he could figure out a way for Facebook to access and market it. The real wealth and more importantly, power and influence over entire societies and the financial system itself though still lies with the same families it has for hundreds of years. The power over us lies with the same families the founders revolted against in 1776.

 

[vintage cessna]

You want to talk about greed and corruption? Our Universities have become parasitic cesspools of greed and corruption.

There was a time when a young person of modest background could work their way through college. Then the federal government ,with great encouragement from higher education ,came up with idea of federal guarantee of student loans.
This was going to "help" people obtain a higher education.

It helped alright. Allowed Universities to push costs ever upward to increase profits and make debt slaves of students.

Massive federal funding of research further corrupted and enriched Univerities. Whatever answer the government is looking for, they will give it. Climate research a classic example. The Universities are all about money now.

 

[PaulS]

Yes, you think Microsoft didn't slash and burn every competitor the could on their way up? You think Buffet acts out of altruism? Paul McCartney is barely wealthy, same for Oprah. Zuckerberg would sell your soul if he could figure out a way for Facebook to access and market it. The real wealth and more importantly, power and influence over entire societies and the financial system itself though still lies with the same families it has for hundreds of years. The power over us lies with the same families the founders revolted against in 1776.

That's not brutality, man your envy and jealousy really clouds your message and honestly, you are obsessed, you shouldn't let these people into your head like you do.....

 

[Norman]

You want to talk about greed and corruption? Our Universities have become parasitic cesspools of greed and corruption.

There was a time when a young person of modest background could work their way through college. Then the federal government ,with great encouragement from higher education ,came up with idea of federal guarantee of student loans.
This was going to "help" people obtain a higher education.

It helped alright. Allowed Universities to push costs ever upward to increase profits and make debt slaves of students.

Massive federal funding of research further corrupted and enriched Univerities. Whatever answer the government is looking for, they will give it. Climate research a classic example. The Universities are all about money now.

Amen.

 

[73challenger]

First post...

Welcome to POA..

Thank you for the welcome. It's quite entertaining here. A lot can be said about pilots, but one thing that cannot be said is that pilots are a dumb lot! Many good minds here. Some I agree with and some I don't, but I'm amazed at everyone's ability to back up their respective arguments ( and their ability to argue)! I can listen to anyone's opinion that has taken time to inform themselves. Cheers to you all!

 

[Florida Cracker]

Those who attained the greatest levels of wealth did so brutally with no concern with who or what they damaged. I don't think you actually understand what 'great wealth' is and what it takes to accumulate billions in a lifespan.

You are tearing pages out of the communist manifesto right and left with this one.

Can you describe how EVERY wealthy person did this, or are you only talking about those evil Koch brothers, again, because you object to their voter ID?

 

[Henning]

You want to talk about greed and corruption? Our Universities have become parasitic cesspools of greed and corruption.

There was a time when a young person of modest background could work their way through college. Then the federal government ,with great encouragement from higher education ,came up with idea of federal guarantee of student loans.
This was going to "help" people obtain a higher education.

It helped alright. Allowed Universities to push costs ever upward to increase profits and make debt slaves of students.

Massive federal funding of research further corrupted and enriched Univerities. Whatever answer the government is looking for, they will give it. Climate research a classic example. The Universities are all about money now.

I don't disagree one bit. The university and even primary and secondary education system have been used to stagnate learning for as long as I have been alive. We don't value knowledge, we don't value learning, we value only the money they bring us.

 

[Henning]

You are tearing pages out of the communist manifesto right and left with this one.

Can you describe how EVERY wealthy person did this, or are you only talking about those evil Koch brothers, again, because you object to their voter ID?

Marx did not write what he wrote in a vacuum. The conditions that existed then were accurate, and they still exist. Greed overthrew the Bolshevik revolution same as the American Revolution. My words are directly out of The Federalist Papers as well.

 

[N801BH]

I don't disagree one bit. The university and even primary and secondary education system have been used to stagnate learning for as long as I have been alive. We don't value knowledge, we don't value learning, we value only the money they bring us.

You do realize that Azure is a collage professor and her income is from the "academic machine" .....

 

[Henning]

You do realize that Azure is a collage professor and her income is from the "academic machine" .....

No different from anyone else really. We all contribute to the corruption of the system because we have developed a system of economics with no option.

 

[Norman]

You do realize that Azure is a collage professor and her income is from the "academic machine" .....

That title and a couple bucks will get her a cup of coffee anywhere.

 

[Henning]

That title and a couple bucks will get her a cup of coffee anywhere.

No, Collage Professors make high dollar collages.

 

[vintage cessna]

From reading this thread I can see that a lot of people haven't bought off on the MMGW proposition. I think the only real true believers are the super educated. That is why William F Buckley said he would rather be ruled by randomly selected people from the Boston City phone book than the faculty of Harvard.

The only reason today anyone thinks the Earth is warmer than it should be (cold Earth fallacy) is becuase some scientists in the 1800's were confused about how a real Greenhouse works. They thought a Greenhouse warmed becuase of IR back radition. But it was proven in 1909 that was incorrect, a Greenhouse heats up becuase convective cooling is blocked by the ceiling of a Greenhouse. Convective cooling is why the surface of the Earth doesn't reach the extreme daytime temperature of the Moon. Radiative cooling is too slow. If you come across someone with heat stroke you better do something other than place them in the shade and let them cool radiatively.

Think about what these people are telling you. The Earth warms then radiates heat in the IR, CO2 intercepts this and reradiates about 25-30% of this back to the surface providing further warming. Anyone see a problem with this? First they somehow twist the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by saying heat can move from cold ( atmosphere) to warm ( Earth). Now when they call something a law in science that means it is irrefutable, well to some scientists anyway. But you don't even need to be aware of this law to know it wouldn't work. Heck, just get a light source, shine it through a proper filter that mimics the atmosphere, set up some reflectors and you can generate all the heat energy you want. All our problems are solved! But wait, next they will tell you CO2 will slow down radiative cooling. Well the vast majority of surface cooling is taken care of by convective cooling. And how would a gas that almost instantaneously reradiates the IR slow down anything. CO2 doesn't produce any heat, it just scatters it. It is just another conduit.

There is an equation, that assumes the planets will radiate like a black body, that says the Earth should be -18F ( cold Earth fallacy). If scientists of the 1800's understood how a real Greenhouse worked and also understood that a planet by having an atmosphere and gravity will be warmer than the equation predicted, we would not have this Greenhouse theory. Every planet with an atmosphere that we have sent probes to shows temperature increasing with atmospheric pressure. They all have similar profiles to Earth. Even Jupiter, which has no Greenhouse gases. No need at all to invent a theory of why the Earth is warmer than an equation predicted.

It is odd how science works. A wrong headed idea can gain wide spread acceptance and stay that way for a long time. Hundreds of years sometimes, until there is a breakthrough. Since the Greenhouse theory wasn't controversial for much of its' life it didn't get much attention until recently. But, now that disciplines other than climate science are taking a hard look, it is not going to survive.

This theory has been latched onto by whoever for their own purposes. Margaret Thatcher did it first to promote nuclear power. Now the Greens becuase they don't like fossil fuels.
Doesn't look like it is going to work though, becuase you can't fool all the people all the time.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

That's not brutality, man your envy and jealousy really clouds your message and honestly, you are obsessed, you shouldn't let these people into your head like you do.....

Notice how the hot air gasbags always use this excuse ( envy- jealousy) when someone is rational about the abuse of power, abuse of the system. It's laughable as they are getting hosed along with the rest of us! Like lemmings they race towards the cliff. Teddy Roosevelt , years ago , had the guts to confront this abuse. Today it's so corrupt , everyone's involved and only looks to short term gain, screw the future. Warren Buffett paid lip service to the problem but doesn't really want change.( Global warming is easily proven by photographs and core drills. It's immense and growing. )

 

[vintage cessna]

Notice how the hot air gasbags always use this excuse ( envy- jealousy) when someone is rational about the abuse of power, abuse of the system. It's laughable as they are getting hosed along with the rest of us! Like lemmings they race towards the cliff. Teddy Roosevelt , years ago , had the guts to confront this abuse. Today it's so corrupt , everyone's involved and only looks to short term gain, screw the future. Warren Buffett paid lip service to the problem but doesn't really want change.( Global warming is easily proven by photographs and core drills. It's immense and growing. )

Even if you do think there is evidence of global warming, what you don't have is any evidence of a connection to CO2. The dumbest thing we could do is degrade our economy and waste resources fighting a ghost.

They had to lie and deceive to convince the public, and some scientists, of the connection. Hockey stick graph, An Inconvient Truth, cased closed.

 

[vintage cessna]

Notice how the hot air gasbags always use this excuse ( envy- jealousy) when someone is rational about the abuse of power, abuse of the system. It's laughable as they are getting hosed along with the rest of us! Like lemmings they race towards the cliff. Teddy Roosevelt , years ago , had the guts to confront this abuse. Today it's so corrupt , everyone's involved and only looks to short term gain, screw the future. Warren Buffett paid lip service to the problem but doesn't really want change.( Global warming is easily proven by photographs and core drills. It's immense and growing. )

Yep, we are all getting hosed. Nothing we can do becuase the system is stacked against us. Yet I have a lifestyle that would have been envied by the richest of the rich 100 years ago. Yep, we are all kept down, no chance to get ours.

When hasn't there been abuse of power? That is why the founding fathers established a constitutional republic. It has worked fairly well so far in limiting that abuse.

 

[Henning]

Yep, we are all getting hosed. Nothing we can do becuase the system is stacked against us. Yet I have a lifestyle that would have been envied by the richest of the rich 100 years ago. Yep, we are all kept down, no chance to get ours.

When hasn't there been abuse of power? That is why the founding fathers established a constitutional republic. It has worked fairly well so far in limiting that abuse.

Except the fact over the last hundred years all the constitutional protections against the financial industry have been defeated.

 

[vintage cessna]

Except the fact over the last hundred years all the constitutional protections against the financial industry have been defeated.

We are working on that. That is why we all must begin demanding a public audit of the Federal Reserve. Also a complete overhaul of a system that gurantees risk free profit for the banks, with the taxpayer as the ultimate co signer of bad debt.

First the housing debt bubble burst, next is the student debt bubble. After that, perhaps default on Green debt.

 

[Henning]

We are working on that. That is why we all must begin demanding a public audit of the Federal Reserve. Also a complete overhaul of a system that gurantees risk free profit for the banks, with the taxpayer as the ultimate co signer of bad debt.

First the housing debt bubble burst, next is the student debt bubble. After that, perhaps default on Green debt.

The Federal Reserve tells the government what to do. They will not allow an audit, and besides, an audit will show everything accurate. There is no need to cheat the rules you wrote.

 

[Florida Cracker]

...So... henning, who are these powerful boggy men you keep damning? Where do they live, and how did they earn all their money, you are so jealous of?

What are their names and who did they kill, steal from, abuse, and crush to get it all?

When will you pull back the cover and disclose who the hell you are babbling about with such passion?

 

[Henning]

...So... henning, who are these powerful boggy men you keep damning? Where do they live, and how did they earn all their money, you are so jealous of?

What are their names and who did they kill, steal from, abuse, and crush to get it all?

When will you pull back the cover and disclose who the hell you are babbling about with such passion?

They have mansions and yachts around the world that they get to in their private jets. They have never worked a day in their life and just collect money from you. They aren't boogeymen, they are spoiled brats that you bow to.

 

[Florida Cracker]

They have mansions and yachts around the world that they get to in their private jets. They have never worked a day in their life and just collect money from you. They aren't boogeymen, they are spoiled brats that you bow to.

So!

Who are they? What are the names of these evil, planet killing, water ruining, starvation loving, dirty air mongering, soulless, evil rich?

Surely as often as you rant and rave in your jealous fits about the super rich, evil rich and banker rich people, you know exactly who you are attacking, right?

 

[Ghery]

So!

Who are they? What are the names of these evil, planet killing, water ruining, starvation loving, dirty air mongering, soulless, evil rich?

Surely as often as you rant and rave in your jealous fits about the super rich, evil rich and banker rich people, you know exactly who you are attacking, right?

The people who hire him to run their yachts, perhaps?

This has been an interesting "discussion". I'll just kick back and enjoy some more popcorn while I watch.

 

[Henning]

So!

Who are they? What are the names of these evil, planet killing, water ruining, starvation loving, dirty air mongering, soulless, evil rich?

Surely as often as you rant and rave in your jealous fits about the super rich, evil rich and banker rich people, you know exactly who you are attacking, right?

There are many individuals named in the trusts involved. There's plenty of reading you can do in public records. It doesn't matter though because you defend their right to take anything they can get hold of to protect your right to do the same. I figure you'll reincarnate as a raccoon.

 

[vintage cessna]

Any physicists out there a member of the American Physical Society. Link is to an interesting letter.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...scientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

 

[vintage cessna]

Here is a link to an analysis of the climategate Emails, for those of you that are interested.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/climategate_analysis.pdf

 

[LDJones]

Hawkings says science has proved there is no god. I guess that settles it.

That was the 60s. The more we learn, the more obvious the existence of a Creator becomes.

 

[ChrisK]

We're doomed.

 

[azure]

Think about what these people are telling you. The Earth warms then radiates heat in the IR, CO2 intercepts this and reradiates about 25-30% of this back to the surface providing further warming. Anyone see a problem with this? First they somehow twist the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by saying heat can move from cold ( atmosphere) to warm ( Earth). Now when they call something a law in science that means it is irrefutable, well to some scientists anyway. But you don't even need to be aware of this law to know it wouldn't work. Heck, just get a light source, shine it through a proper filter that mimics the atmosphere, set up some reflectors and you can generate all the heat energy you want. All our problems are solved! But wait, next they will tell you CO2 will slow down radiative cooling. Well the vast majority of surface cooling is taken care of by convective cooling. And how would a gas that almost instantaneously reradiates the IR slow down anything. CO2 doesn't produce any heat, it just scatters it. It is just another conduit.

Your arguments have already been refuted six ways from Sunday, but just in case someone isn't up to speed and doesn't want to slog through 800+ posts:

CO2 doesn't provide "further warming". It slows the escape of heat from the surface, effectively acting like insulation. Ordinary insulation slows the escape of heat by providing a barrier to thermal conduction. In the case of the planet, the heat is in the form of IR radiation and the CO2 absorbs the upward radiation and keeps its energy in the system, but otherwise the basic principle is the same. By your argument it would make no sense to wear a coat when it's warm outside, or insulate the walls of a house to cut down your heating bill.

Convection only cools the surface, it doesn't cool the planet as a whole because the atmosphere can't escape into space.

Re-radiation by CO2 is NOT instantaneous, but even if it were, some of the re-radiated energy goes back downwards, and that by itself would slow the escape of heat. As it turns out, most CO2 molecules that have absorbed an IR photon transfer that energy to other molecules via collisions, so we are back to convection which cannot cool the planet as a whole anyway.

There are two effects, scattering and absorption, neither of which produce heat. Most molecules in the atmosphere scatter IR radiation only. CO2 can do either but is much likelier to absorb it.

There is an equation, that assumes the planets will radiate like a black body, that says the Earth should be -18F ( cold Earth fallacy). If scientists of the 1800's understood how a real Greenhouse worked and also understood that a planet by having an atmosphere and gravity will be warmer than the equation predicted, we would not have this Greenhouse theory. Every planet with an atmosphere that we have sent probes to shows temperature increasing with atmospheric pressure. They all have similar profiles to Earth. Even Jupiter, which has no Greenhouse gases. No need at all to invent a theory of why the Earth is warmer than an equation predicted.

Yes, the temperature in an atmosphere will (generally, everything else being equal) increase as the pressure increases on the way down. But the equation only predicts what the temperature should be at the altitude from which the radiation can escape into space. With a greenhouse effect, that altitude is high in the atmosphere. Without a greenhouse effect, that altitude is ground level, and at every altitude on the way up it is colder than it would be with a greenhouse effect.

It is odd how science works. A wrong headed idea can gain wide spread acceptance and stay that way for a long time. Hundreds of years sometimes, until there is a breakthrough. Since the Greenhouse theory wasn't controversial for much of its' life it didn't get much attention until recently. But, now that disciplines other than climate science are taking a hard look, it is not going to survive.

The theory of blackbody radiation is based on a very deep level on the laws of thermodynamics. The Greenhouse effect mechanism is based on the theory of blackbody radiation. Does anyone really think that it would have taken over 100 years for someone to spot that the mechanism contradicts thermodynamics? That assertion defies common sense, unless you think that physicists are complete morons.

 

[azure]

Any physicists out there a member of the American Physical Society. Link is to an interesting letter.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...scientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Here is a link to the APS response:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

In case anyone tries to suggest that the APS Topical Group on Climate is a closed secret society, the truth is that any APS member can join any topical group. I would have to dig out my invoices, but IIRC there is not even an extra dues charge for topical group membership. I've been a member of the climate topical group since its inception, though I'm not even close to being an active researcher in the field.

 

[azure]

Umm... in #835 that should have been "otherwise, it would make no sense to wear a coat when it's COLD outside".

 

[Florida Cracker]

There are many individuals named in the trusts involved. There's plenty of reading you can do in public records.

Ok. I got it. You're full of ****, not connecting the dots, just attacking, whining, accusing and demanding people don't notice.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.

IMO, man can't help but affect the climate. Just like volcanoes, forests, large fires and other contributors to the atmosphere. But man has never, will never, and could never begin, end or significantly influence the glacial cycles of our planet. The contributions of man are laughingly miniscule when compared to the incredibly powerful engine that is our sun/planet/moon.

Please don't take this as me trying to say that we shouldn't clean up our act and live in a healthier world. We can, and we should. But don't delude yourself into thinking that any changes we make will have any real or lasting affect on our global climate.

I'll just leave these two graphs here. Glacial periods last ~100,000 years. That's a very long period of cold climate. Interglacial periods last ~10,000-20,000 years, which is a relatively short period of warmer climate. So it's normal for the Earth to be in a state of climatic change, with glacial periods lasting significantly longer than warmer periods. Warm climatic periods show as relatively quick and short-lived spikes when viewed against a historical graph. It is normal for the global temperature to raise quickly until it peaks, and then drop quickly back into a glacial period.

For more info on the graphs, google is your friend (and any link I provide would be assumed to be biased).

 

[vintage cessna]

Here is a link to the APS response:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

In case anyone tries to suggest that the APS Topical Group on Climate is a closed secret society, the truth is that any APS member can join any topical group. I would have to dig out my invoices, but IIRC there is not even an extra dues charge for topical group membership. I've been a member of the climate topical group since its inception, though I'm not even close to being an active researcher in the field.

After reading the response of the APS I can understand why he resigned.

In the APS response, they list as one of their stated positions as " The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years".

That is just in line with what the IPCC claims. Which is just the image they want to portray. Man filling up the atmosphere with CO2 as if we were pumping up a balloon.

I guess they just ignore the good work that has been done studying the actual dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Especially the study of the atmosphere after open air nuclear testing in the Soviet Union. That study revealed that the maximum dwell time of CO2 in the in the atmosphere was 5 years. And that is for CO2 that had been forced by the exposion to extremely high altitudes. CO2 in the lower part of the atmosphere of course would not dwell as long.

Now people have run the numbers of what the CO2 concentration should be based on this very long dwell time. The CO2 concentration level should be much higher than it actually is. When confronted with mathemical reality the climate scientists have now invented yet another excuse about "CO2 sinks " of some sort. Just from the amount of CO2 being released coupled with deforestation one would think the concentration would be higher if CO2 dwelled in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Just another ugly fact that doesn't fit. Like the "tropical hot spots" that should have appeared long ago. I don't think they have come up with an excuse for that one, just forget about it I guess.