I Blame Global Warming

by

Read this article. Now stop laughing. Take deep breaths, yeah, that’s it.

Let me see if my summary matches what you read:

  • 18% more freshwater has flowed in to the oceans in 2006 than in 1994.
  • Dr. Jay Famiglietti of UC Irvine says that this is exactly what the IPCC predicted, with more rain falling in the “wrong” places.
  • He says that the water cycle is dangerously accelerating because of greenhouse gasses causing increased global temperatures.
  • “Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds unleashing more powerful storms over land.”
  • The paper uses “satellite records of sea level rise, precipitation and evaporation” to gather its data.

OK, obviously, Dr. Famiglietti has been working hard. He may have missed the latest findings.

One, the IPCC report has been ripped to shreds. There is not a shred of credibility left in it. This is because the leaders of the report were shown to put in speculation and non-peer reviewed work into it. Some of the claims are outright fantasy. Others are contradicted by actual data. We cannot rely on the IPCC report.

Second of all, greenhouse gasses cannot cause an increase in the global temperature. This is non-scientific. The 33° C so-called increase is caused by gravity, not carbon dioxide.

Third, who are we to say what the “right” and “wrong” places for rain to fall is?

Fourth, there haven’t been more powerful storms on the land. In fact, we’re looking at the first year in a long time without any hurricanes.

Finally, and this is key here, let’s consider the water cycle for a moment. We can think of all the water on the earth being in the ocean, in the air, or on the land. Water evaporates into the air. It falls from the sky as rain on the land, where it accumulates and then flows out into the ocean. This is the basic water cycle.

If there is more water flowing from the land to the ocean, in this case, 18%, then what does that say about the ocean levels? Anyone? Anyone?

That’s right! The ocean levels must be falling because there is proportionally more water in the air and on the land and thus less in the oceans.

But wait! I thought the ocean levels were supposed to RISE with Global Warming?!?

What about the melting ice caps? First of all, there is significant evidence that the ice caps have been growing, not just in terms of area but in depth as well. That is, they are accumulating water. But let’s allow the professor his point. Let’s say that the ice caps are actually melting.

OK, in this case, we have the polar ice caps sitting in the water that are melting. Question: Which is more dense: liquid water or solid ice? Answer: Water. Question: If the ice is floating in the water, and it melts, does the water level fall or rise? Answer: It must stay exactly the same because of the Archimedes Principle. That is, the mass of the water displaced by the ice is exactly the same as the mass of the ice. When the ice melts, it will occupy the exact same volume as it did when it floated on the water.

In other words, melting ice caps will not change the level of the oceans.

So Dr. Famiglietti loses this one as well.

These are common-sense things, things that no one has dared to explain because they can’t be explained:

  • By what mechanism do greenhouse gasses heat the atmosphere? Try using a method that doesn’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics this time.
  • How can increased water flow between the oceans and the land lead to a rising sea level?
  • How can melting ice caps lead to a rising sea level?
  • Why should we trust anything to do with global warming when so many people in that field have been shown to sacrifice science for a grant, or common sense for politics?

There is a lot that the Global Warming community must do to restore their dignity. To begin with, they should have all of their papers reviewed by skeptics, and not just one, but maybe two or three. Secondly, they must no longer build on the assumptions they have been using, but go back to their textbooks and revisit the basic science they have been claiming to represent. And finally, all data they collect must be presented in an open forum where they can be scrutinized and questioned.

And finally, the punchline: What do I blame for all of this shoddy science in the Global Warming community?

Wait for it… drumroll please…

Global Warming.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “I Blame Global Warming”

  1. demo kid Says:

    You have consistently avoided or misrepresented the science. (And again, you seem to have a complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics.)

    But hey… I’ll take the bait.

    What about the melting ice caps? First of all, there is significant evidence that the ice caps have been growing, not just in terms of area but in depth as well. That is, they are accumulating water. But let’s allow the professor his point. Let’s say that the ice caps are actually melting.

    OK, in this case, we have the polar ice caps sitting in the water that are melting. Question: Which is more dense: liquid water or solid ice? Answer: Water. Question: If the ice is floating in the water, and it melts, does the water level fall or rise? Answer: It must stay exactly the same because of the Archimedes Principle. That is, the mass of the water displaced by the ice is exactly the same as the mass of the ice. When the ice melts, it will occupy the exact same volume as it did when it floated on the water.

    This would be true… if the ice caps were actually floating on water.

    The glaciers found on Greenland, Antarctica, areas in the Arctic (and anywhere else!) with land beneath cannot be counted in that zero-sum sea level game you’re playing. If water melts from them and passes into the oceans, then yes, sea levels will rise. Will they rise to the point that Kevin Costner is diving down into the ocean to reach Denver? No. Still, there will be some ocean rise.

    This is supported in part by evidence suggesting that sea levels have fallen significantly during ice ages. The Bering land bridge, for example, resulted during an ice age when the ice caps were much larger.

    Face it… you lack the basic scientific skills to adequately critique climate change. You simply cannot face the fact that your objection has less to do with science and far more to do with your political and religious beliefs.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      This would be true… if the ice caps were actually floating on water.

      That’s actually reasonable. So let’s say the ice is sitting on land and it melts. How much ice is there versus the surface area of the ocean?

      I am surprised that you are trying to pass off science (rising/lowering sea levels during ice ages) without citing the data. What data suggests that the ocean levels rose and lowered according to the temperature?

      In terms of TD, have you not done the exercise suggested here to determine, for yourself, that the so-called Greenhouse Effect is only gravity?

      What is it, exactly, that suggests that heat can be reflected in thermodynamics? I’d like you to cite some theory somewhere based on the four basic laws of TD. Please include the definition of heat you are using and how that definition is justified.

      • demo kid Says:

        The mere notion that the adiabatic lapse rate “disproves” global warming is ludicrous. You cannot grasp the basic principles of radiative heat transfer, but you try to confuse the issue by incorporating topics that are beside the point, and are easily disproven.

        You’re absolutely right that the adiabatic lapse rate is based on pressure! There may be some feedbacks related to global warming… but that’s not the issue you’re exploring here. The issue is what the lapse rate is lapsing towards. The tropopause is the level in the Earth’s atmosphere where temperature decreases from pressure end. In upper levels of the atmosphere, temperatures may, in fact, increase. What you notice looking at the data, however, is that the height of the troposphere will change according to the temperature of the Earth’s surface. It is demonstrably higher in the tropics than at the poles, decreasing to a temperature of around -50 to -70 C at the tropopause. Look it up.

        If you could remove the insulation effects of all greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, the relevant effects would be simple: the surface temperature would decrease, and the tropopause would be at a much lower height. As it is, the effects of global warming will increase the height of the troposphere, but by a very small amount; with a dry adiabatic lapse rate of -9.8 C/km, even the most severe of estimates would only result in a shift of a few hundred meters at most. (Not to mention that in practice, this lapse rate can be lower.)

        Seriously. I’m imagining offices of respected climate scientists everywhere, slapping their foreheads and stating, “Wow! If I only include a concept taught in first-year climatology which is included in all of my climate models, climate change is explained perfectly and carbon dioxide is not to blame!”

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Of course, as long as their careers and grants are on the line, they will never grant the idea that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a fraud any time. I’ve worked side-by-side with people trying to get grant money in the physics department, and they all knew that the phrase “Global Warming” was a cash cow.

        The science is there, and it is obvious. The so-called “Greenhouse Gas” relies on no physical property of matter. You can’t even explain it and it’s supposed to be so simple that a child could understand it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: