Global warming debunked. Again.

[OCmike]

No global warming? What do you think brought down WTC 7? Idiot. - Moving Sale

[BSmack]

The Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, James Inhofe, debunks global warming.

"The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted."

Pry too many words and concepts for today's average media addicts. They'd rather believe what some attractive prompter puppet tells them.

Inhofe comes from a state where the jury is still out on evolution.

[BSmack]

Nice ad hominem irrelevancy.

I thought you would appreciate it. I wonder if Inhofe's name is attached to any bills promoting "Creation Science" in the classroom? I mean seriously, this whole thread is a fucking joke. Inhofe is in no position to debunk or prove global warming.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Counterpoint:

By Chris Mooney
Issue Date: 05.04.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

At a recent hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Republican chairman, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, confronted Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt with a serious complaint. Leavitt had come to the Hill to defend President Bush's 2005 budget, which proposes to slash the EPA's various science programs by nearly $100 million. A staunch conservative, Inhofe once famously dubbed the EPA a "Gestapo bureaucracy" -- but in this case, he stood up for the agency's research-and-development funding. "I'm an advocate of sound science," Inhofe proclaimed.

Inhofe has been stressing this theme ever since he took over the committee following the November 2002 elections. He's pledged that on his watch, the committee will "improve the way in which science is used." Last summer he even delivered a 12,000-word Senate floor speech titled "The Science of Climate Change," outlining conclusions he said he'd reached after several years of studying the issue.

The trouble is, Inhofe's views are way out of whack with the scientific mainstream. He argues that natural variability, rather than human influence, is the "overwhelming factor influencing climate." This contradicts both the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which have emphasized the central role of human activities in explaining recent global warming. Asked in writing whether Inhofe agrees that he's at odds with the scientific mainstream, his committee staff retorted, "How do you define 'mainstream'? Scientists who accept the so-called 'consensus' about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream."

But Inhofe is hardly Galileo. In fact, his involvement in a lawsuit seeking to suppress a groundbreaking scientific report on possible effects of climate change in the United States -- such as biodiversity losses and threats to coastal areas due to higher sea levels -- arguably puts him more on the side of Galileo's oppressors.

American Prospect

[Cuda]

The earth is hotter than it has beenm in the last 12000 years!

At the claimed rate of increase of 0.35 degrees fahrenheit per decade, I'll probably need to run the air conditioning full time in only 500 more years

[Bizzarofelice]

Global warming is debunked by a Senator.

Tune in tomorrow for a heart bypass operation performed by a swimming instructor, a fry cook doing the books and a national emergency relief organization run by a horse judge.

[Dinsdale]

The earth is hotter than it has beenm in the last 12000 years!

And just short of being hotter than the last 3 million years.

At the claimed rate of increase of 0.35 degrees fahrenheit per decade, I'll probably need to run the air conditioning full time in only 500 more years

Here we go again...

The entire range of the average temperature is about 1.5 degrees, give or take.

So, you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to...you say ".35 degrees," I say "20%."


Aren't statistics a wonderful thing? You can get them to say about anything, if you're clever enough.

[RadioFan]

Jim Inhofe is an embarrassment to this state and the U.S. Senate.

[RadioFan]

I thought you would appreciate it. I wonder if Inhofe's name is attached to any bills promoting "Creation Science" in the classroom? I mean seriously, this whole thread is a fucking joke.

Maybe it was God's will that this thread be started, just like it is God that causes weather cycles.

:roll:

Omar Inhofe: If the evidence agrees with my political view, it's good science, if it doesn't, it's bad science.

Fucking tool.

[Dinsdale]

So what?

Don't confuse me with Chicken Little.

I think anyone who doesn't believe in human-caused climate change is an idiot.

I also think that there isn't a short term solution in sight.

I'm also quite confident that Mother Nature will sort it all out eventually, just like she has for millions of years.

Not too worked up about it over here, but unlike others with that view, I'm not in denial enough to completely dismiss it, since it makes me 1/6,000,000,000th responsible for some great evil.

It is what it is.


And frankly, I'm rather enjoying the mid-80's fall weather it has brought.

[Dinsdale]

The problem with that statement there is that there isn't a single, solitary shred of evidence that the current warming trend is anything other than natural variability.

Yeah, except for that pesky fact that the temp has increased in percentage at almost the exact same rate as petroleum use....there is that.


But, there's those pesky statistics again -- if they support your "opinion"(regardless whether they're facts...if you don't like the facts, claim it's "opinion"), they're "sound science." If they don't, they're merely "coincedence."

[JCT]

Let's see, this summer is the hottest since 1937. Wait.. you mean it was hotter in the past? Must have been the failed envior policies of the Hoover Admin.

[BSmack]

Yeah, except for that pesky fact that the temp has increased in percentage at almost the exact same rate as petroleum use....there is that.

It also coincides with the decline of piracy in the Caribbean. Coincidence?!? I think not... ?

When burning fuel oil emits Jack Sparrow out of a smokestack, you'll have a valid comparison.

[Dinsdale]

Further actual evidence indicates that CO2 levels during Ordovician Ice Age ranged from ten to twenty times higher than it is today. The actual, observable physical evidence suggests that CO2 has very little, if anything at all, to do with warming.

Except this time around, there's 6,000,000,000 spending every single waking hour doing everything they possibly can to crank it out, and spend every waking hour using energy to heat up the planet. See, that's where it gets tricky -- the current set of circumstances haven't been present in the past, therefore historical data doesn't create an exact set of parameters....making its use something of a white elephant. Nevermind the rampant deforestation that is inevitable with the constant increase in human population.

Something has always initiated the warming(sin, cause and effect). Obviously, when things get warmer, CO2 becomes less soluble, and naturally, there will be more present. I don't believe there's evidence either way to determine whether an artificial increase would cause a warming trend or not. But initial models and observational data, along with common sense would lead one to believe it's certainly a possibility.

The only reason I can figure for that is fundamental intellectual dishonesty.

Nah. Same shit that's been going on since the dawn of mankind. The more people that populate the planet, the less significant the individual human becomes, and insignificance leads to narcisism.

And worldwide, it's quite trendy for at-odds political/scientific/any issue factions to be polarized, and to attempt to polarize everyone they possibly can, one way or another.

When you're an insignificant worker bee in a massive hive, being right about something...anything...means a lot to you. Hence, closed minds across the board...yours included.


Business as usual for the human race. I'll continue to roll with it, while others stress out on it.


Yeah yeah yeah...it's hotter...so quit whining, and plant a tree. Or launch a campaign to raise awareness, hopefully with some data of substance...whatever you do, regardless which side of the issue you stand on(be it the Head-in-the-Sand Bunch, or the Common Sense bunch), just shut the fuck up with the whining.



And frankly....Charles Darwin is evntually going to deal with the southeastern portion of Asia, where over 3/4ths of the world's population lives, which will tilt the natural order of things a little closer to normal. Nature and Darwin make for a brutal tag-team combination.

[Dinsdale]

Do you really think you're getting an open, objective debate on the topic when the most prevalent and potent greenhouse gas is rarely even mentioned?

Oh, and...


Every time we rehash this same old bullshit, you're always quick with this one.

Same old bullshit, Part 8768 -- Go ahead and go down this road, and I'll have a nice laugh at your expense.

[Dinsdale]

And another thing...

While i fully believe in human causes for increased temps, something that's rarely brought up in this whole debate...


Technology has progressed to where scientists also have reason to believe that the sun has gotten hotter over the last 100 years or so. And I seriously doubt that any scientist, or anyone else would attribute anything the sun does to anything humans do.

There is that.

Couple that with increased human-generated CO2 and water vapor, along with a host of other factors, and you have a whole, broad set of circumstances that make it warmer.


If you put a black roof on your house, then turn off your attic fan during an above-average summer, it's probably going to be hotter in your house. This would be an example of both natural, and human-caused circumstances working together to make an area, in this case a house, to have a warmer-that-usual average temp over a given period of time. And it boggles my mind how people have such a hard time with this...the need to politicize everything these days, I suppose.

[Dinsdale]

Water vapor isn't the most prevalent and potent greenhouse gas?!?

Thanks for playing, idiot. You can go now.

Thanks for playing, idiot.


When you burn hydrocarbons, there's two components that make up all but a miniscule fraction of the resulting gaseous emmissions.


One is CO2.

Would you care to name the other?


Uhm...yeah...you go, Mr Wizard.

[Dinsdale]

Aaaaand another thing -- people on both sides of the issue often complete fail to even mention that in the last 50-100 years or so, there hasn't really been a massive volcanic eruption to speak of. Aerosols from volcanic eruptions are way way down since the industrial revolution, and with better technology, aerosols from fossil fuel consumption are down. These are factors that "shade" the Earth from solar radiation, which cools things down.

Don't get me wrong -- anybody with a lick of common sense realizes there's a whole host of factors that lead to climate trends...and human-casued factors are contributing to what is obviously a warming trend. If a tectonic plate starts getting a little jiggy(sup hopefully not the Juan de Fuca), and darkens up the planet, then the political whining will be over what to do about the rampant cooling.

Humans would have to work awfully hard to heat the planet this much without help...lots and lots of help. It's pretty much a matter of timing, at this point...but we shouldn't let common sense, science, technology, and observational data get in the way of a polarizing political issue.

[Mikey]

Now the sun provides roughly 1,400 megawatts per square kilometer per minute...

You obviously know what you're talking about, since there's no such unit, nor could there possibly be any combination of units that would be equivalent to megawatts per sq km per minute.

Hint: Do you even know what a megawatt is?


Almost forgot to add.....carry on. The ignorance here is making my day.

[Dinsdale]

Correct. What they and the other religious fundies in the environmental movement do is ignore real physical evidence such as you just provided

And the "It's not my fault" crowd does the exact same thing to tilt the scales in there favor.

In actuality, I don't think you and I are that far apart as far as taking the various factors into consideration, we merely differ on the interperetation.

But the prevailing attitude seems to be to throw out any data that doesn't support one's views, while overemphasising anything that does support it. Same old same old, in terms of human nature.

Hence, my inability to get particularly worked up about it, one way or the other. I'm quite fascinated by the scienctific debate, and pretty much oblivious to the political debate, save for its pure entertainment value.

and instead fob off pseudo-scientific twaddle such as this on the public:

Now the sun provides roughly 1,400 megawatts per square kilometer per minute.

You mean psuedo-scientific twaddle such as expressing solar radiation in a measurement of electricity?

You mean THAT sort of "psuedo-scientific twaddle"?''

Like using made-up "statistics"?

Uhm...the sun produces exactly ZERO "megawatts"...or at least as far as we can measure. Watts are a measure of electrical flow, not heat(sin, Marcus Allen?). Next time, make up stats that at least use "BTUs," "therms," or some other measure of heat, and/or radiation.


Or, convert that figure to furlongs-per-fortnight...either way...that would be just as valid and accurate.


I'm now kinda curious which psuedo-scientist failed out of physics class, and decided to represent the sun's energy in "megawatts." I'll eagerly await how many "ounces" of energy the sun puts into the earth per year.


And yes, I realize that electrical energy can be converted to heat at a rate that's a constant, as elctrical heat is always produced at 100% efficiency, but why would somebody even try to express it that way?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Of course, forgotten in all of this is the original point of this thread, to show what a hypocritical dumbfuck James Inhofe is.

FTFY.

You're welcome.

[Mikey]

Uhm...the sun produces exactly ZERO "megawatts"...or at least as far as we can measure. Watts are a measure of electrical flow, not heat(sin, Marcus Allen?). Next time, make up stats that at least use "BTUs," "therms," or some other measure of heat, and/or radiation.


Or, convert that figure to furlongs-per-fortnight...either way...that would be just as valid and accurate.


I'm now kinda curious which psuedo-scientist failed out of physics class, and decided to represent the sun's energy in "megawatts." I'll eagerly await how many "ounces" of energy the sun puts into the earth per year.

Now you're showing your complete ignorance as well.

This gets better and better. Nothing like spending a nice Tuesday afternoon watching two ignoramuses argue about something they don't even understand.

[Dinsdale]

You obviously know what you're talking about, since there's no such unit, nor could there possibly be any combination of units that would be equivalent to megawatts per sq km per minute.

Hint: Do you even know what a megawatt is?

EAD, cockblocker.


I was debating whether to point out this bit of comic relief, or let it continue.



It takes energy to distill bottled water. Maybe instead of labelling water bottles in fluid ounces, they should label the quantity in BTUs or calories or something.

[Mikey]

You obviously know what you're talking about, since there's no such unit, nor could there possibly be any combination of units that would be equivalent to megawatts per sq km per minute.

Hint: Do you even know what a megawatt is?

EAD, cockblocker.


I was debating whether to point out this bit of comic relief, or let it continue.



It takes energy to distill bottled water. Maybe instead of labelling water bottles in fluid ounces, they should label the quantity in BTUs or calories or something.

1 watt = 3.413 Btu/hr

You're dismissed.

[Dinsdale]

Now you're showing your complete ignorance as well.

Uhm...I pointed out that the sun's radiation that hits the earth can't be measured in watts(unless you really go through some conversion charts).

You said the same thing.

So, I'm demonstrating "ignorance" by agreeing with you?

I guess that is a pretty valid point. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Mikey]

See above.

The rate at which the sun's energy hits the earth is measured in watts, or Btu/hr. It's only a difference of English vs metric units. The amount of energy can be expressed in terms of watt-hours or Btu.

The thing that's impossible about megawatts per minute is that megawatts is already a rate. There's nothing wrong with expressing the sun's energy hitting the earth in watts.

[Mikey]

You obviously know what you're talking about, since there's no such unit, nor could there possibly be any combination of units that would be equivalent to megawatts per sq km per minute.

Hint: Do you even know what a megawatt is?


Almost forgot to add.....carry on. The ignorance here is making my day.

Way to add absolutely nothing to the converstion. Heck, who needs facts, figures or evidence at all. Just talk out your ass, right?

Good job, dumbfuck.

In other words you have no idea how ridiculous your statement about megawatts per square meter per minute really is.

Good job, dumbfuck.

[Mikey]

BTW, if you took off the per minute part of your ignorant claim, you'd still be off by a factor of over 1,000.

Good science there, Dumbfuck.

[Dinsdale]

1 watt = 3.413 Btu/hr

You're dismissed.

Huh?

The watt (abbreviated W) is the International System of Units' (SI) standard unit of power (energy per unit time), the equivalent of one joule per second. The watt is used to specify the rate at which electrical energy is dissipated, or the rate at which electromagnetic energy is radiated, absorbed, or dissipated.

A watt is certainly not a measure of heat. Something that you even just confirmed by using a conversion to BTUs, which IS a measure of heat.

As I already stated, heat can be expressed as wattage, due to the fact that heat is always produced by electicity at a rate of 100% efficiency.

The question remains...


Why?


Are we going to start buying gasoline by the "potential-watt" now, rather than gallons, or a measure of volume?

Why?

Why go through a bunch of conversions, when there's already specific measures to express such things?


Last I checked, the electric company bills me by the kilowatt...thank goodness. I doubt they're going to start expressing the usage in "therms" or anything else anytime soon...since that would be fucking stupid....since it would mean taking their original measurements, and using conversions to state a figure in a form it wasn't originally in the first place.

Why?

[Mikey]

I was going to add that taking Inhofe seriously on global warming (or the environment in general) is roughly equivalent to going to jtr for advice on sexual positions, but I changed my mind.

It's roughly the equivalent of asking mvscal to show any actual technical or scientific knowledge.

[silvurna]

Inhofe, like the rest of the schlubs, realizes a good statistician is worth his weight in liars.
The greenies use crappy evidence(example>They tell you that Antarctic ice is melting..it is, on the Antarctic peninsula, which comprises a whopping 2% of the total area)
The greenies discount or fail to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. This simply shows a repetitive process of warming and cooling trends in the ocean's surface, and has been computer modeled to prove this tren has been working for about 1500 years.
It has been warmer in the period from 1915-1965 , with the hottest period 1920-1930...hmmmmmmmmmm...fewer cars and trucks, fewer people, less greenhouse gas, yet warmer then.
Who was that astute man who said that some scientists will do what they need to do, to not find answers in order to continue collecting a paycheck?
Screw it, there are more Chinese than anyone..hang global warming on them.

[Mikey]

A watt is certainly not a measure of heat. Something that you even just confirmed by using a conversion to BTUs, which IS a measure of heat.

They are all measures of energy. It doesn't matter if it is in joules, watts or BTUs.

You still don't get it, do you?

Joules and Btu's are an amount of energy. Watts is a unit of power or energy per unit time. If you want an amount of energy you're talking watt-hours. That's why you can't have a watt per hour or a megawatt per minute.

[Bizzarofelice]

Screw it, there are more Chinese than anyone..hang global warming on them.

Can't. They won't listen or care. They have this "we're the Chinese" fact that we can't get around.

[Dinsdale]

They are all measures of energy. It doesn't matter if it is in joules, watts or BTUs.

Is your car's speedometer caliberated in furlongs-per-fornight?

Geez, I even posted a definition for you, and you're still not catching on. Maybe try reading more slowly this time...


A watt is a measure of ELECTRICAL ENERGY. Period.

Due to the rate at which electricity produces heat being a constant(100% efficiency), it can be CONVERTED to BTUs, or any other measure of heat.

Did you follow along this time?

Once again, why would a "scientist" use an irrelavent unit of measure that requires conversions from the actual observed data?


In the same vein, since no electric motor runs at 100% efficiency(although you can add heat energy and work, and come up with a number that accounts for 100% of electrical usage), horsepower isn't expressed in "watts-plus-heat-loss," or "how many watts this motor would produce if not for heat loss"...since that would be retarded, too.


Both you an Mikey seem to be missing the point. If different materials produced different amounts of heat per ohm, we wouldn't be having this discussion, since electrical heat would no longer be a constant. But it is....and this still doesn't explain why anyone would state a statistic in a form that wasn't what their data was measured in originally.

I understand the use of such conversions for the sake of comparison. Why anyone would roll out data as a conversion when not part of a comparison is ...indicative of trying to push a bullshit story.

[silvurna]

Screw it, there are more Chinese than anyone..hang global warming on them.

Can't. They won't listen or care. They have this "we're the Chinese" fact that we can't get around.

Big 10-4 good buddy..I believe this is referred to as the "We Built A 1500-Mile Long Wall To Keep Out The Mongols, But The Mongols Had Some Of Those 'Ladder' Things Yellow Peril Conundrum.

[Goober McTuber]

furlongs-per-fortnight...

I believe that is used to measure pipe-laying prowess. I will not even tell you the numbers I achieved when I was single, as I don’t want to see you cry.

[Mikey]

1 watt = 3.413 Btu/hr

You're dismissed.

Huh?

The watt (abbreviated W) is the International System of Units' (SI) standard unit of power (energy per unit time), the equivalent of one joule per second. The watt is used to specify the rate at which electrical energy is dissipated, or the rate at which electromagnetic energy is radiated, absorbed, or dissipated.

A watt is certainly not a measure of heat. Something that you even just confirmed by using a conversion to BTUs, which IS a measure of heat.

As I already stated, heat can be expressed as wattage, due to the fact that heat is always produced by electicity at a rate of 100% efficiency.

The question remains...


Why?


Are we going to start buying gasoline by the "potential-watt" now, rather than gallons, or a measure of volume?

Why?

Why go through a bunch of conversions, when there's already specific measures to express such things?


Last I checked, the electric company bills me by the kilowatt...thank goodness. I doubt they're going to start expressing the usage in "therms" or anything else anytime soon...since that would be fucking stupid....since it would mean taking their original measurements, and using conversions to state a figure in a form it wasn't originally in the first place.

Why?

How do I even begin to address such ignorance.

Btu is a measure of energy. Heat is energy.
Watts is a measure of power, or energy per unit time, like your c&p said.
Watt-hours is a measure of energy (think about it...energy per unit time multiplied by time?).

In the US, as elsewhere, we measure electricity in watt-hours or kilowatt-hours.
I suggest you check your electric bill again. You will not see kilowatts there unless you're a commercial or industrial customer paying a demand charge. For those customers the demand charge is based on the maximum rate a which they use electricity during any given month, sometimes on an hourly basis or other times measured on a sliding 15 minute scale - am I confusing you? Good.

Remember, it's good to be an informed consumer.

Actually, "potential watt" for gasoline is not that far off. If you had used potential kWh you would be spot on, because the energy in gasoline is all tied up as chemical energy. The heating value of gasoline is on the order of 125,000 Btu/gal, or about 36.6 "potential kWh per gal".

Most of the world does not know what a Btu or therm (100,000 Btu, BTW) is. These are English units. The rating of a water heater, a boiler, or any other thermal appliance in Europe is expressed in w or kw. Look it up.

The fact that I can convert watts to Btu/hr simply by multiplying by a constant should give you a clue that these two units are interchangeable.

Now, can I tell you about tons? Ever heard of a 5 ton air conditioner? Guess what, it doesn't really weigh 5 tons. One ton of air conditioning is equal to 12,000 Btu/hr of cooling capacity, which is equivalent to 3.52 kW. Now if you want to start talking about efficiencies, these things are often measured in units of kW/ton which is really confusing because one ton is equivalent to 3.52 kW. But how can that be?

[Mikey]

Watts is a unit of power or energy per unit time. If you want an amount of energy you're talking watt-hours. That's why you can't have a watt per hour or a megawatt per minute.

Thanks. I stand corrected. It is roughly 1,400 megawatts per sq. kilometer per second, which as you point out is redundant but does make for a somewhat less abstract number and helps underscore the fact that we are talking about "a shitload" of energy. Happy now?

In any event, my point stands. The human contribution to the total energy in the Earth's system is barely even measurable let alone significant in any way, shape or form.

You still don't get it. What's your source for this information, because they must not get it either.

There is no such thing as a megawatt per anything per second. What part of the difference between "rate" and "quantity" is not sinking into your thick skull?

The rate of insolation in outer space at 1 AU (the distance from Earth to the sun) is about 1350 Watts per square meter. Now, this comes from Wikipedia, which doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but at least they are using consistent units.

Now, assuming that the value is correct this would be equivalent to 1.35 kW per square meter. 1 sq km = 1,000,000 sq meter, so this would be 1,350 MW per square km, close to your value, but there is no "per second" or "per minute" possible here.

Now, even if all of that energy reached the earth's surface it would only be at that rate at the very point of the globe that is directly facing the sun, and would decrease depending on the angle of the surface to the sun at any point. Long-term time averaged insolation in sunny areas is about 250 Watts per square meter, or 250 MW per square km.

[Mikey]

Now, assuming that the value is correct this would be equivalent to 1.35 kW per square meter. 1 sq km = 1,000,000 sq meter, so this would be 1,350 MW per square km, close to your value, but there is no "per second" or "per minute" possible here.

And that square kilometer area receives how much solar energy every second? That's what I thought. Address the point or shut the fuck up. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your pedantic diversions.

1350 MW x 1 sec / 60 sec/min / 60 min/hr = .375 MWh every second.

Are you at least starting to get it yet?

(This, of course, assumes no atmospheric attenuation. You know, like clouds and stuff.)

[Mikey]

Annual insolation:

Let's see if you can figure out the average MW/sq km for each of the different ranges.
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.