It gave me more hope than I expected, and it also broke my heart to think of the burden in both energy and environmental issues we’re dropping on these kids.

Everyone not doing enough to remedy these compound messes should be deeply ashamed.

I know this is off-topic for this thread, but could you please reply to or debunk this story. Move it to a new thread if you need to. Thanks.

—

Global Warming Scientist Once Warned Of ‘Ice Age’
By Doug Ware - KUTV.com

(KUTV) WASHINGTON - A NASA scientist, who is now sounding the alarm over global warming’s threat to the planet, once believed that pumping too many greenhouse gases into the air would have the opposite effect — a modern day ice age.

James Hansen is currently among scientists who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet’s atmosphere — posing a grave threat to the environment and humans’ ability to adapt to it. Many others — like public preachers Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio — share the same view in what seems to be the “hot button” issue of the moment.

But 36-years ago, it appears, Hansen had a completely different warning — in what may be the scientific equivalent of a grandiose political ‘flip-flop.’

In a Washington Post story dated July 9, 1971, Hansen — then a research associate at Columbia University — warned of a modern day ice age, which would cause the planet’s temperature to plummet as many as six degrees.

The reason, he said then, was a fine dust emitted into the air via carbon dioxide pollution that would eventually become so dense that it would block sunlight and result in cooler temperatures — a scenario exactly the opposite of what leading climatologists say is happening now, that greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside the Earth’s atmosphere.

Hansen and one of his research partners believed that the problem was so severe that the “ice age” could happen between five and ten years after the report — putting the prediction for extreme global cooling between about 1976 and 1981.

It didn’t happen.

Now a scientist for NASA, Hansen is facing criticism by some for an immense change of heart. How could he have predicted something so importunate at the time — only to make a 180-degree turn 35-years later, and completely head in the opposite direction?

In fact, the 1971 report even claims that Hansen and his associate dismissed the idea of global warming.

“They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide that fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” the Washington Post report said.

(© 2007 Four Points Media Group, LLC., All rights reserved.)

Thanks.

The Washington Times article is somewhat one-sided.

I want to respond to your seeming inability to “let go” of the past (which, if that’s the case, means that you’re probably in need of some psychotherapy to help you change into a person capable of letting go of the past) [yes, Virginia, contrary to the mistaken beliefs of the likes of Ron & Bill O’Reilly, true human beings continually do grow & develop throughout their entire lives instead of staying stuck in the same old rut forever — climbing out of one’s self generated rut being an integral part of what it means to be “human”] {Hey Ron, do you know what a rut is? It’s a grave with both ends knocked out!}, but first let me respond to your criticism of models. This harks back to your comments under Joe’s Sept. 12th Bjorn Lomborg post…

While I’d like to go into nauseating detail about the facts regarding CO2’s absorption of infrared radiation (IR) & how IR absorption is so useful that an entire branch of Physical Chemistry has sprung up around it (called “IR Spectroscopy”– and it’s pure facts that are incredibly useful in CHEAPLY identifying organic compounds — versus other, more COSTLY techniques called “Mass Spectroscopy” & “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance”), let’s take a look at some of the physical examples that The Boss Truth Almighty has provided pointing the way toward the validity of CO2 & climate models. These take three forms: 1) the Mercury-Venus temperature paradox, 2) the Earth-Moon temperature paradox, and 3) The Sahara Desert formerly being savanna (the tropical equivalent of The Great Plains today) some 18,000 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 levels were some 100 ppm lower than ‘normal’ and some 200 ppm lower than today, instead of desert like it is today. First, the Mercury-Venus paradox…

You do realize that Mercury’s surface temperature fluctuates between -180 & +430 C between night & day whereas Venus’ surface temperature fluctuates between +450 & +480 C, right?! I’m not sure of what your definition of “fact” is. By conventional “theory”, this makes NO sense — just ask your buddy Fred Thompson: Mercury is closer to the Sun and is bathed in radiation 4 times more intense than Venus, thus Mercury’s surface temperature ought to be much higher than Venus (Fred Thompson knows). The theory that’s used to explain this seeming contradiction is embodied by the phrase “run-away greenhouse effect” and has to do with the fact not only that Venus has an atmosphere but also that that atmosphere is comprised upwards of 96% CO2. This means that so much heat accumulates in Venus’ atmosphere (that Venus’ atmosphere hangs onto heat so well) that even at night –which is like ‘forever’ on Venus because a day is longer than a year on Venus — the temperature falls very little. (Also, much of this thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy, or “wind”, which acts to more evenly distribute heat on Venus — but energy converted from internal to kinetic ought to act to SUBTRACT from the total heat balance which isn’t the case on Venus, which I’d love to hear you explain…) Now, if you don’t like these facts and the theory springing from them, it’s incumbent upon you to propose your own theory ‘better fitting the data’, more consistent with these observations rather than just sitting in the ‘cat bird seat’ and clucking like a chicken — detracting more from the debate rather than adding anything substantive to it.

The second form offered by The Boss Truth Almighty, which isn’t a ‘model’ but rather observed facts requiring explanation, strikes much closer to home; it’s the Earth-Moon temperature paradox. The Moon’s temperature fluctuates between -170 & +120 C between night & day where Earth’s temperature fluctuates between -90 & 60C. How do you explain that? A large measure is explained by the fact that Earth has an atmosphere that’s orders of magnitude more massive than the Moon’s, but that’s only part of the explanation. You see: those Moon temperatures are ‘the daily norm’ (within orbital variation to solar proximity), which means that the Moon achieves those temperatures every lunar day, whereas the temperatures reported for Earth are extremes, which means that they’re exceptional instead of ‘the rule’. To be more consistent with what’s observed on the Moon, it’d be more accurate to report Earth’s ‘normal’ temperature fluctuations from, say, -40 to +40 C as, on any given day, you ought to be able to find these temperatures somewhere on Earth’s surface. Moreover, the thing that’s arguably even more telling is that Earth’s mean temperature isn’t just a simple average of these extremes like on the Moon but rather much higher: some +15 C (versus the simpleton’s 0C) on Earth versus -25C on the Moon. The only thing of which I know that would explain this isn’t just the composition of Earth’s atmosphere but also THE FACT that water comes into play on Earth’s surface which has a tremendous BUFFERING effect, skewing Earth’s temperature to the high side. While I’d love to go into the specifics of this effect — like the fact that water is only 1 of 2 compounds that is less dense as a solid than as a liquid under ‘normal’ atmospheric pressure — as usual, I’m already going too long as it is. Suffice it to say that it’s not just the fact that Earth has more of an atmosphere than the Moon that explains these extreme surface temperature differences (even though they’re both about the same distance from the Sun) but also the facts that Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic composition that must be accounted for in any theory attempting to explain said OBSERVED differences.

(Hey, we could easily fly off on a tangent here where we talk about how the Moon fits very nearly perfectly with the theory of temperature & proximity to the Sun — +430C on Mercury versus +120C on the Moon which ought to give simpletons a guess at Venus’ maximum daytime temperature being +325C instead of the observed +480C — but that argument is better suited for the ‘red herrings’ thrown out by the likes of Fred Thompson in another of Joe’s prescient posts. But since we’re here, why don’t you, Ron, let us entertain your hypothesis — I mean theory — that explains why the Moon’s nighttime temperature of -170C is greater than Mercury’s of -180C even though the Moon is MUCH farther from the Sun than Mercury, and even though Mercury is around twice as massive as the Moon? Doesn’t make sense. Entertaining your theory, now that’s what I call “entertainment”! No more ‘great white whales’ or ‘red herrings’ but rather something substantive into which Joe & I can sink our proverbial “teeth”! Hallelujah!)

The third form offered by The Boss Truth Almighty is the paradox of The Sahara Desert. Now here, we first run into the problem posed by “Creationists” who think that God went ‘dinka-dinka-dink’ with His pretty little nose some 6,000 years ago, like Elizabeth Montgomery or Nicole Kidman in Bewitched, to create “the heavens and the earth”. If you, Ron, fall into that camp, I’d love to have you explain your theory to me as to why The Boss Truth Almighty went to all the trouble to create the deception that leads to the “geological facts” that we find today that suggest that The Sahara Desert used to be savanna some 20,000 years ago. What’s the point of that deception? My Bible calls Satan “The Great Deceiver”; what I need from you is what you think the point of God’s deception in Sahara to be. It’d be easy right here to go off on some “rapture” tangent that’s just as pointless as “Creation”, but the question still remains the same: “What was the point of all this deception — pain & misery & death & suffering — if not growth & development? if not growing pains? If God was just going to dinka-dinka-dink us outta here like Santa Claus or The Easter Bunny or Elizabeth Montgomery, remind me again what the whole point was with which to begin?” What follows assumes that you, Ron, don’t fall into camp of pointless, dinka-dinka-dink nonsense, but I’m thinking that that’s a bad assumption because you keep harking back to such pointless nonsense like your post above — trying to hold Hansen to something that he supposedly said some 30 years ago instead of realizing that the point of research & development, R&D, is just that: growth & development, except here it’s in knowledge & wisdom instead of in size & stature. If you want to be stuck in the past, in the ’70’s, that’s fine; who am I to judge? The problem that I have is that you’re using modern, internet technology here that suggests that you yourself don’t want to be stuck in the past like you’d stick poor Dr. Hansen, which begs the question, “What’s your definition of ‘hypocrite’?” Let me guess: it’s OK for you to grow & develop, for you to use modern computer & TV & radio frequency communication, but it’s not OK for anyone else? Obviously, you don’t work for a hardware or software or plasma TV or cell phone company because you don’t want any customers…you only want to limit yourself to selling & buying what was available in the ’70’s…

Anyways, getting back to the historical record of The Sahara Desert…

The geological evidence is irrefutable that what we now know as “The Sahara” was once savanna. This was back when atmospheric CO2 levels were 100 ppm below “normal”, or 200 ppm below where they are today. You seem to have a problem with the FACT that most climate models predict this desertification getting worse, creeping both north & south — not only that The Sahara Desert is growing in size southward (which THE FACTS indicate to be true — maybe you need to buy property in Sub-Saharan Africa to experience the encroaching desert for yourself) but also that this desertification is moving northward. Thus, I should hope it obvious that most climate models listing The Great Plains of The US being at desertification risk surprises NO ONE (except, seemingly, you). Why are you surprised? Why are you in denial? Upon which “facts” are you basing your “opinion” — I say putting “facts” in quotes because I don’t consider them facts: they’re already opinion. What’s it going to take for you to transform your opinion, Ron? Do you think that The Sahara has always been a desert or do you realize that it once was more like The Great Plains? Do you see the hand of The Boss Truth Almighty at work, or do we need to entertain your definition of “liar”?

In conclusion, let me point to the snow melt in the lower alpine regions of Switzerland. Banks have stopped loaning money to the ski resorts operating in these regions lower on the mountains because the snow has stopped accumulating hence the skiers taking their business further up the mountains. I’m sure that there are lots of lower alpine Swiss ski resort owners who would love to have you “put your money where your mouth is”, Ron. They’d love to have YOU loan them money because the ‘normal’ people who do so WON’T anymore. If it’s not because of ‘global climate change’ then why? Maybe you’re smarter than professional Swiss bankers?…

As far as being stuck in the ’70’s, the bankers were loaning money to the lower alpine ski resort owners in Switzerland in the ’70’s. That’s how they could afford to build their ski resorts with which to begin; that’s when the affluence of ‘lower peoples’ started to take off so that they could demand more Swiss alpine skiing options. Now, the bankers are cutting off funds. According to your argument, I don’t understand this. According to you, Hansen said that we ought to expect ‘global cooling’ which means that we ought to have even more operators demanding to borrow even more money to build even more ski resorts EVEN LOWER on The Swiss Alps. So, what’s your hypothesis, Ron? What’s gone wrong? Why won’t bankers loan even higher — let alone lower — in the face of increasing demand? Doesn’t make economic sense. What your hypothesis? That bankers are brain-dead bozos for not loaning more money to the existing lower alpine owners — let alone loaning money to alpine owners even lower on the slopes because of ‘global cooling’? If so, why don’t you ’step up to the plate’ and ‘pony up’? You’re not just some poor, penniless slob sitting in the cat-bird seat, are you? I HOPE it’s not because you’re just a poor b@stard who can’t afford it. To which reality do you subscribe: the reality of the bankers (and the insurance companies — which we won’t go into at this point) or your own personal reality devoid of any connection to the facts of the material world? Galileo’s “hypothesis” came from observation of Jupiter’s moons; unfortunately, it took Newton’s “Law of Gravitation” to elevate Galileo’s “hypothesis” to “law”. What’s it going to take for you, Ron? (Let’s leave Kepler’s intermediate Theory of Planetary Motion out of the equation for the time being.)

But alas, my real reply is going to have to wait until tonight, or probably tomorrow night - say what you will, but I do have a life away from this computer.

In the meantime just know that I do understand how models can change with better hypotheses - so I don’t totally fault your Saint James Hansen; but I did get a chuckle out of learning that He was a designer of the previously discredited models. Especially since current ‘wisdom’ says that the story of climate scientists back in the 70s predicting global cooling is a myth (even Joe has rather vehemently made that assertion).

I also thought it was amusing that Joe turned to News Busters for the link. They are in the enemy camp I believe.

Talk at ya later …

It’s obvious to the clear observer that your queries here and elsewhere are insincere and intended to raise doubt where little remains. But rest assured that the science marches on despite stealthy denial.

At least our kids get it.

It’s obvious to the clear observer that your queries here as elsewhere are insincere and intended to raise doubt where little remains. But rest assured that science marches on despite such stealthy denial.

At least our kids get it.

Sorry for the double post, but there appears to be an intermittent problem when posting comments to your site. Occasionally, yours or somebody else’s name, email, and website appear in the LEAVE A REPLY boxes, and, after correction to mine, my post does not appear until I depart then reenter your website. This has occurred on several occasions over last 2-3 weeks. thx

In what way do you feel I’m being insincere? Sarcastic, yes. I’d buy that. Anyone who knows me knows I can be quite sarcastic. But insincere? Do you honestly think I’m actually a Believer masquerading as a ‘denyer’ or something like that?

And you guys can keep repeating over and over that ‘little doubt remains’, but that isn’t true. And you know it (or you should know it). Not only that, but there SHOULD be doubt, at least among the scientists. I can understand how a Believer would feel there’s nothing to doubt; that’s what a Believer should do. But a real scientist, or someone with a basic understanding of how science works, would not say that the science is settled and little doubt remains.

I’m not a scientist (and neither are you guys, really), but I do have a grasp of the scientific method. My background is in manufacturing; cutting edge composites. We make medical devices, and aviation components for the military. Currently I’m in quality control. I perform experiments on pretty much a daily basis. I do have an understanding of the scientific method - forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment, analyzing the results, re-considering the hypotheis and/or asking a new question, and so on. I’m reasonably well-versed in the old saw of ‘garbage in, garbage out’. My professional discipline comes from the exacting standards of my customers (not my blog’s readers or some such).

The Earth is an incredibly complex, dynamic system. That should tell you a few things:

First, dynamic means it is in constant change. In other words, Al Gore’s assertion that there is some sort of equilibrium point in climate is just plain false. The average temperature changes up or down constantly. That has always been true. If it wasn’t, the system would be dead (and that would not be a good thing).

Second, the Earth being the Earth, we can’t just put it in a box to experiment on it. We can observe it, but to run experiments we have to construct models. That takes us to the beginning of the scientific method - asking questions, making assumptions, forming hypotheses - then programming a model.

Third, the Earth is an incredibly complex system. The assumptions that are programmed into the model must be incredibly complex. In fact, more complex than our understanding of climate at this point. It’s really no big surprise that the models don’t have a great track record. It’s not something to feel too bad about or be embarrassed about. It’s just the way it is.

Thirty-five years ago James Hansen’s models were predicting a global freeze. Today, the climate models predict a calamitous warming. So? The models still don’t accurately predict reality. The reality is somewhere in-between probably.

That’s nothing to be ashamed of. The science is still in its infancy. The shame is in screaming that “the science is settled!” and expecting everybody to believe or be branded a heretic. And worse, expecting everybody to pony up and support a solution to a problem that hasn’t been proven.

Joe, and others, assert that the very failure of the models is somehow proof that AGW is not only real, but much worse than even the scientists expected. But that’s just not a scientific conclusion. That’s a leap of faith. The models don’t work all that well because one or more of the assumptions that were programmed into them are wrong; or other factors were not considered (or even thought of yet) or weighted erroneously (too little or too much). And I could go on and on in that direction because, again, the Earth is way more complex than our understanding of it.

Do we see evidence of warming? Certainly. Do we see strange, new weather patterns? Maybe. But none of our observations can establish cause and effect at this point.

Is Man pumping a lot of ‘greehouse gases’ into the atmosphere? Yes. But the answer to the question of what that will cause, if anything, is not yet established - witness the faltering models - so in truth, the ‘theory of man-made climate change’ is not really a theory at all, but still a hypothesis, and a long way from being any sort of established fact.

I know your typing fingers are itching to say “but there’s a consensus!”. And that’s very nice, if there is one, but science isn’t done by a show of hands. It’s done by making observations, asking questions, forming hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, and looking closely at the results of your experiments. If the results don’t affirm your hypothesis, then it’s back to the drawing board. And it’s always back to the drawing board in some sense, because almost nothing is ever truly ’settled’ in science.

I love to point out the fact that there are still scientists studying gravity, and that’s one area most people thought was settled long ago, right? Can I see a show of hands?

All this would be academic if this argument hadn’t entered the world of politics. And when I say ‘politics’ I mean the world of people who want control over our money and our lives. People like Maurice Strong, the grandfather of global warming politics (even if you have no idea who I’m talking about). He is a communist, a depopulationist, a eugenicist. His agenda is power and world governance, not saving us from ourselves like the propaganda has led you to Believe.

And don’t twist anything I’ve said to mean that I’m some sort of anti-conservationist. I’m all for conservation, whether we are talking about energy, or species, or habitat, or preserving air or water quality, or other ‘green’ technologies, or whatever. That’s not really what this argument is about. It’s about controlling energy use, and robbing people (okay, TAXING for you ‘progressives’) to pay for it - to create a solution to a problem that is still in the hypothesis stage scientifically.

And finally, in regard to Olin’s drunken-sounding rant above: I re-read it, but still don’t fully understand it. I’ve never said much about the other planets, but I guess he’s alluding to the reports of ‘global warming’ on some of the other planets. There’s really not much the various planets have in common as far as climate goes, because their atmospheres are so different. The one thing they do have in common is recieving their energy from the same sun. But I’m not even really going there in my argument because that’s just one more of many variables that have to be incorporated into a good climate model, and I’ve already dealt with that.

So call me a denier or a Denyer or stupid or whatever makes you feel good, but you would do your cause (or faith) more good if you could logically and soberly show me how AGW is anything more than a hypothesis. And you would do the world more good if you took a serious look at the movers and shakers behind the hysteria.

All the Denier talking points right down the line. Did we call you right or what?

Past time to get with the science, my friend, and put that nonscience behind you. AGW is serious business, and now we’ve gotta get to the solutions while we still can.

Innovate or Die!

Are you for real? Or are you just trying to feed me some disinformation?

You say that “even if AGW turns out to be total baloney” carbon is still some kind of serious risk? I might buy the environmental risk (it’s dirty); and I’m sure there are decent theoretical economic arguments for getting away from carbon-based fuels (but show me the technology); but exactly how is carbon a national security risk that must be promptly dealt with?

Then you go on to praise this blog for skipping over the science and getting down to solutions, when you admit the problem hasn’t yet been proven to exist.

Your post has the earmarks of rather typical disinformation. At best, you are saying that the end justifies the means.

Ivan,

You are even worse than Paul. You blow off my discussion of the scientific method by calling it ‘nonscience’ and then offer absolutely no counter-argument. Of course you can’t argue against the scientific method, but you ought to be able to dredge up something to offer in the way of proof for the hypothesis instead of just calling me names.

And was that a bit of disinformation or a Freudian slip when you called AGW “business”?

Both of you guys should be embarrassed.

Geez. Shannon is at least entertaining.

I know you must be a busy guy, but if you are going to run a blog you should take the time to read and consider the posts you get here.

Science isn’t about ignoring the results you don’t like. I merely pointed out that if the models don’t perform as the hypothesis ‘expects’, then the models need to be refined and new experiments run. The science, in that case, isn’t ’settled’. And the real scientists aren’t stopping there anyway, even if you are.

It’s not kosher for you to ignore the results you don’t like, or to extrapolate unscientifically to justify your own opinions. That’s truly “nonscience”, as Ivan would say, although I would use the words ‘faith’ or ‘propaganda’, depending on whether I thought you were merely deluding yourself, or attempting to delude others.

Re-read what I wrote and tell me if I really missed something. Go ahead and take my argument apart.

Do you have any idea of all the things we depend on petroleum for? It’s not just fuels. Everything from plastics and chemicals to drugs and food additives, and many, many things between. You wouldn’t even have a computer to tap on. Although I am sympathetic to the idea that ‘black gold’ has certainly attracted and built a lot of organized crime.

You can dream of an oil-free world if you want, but the general topic on this particular blog is AGW.

And trying to skip over the science of climate to get to supposed solutions is just not practical - unless climate isn’t your real focus and what you really want is the government policies, or the book sales, or something else that depends on hysteria and not looking too closely.

Congratulations! Your website has attracted a Denier of the 1st Kind who wants to “debate” all the debunked Denier issues ad infinitum.

Meanwhile, the causes and impacts of AGW mount with each passing day. As the scientific community continues to expose the dangers of inaction, let’s get on with the solutions.

The future of our kids & grandkids (and his) are much more important than his personal bank account. Saddle up, pilgrim!

The irony (chutzpah?) of this DDDenier sitting you squarely in the camp of AGW promoters is too much. Surely, you’re gonna incorporate that into your standup (sitdown?) routine, no?.

The solutions to AGW won’t be simple, but they can bring substantial economic & social benefits, including the development & deployment of new, efficient energy & transportation technologies and improved quality of life for more bodies, not to mention restoration & preservation of our planet’s biodiversity.

The economic & social upheavals you fear will be our destiny should we do too little too late.

For examples of doing too little too late, take a hard look at the Ohio Valley, my haunts as a child. The once proud & thriving cities and towns and communities along this nation-building river valley are increasing desolate, dirty, and despairing, not a little due to necessary economic & technological change not undertaken in time.

Thanks for the “heads up”. I saw a report a couple of years ago (either on PBS or The Science Channel or National Geographic; I think it was copyrighted 2005) profiling the problems in Sub-saharan Africa with the encroaching Sahara. The most striking part of the report came in focusing on a particular village. They interviewed villagers who told of how it USED to be that they couldn’t even see the desert. Now, they showed how the villagers had to shovel sand, like snow, out from around their houses & properties because the desert was so close that the sand blew in so deep. Finally, they showed how the villagers “lost the war” and had abandoned the village; not only was the snow — I mean sand — piled so high that houses were half buried, but also were the tops of palm trees barely visually any longer having been nearly completely covered with sand. I know; I can hear Ron now: “That’s only anecdotal evidence.”, which harks to part of the point that I was making in having brought it up with which to begin. I’m wishing that Ron was the mortgage holder on that village; I’m thinking that then he’d have a different viewpoint. It’s funny how, when anecdote becomes one’s own personal experience, one tends to “sing a different tune”…

Anyway, your point is well taken. In the world of material balances, it makes sense that desert growing in one region comes at the expense of desert shrinking in another. Though I could hark to another part of the point that I was making, that 18,000 years ago there was no desert there but rather vast expanse of savanna (harking to the fact that obviously there’s not been material balance at some point over the last 18,000 years but rather massive accumulation), I can again hear the likes of Ron blathering about it not being related to today, about it being a natural process, about it not being related to human induced climate change, or whatever their usual “drool” is. Regardless, to me this presents the opportunity to contrast the motivations of the likes of Joe to the motivations of the likes of Ron. Where I’d like to think that Joe (and most of “us”) is (are) motivated out of compassion for the 10s of millions placed at risk by the POTENTIAL of a 1 meter rise in sea level in places like Bangladesh or by the PRESENT hardships faced by people like those in Sub-saharan Africa, or the lower Alps, or Tuvalu, or Shishmaref, Alaska — people not just whose livelihoods are greatly affected but rather whose very way of life is threatened — it seems rather obvious that the likes of Ron are motivated more by the fact that they’re “shaking in their little space booties” over the prospect of a 10 cent a gallon tax increase. (Oh, those poor babies; 10 cents a gallon is just so evil & wicked! Here, let me wipe that drool from your lips you poor things…) So again, thanks for the heads up. Let me do some research and get back to you on this one here under some future post of Joe’s to which you’ve responded.

This comment regards your comment Sept. 24th, 12:04pm. Please be more careful of your “concessions” in the future. While those “eating at The Master’s Table” in their thinking regarding AGW realize the point that you’re making, Ron’s response shows not only how those still “eating pig slop” are clueless as to your point but also how they’re waiting to “devour you like a lion” upon making slips like that. On the one hand, this makes perfect sense; while they still haven’t yet developed enough sense to stop eating pig slop, they demonstrably have enough sense to dine upon other fare that just happens to wander within their close proximity. On the other hand, one can’t help but wonder what it’s going to take for them to transform their thinking, to get them to realize that being up to their knees in “pig sh^t”, with their heads buried in a “pig trough”, fighting the other “swine” to get their fair share of “pig slop”, is no way to live. But, who am I to judge? Of course, they can only be transformed if they’re truly human. If they’re really pigs masquerading as “humans”, obviously there’s no place for them at The Master’s Table. If I remember right, somebody somewhere put this most succinctly, something to the effect of, “Cast NOT your pearls before the swine…”

In regards to your concession, rest assured that, from a CO2 standpoint, it’s definitely “put the A in AGW”. To understand this, you need only talk to young Chemical Engineers who work at places like Chevron & BP. Chemical Engineers are highly trained in the art — I mean science — of material & energy balances and scientific “Laws” like “what goes up must come down”. (Or, is that just another ‘theory’ or mere ‘hypothesis’ that Ron has to revalidate every time he sits on the toilet?) I’m thinking that Joe knows all about this, having been at Scripps with the likes of Dr. Munk, who’ve spent endless hours working on material balances of how much carbon we’ve pumped into the atmosphere versus how much both atmospheric & OCEANIC carbon levels have changed in response. While I do have to give Ron credit for his point of this being extremely “complex & dynamic” — not so much for our atmosphere, which stays very nearly ideally mixed, but very much so for our oceans, which are anything but ideal when it comes to mixing, the surface-to-deep CO2 gradient that we’re establishing being arguably most difficult to quantify given oceans so vast & variable — this doesn’t mean that there aren’t bright & highly functional human beings who can effectively quantify the CO2 balance. It just means that there are those who are so weak & puny minded (like Ron seems to flaunt that he is) that they can’t even hope to begin to think that the “carbon in, carbon out” equation might be balanced.

(Let me not get started on how his type might think that “god” is busy dinka-dinka-dinking “his” pretty little nose to make the CO2 that we’re pumping into the “toilet” that we call an “atmosphere” magically disappear…)

(It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad how the likes of Ron have no trouble balancing equations like “garbage in, garbage out”, but, when it comes to other things, like CO2, they’re totally “lost”. Of course, that ought to come as no surprise as it’s perfectly consistent with being so lost as to eating pig slop when you could be dining at The Master’s Table instead. But, of course, that’s their choice if they’re human. Of course, if they’re pigs masquerading as “humans”, obviously they have no choice.)

Well, I suppose I should stop my drunken ramblings for now. In conclusion, let me hark back to a point that I made in my first comment on this website (look for cutie Sarah Michelle Gellar’s picture) where I’d wished that Joe had given this woman on the IWF panel the “what for” about: if the increase in atmospheric carbon ISN’T from burning fossil fuels, then the only other logical explanation IS a crisis in our biosphere — you know: algae & plants NOT transforming CO2 into O2 in order to maintain atmospheric BALANCE like they USED to. Furthermore, while ‘in the grand scheme of things’ your slip ‘ain’t no big thang’, let me conclude by saying that I just hate seeing you fall into one of Ron’s petty little “traps” like I did (drunkenly?!). Please accept my best wishes for continued success in your comments.

Here’s a link from the USGS on the subject of desertification you may enjoy reading. I think you’ll find the causes a tiny bit more complex than you might think.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

I’m both confused & disappointed with you. Disappointed in that I felt that you led me to believe that you were going to give me more than just a couple, pathetic, ad hominem paragraphs. I feel as if I’ve been more than patient in waiting for a more substantive response. In anticipation, I’ve prepared a response to your other comments, it’s just that I’ve been waiting for a (substantive instead of stylish) response from you before I hit ’send’. What’s the dilly? (P.S. This comment isn’t my “real” response; think of it as “purely imaginary”.)

Regarding my confusion with you, I don’t know where to start. I’m thinking that you’re big boy enough that you don’t need to be spoon fed or that you don’t need your hand held, but I must admit that, having gone back through most of your recent comments, I’m confused. I’m not sure where to start, so I guess that it’s best to start at the beginning. (I know: The Ancient Greek Poet Homer would start more towards the end and then go back to the beginning, but I’m not Homer.)

Let me just say this regarding what I’m perceiving as your confusion over CO2’s role as a “greenhouse gas”:

#1: My comment about Venus was supposed to address this. If you think that “magic pixie dust” is responsible for Venus’ warming, there’s an easy rectification for that. In the “Ron-to-Olin Dictionary”, wherever you see “magic pixie dust” listed under Ron’s “climate factors”, substitute “carbon dioxide” under Olin’s “climate factors”. If you’re already in a position where you require no translation in these regards, please forgive my ignorance: I wasn’t capable of teasing that “fact” out of your previous comments. You seemed to “deny” that fact, but maybe the shortcoming is more deception or fear or immaturity (or ignorance or insanity) on your part — or lack of prescience on my part. Far be it for me to accuse you of being a “denialist”. I can’t know for sure what applies to you unless you’re ever so kind enough to tell me. (Survey says…)

#2: If you don’t fully understand the effects of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, let me offer you a simple thought experiment. You know about microwave ovens, right? You know how a microwave oven has a magnetron that’s tuned to a specific frequency that water absorbs in order to SELECTIVELY heat your food’s water (instead of heating your plate or Tupperware or the rest of the oven), right? (I hate to be so seemingly facetious here, Ron — you know: microwave ovens being so ubiquitous and what not — but your stance against “progress” seems to leave little room for “assumption”.) Well, stretch your imagination to a microwave oven where the frequency has been altered to correspond to that of CO2 rather than water. (This harks back to my “IR Spec” comment that you thought “drunk”.) That’s not too much of a “stretch” for you, is it Ron? If not, please realize that it’d be easy for YOU to engineer said “oven”, tuned to CO2’s frequency rather than water’s. Now, I hope that you’re cognizant enough to realize that that’s an industrial “fact” — not speculation or conjugation or hyperbolation or whatever else it is in which you otherwise seem to revel. Whaddaya say, stretch?

#3: If you don’t realize that you could tune a “microwave oven” for CO2 instead of H20, that’s neither my problem nor the problem those who tend to populate this site. I must be honest: I’m not sure of the difference between your definition of “fact” vs. “opinion”. If you think that everyone who uses a microwave oven needs to validate that oven with the FDA every time they use it, then I pity you — just like I’d pity you if you thought that everyone should validate their toilet with the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) every time before they flushed it. Remind me what planet from which you originate again, Ron? I’m thinking that you’re confusing “hypothesis” with “validation”, but maybe it’s me who’s confused. The only way for me to know “for sure” is for you to tell me. (You know why a “valley girl” takes 2 birth control pills, right? Because she wants to be “for sure, for sure”.)

(You can’t imagine how thrilled I was to know that you work with medical devices & aircraft in hopes that your definition of “validation” might “jive” with mine — no “Ron-to-Olin dictionary” required.)

(I’m thinking that it’s a good thing that you don’t work in quality control for a microwave oven manufacturer for fear of them going out of business due to over validation, but who am I to know? Maybe you revel in “jumping through hoops”, like some kind of freakin’ dancin’ dog.)

In conclusion, let me cut to the chase. I’m sure you don’t want me to hold your hand or spoon feed you (but if you do, let me know; I’ll change your proverbial “diaper” too if I have to), so I won’t. I’ll leave it to you to do the research on your own to find out at which frequency you need to tune a microwave oven for operation and to which frequency you’d need to re-tune said oven for CO2. Are you functional & scientific enough to get back to me on this one here? If you don’t know where to look for CO2, let me give you a hint: search IR Spectroscopy. (For water, start with microwave ovens — duh.) If this project is too daunting for you, let me know. I can help you out; I’ve already got said “facts” at ready disposal….

In drunken sub-conclusion, are you prescient enough to engineer an infrared oven tuned to CO2 analogous to “normal” microwave ovens tuned to water, or is that beyond your little brain’s capacity to absorb “facts” vs. “opinion”? While I’d like to think the answer a resounding, “YES!”, far be it from me to assume.

P.S. If you already understand CO2’s role as a “greenhouse gas”, please forgive me for the above. I’ll never do it again until the next brain-dead bozo who’s clueless as to CO2’s electromagnetic properties comes along, and, of course, I’ve ‘blown the froth off a couple’.

You must be some kind of engineer, so of course we need to take your rants seriously, if we can. So tell me more about this experiment you want to perform. Are you trying to cook your dinner? Disinfect your shorts? Will we need a plasma initiator? I’m not sure CO2 would be your best choice, but you’re the engineer. Have you had your brain out for calibration lately? Can we work a global warming angle in somewhere, you know, for the grant proposal? Should I bring my aluminum foil helmet?

Should you bring your aluminum foil helmet? I fear that’s too little, too late!

Thought I was reading classical Latin. Better check that punctuation key.

Is this what this is about? That you know so little about “science” –just enough to be “dangerous”? My point in bringing up microwaves isn’t to pour more fodder into your “trough” but rather to give you some of that “sober science” that you SAID you craved. You know: a PRACTICAL, WORKING, EVERYDAY, NON-HYPOTHETICAL example of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL principle underlying AGW’s THEORY.

(I know: it appears from your Hansen response that it’s really attention that you crave, not science or viewpoint transformation, though it was interesting to note how your seeming “contempt” turned to “worship” at the feet of St. James upon Joe showering you with special attention, which I’m so glad that he did so as to cast even more light onto your soul. )

Microwave ovens are tuned to a particular electromagnetic frequency, a “magic frequency” if you will, engineered specifically for water; there are TWO such IR frequencies for CO2. My purpose in bringing this up was to point out that the exact same case presents itself for CO2 as for water, except in the IR part of the spectrum — no “ad nausea hypothesis testing” required. Sounds like we need to call in the Mythbusters on this one here, since Adam loves “soda” and Jamie loves “big boom”. You’re gonna need more than some petty “aluminum foil helmet”.