Perry showed an amazing combination of ignorance and arrogance when he is proposing a “red and blue team” to “discuss it.” Fortunately, Al Franken correctly pointed out that THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS. ALL THE TIME.
It’s done, Rick. We know what is going on. The temperature is going up, the primary cause is increased levels of CO2, and the primary source of CO2 is human-caused burning of fossil fuels (though melting the polar icecaps is going to release a lot MORE greenhouse gases, but we’re still indirectly responsible for that, see above). We don’t need any ignorant politicians pretending there is a debate when there isn’t.
Most of the math for this is actually high-school level, too.
Republicans misuse science as well as they misuse the bible. the only science they believe has been proven wrong time after time. They should ask him about his thoughts on mercury in vaccines, they know ALL about that “science”
Not bad, but Yip Harburg did it better. It took me awhile to match Harold Arlen’s tune to it. Wonderful World was more obvious. I guess I am slowing down in my filk.
The thing about dealing with BO is that he makes me understand quite well what Wolfgang Pauli meant when he said of someone’s theory, “It’s not even wrong.” So it is with BO. The truth is, he does state some true principles. Nevertheless, he tries to snow you and sneers at the idea of showing how all this actually does work.
Contrary to his bluster, scientists have understood the physics he claims they do not understand. What BO refuses to recognize is that natural events that take place at glacial speeds are not relevant to any discussion about the effects of AGW. AGW is concerned with actions and consequences on human civilization time scales, not glacial time scales.
Just look at the time interval of glacial cycles. Over than last several hundred thousand years, the time it took for CO2 to go from minimum to maximum ( a difference of roughly 85 ppm) was no less than 7000 years. No less than 7000 years. That’s a glacial scale. Changes in global climate on that sort of time scale allow living systems to adapt to the slowly changing conditions. .In contrast, humans have dumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the oceans such that the CO2 has increased by 85 ppm in 50 years. That would be the amount of increase from the time when CO2 and temperatures are near their minimums. 50 years for AGW, so far, versus 7000 years for natural change!
BO talks about warm waters evaporating and moving to the land. Obviously that happens, contrary to his assertions that scientists don’t believe him. We know the water came from the oceans because we have physical evidence that during the ice ages, water levels are lower. He’s describing, however, a process that proceeds at a glacial pace. You know, really, really slow on the human time scale.
Moreover, his “analysis” does not allow for the fact that humans are using up groundwater stored over millions of years at a pace that leads to their exhaustion in centuries… or less. The amount of sea level rise due to that factor alone is nearly equal to the rise due to the melting of ice.
These changes to the environment from human civilization are too fast for living systems to adapt, as we see all around the world. Living systems, you know, those things which are supposed to benefit from an increase in CO2, but which somehow don’t, because, gosh willikers, increasing temperatures which will follow increasing CO2, tend to affect plants and animals in adverse ways. Adaption occurs in some cases, but there are limits to the speed of adaption and to the speed with which different species colonize more favorable land (or sea). This, the deniers uniformly fail to understand.
All of BO’s snide, yet in the end really foolish, comments are meant to obscure the issue. The goal of CO2 reduction is not to create an ice age. All his questions are trying to shift attention from what can be done on the human time scale, not on the glacial time scale.
Reducing Greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere slows down the rate of increase of temperature rise. That will eventually slow down sea level rise. Glacier melt? Maybe.
But the glaciers grow best under conditions when insolation is reduced as occurs in the natural glacial cycles. (Look up Milankovitch theory.) BO doesn’t like to think about insolation variations.
Average Greenland precipitation: about 1 meter per year. If we used 10 units of snow equal 1 unit of rain, then it would be 10 meter/year of snow With only snow and no melting, you’d expect 500 meters to accumulate in the Glacier Girl case (50 years). Instead, it was under 82 meters of ice and snow. Well, of course ice is nearly as dense as water, so if half the 82 meters were ice, that would be equivalent to 400 meters of loose snow. So the 10 meters of snow per year (without any melting, etc etc etc) is roughly on the mark.
BO’s 20,000 meters of snowfall is 2000 years of snowfall. Big whoop! Sloooowwww!
And of course, BO never, ever provides any kind of reference, so worthless comments.
Thanks, Baslim, for having the energy to respond to BO. His explanations make little sense in light of the time scales involved. I wonder what it is that motivates him to carry on. Perhaps his farcical recitation of half truths and falsehoods make him feel superior to all of the mere full-time scientists who study this year after year. It is special, after all, to spout demonstrably silly stuff while claiming insight and erudition that elude thousands of climate scientists. His take on climate change certainly casts doubts on anything else BO has to say about anything else.
It is also interesting how BO phrases his comments. His language is anything but straightforward and his reasoning is often impossible to tease out of the perpetual word salad. I’m not smart enough to parse his language successfully-my guess is that people like BO obfuscate reflexively.
But thanks for your persistence in explaining facts in evidence to the poor deluded fellow. While I’m sure YOU would change your views given contradictory new evidence, I am equally sure that BO never even considers the totality of the available evidence, and turns a blind eye to anything that would disrupt his carefully constructed alternate reality.
One final point. As Baslim mentions, the biological responses to environmental changes are slow. This is, perhaps, the crux of our argument that AGW is detrimental to human life, as shown by the accelerated species extinction rates occurring at this time (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full?con=&dom=pscau&src=syndication) and expected rates of recovery (http:/www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.091092698). Although BO has some knowledge of some basic physical principles, he has never shown any understanding of biological principles nor appreciation of the current extensive data on effects on biological systems. I have found this to be a common characteristic of the deniers.
Motivemagus almost 7 years ago
Perry showed an amazing combination of ignorance and arrogance when he is proposing a “red and blue team” to “discuss it.” Fortunately, Al Franken correctly pointed out that THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS. ALL THE TIME.
It’s done, Rick. We know what is going on. The temperature is going up, the primary cause is increased levels of CO2, and the primary source of CO2 is human-caused burning of fossil fuels (though melting the polar icecaps is going to release a lot MORE greenhouse gases, but we’re still indirectly responsible for that, see above). We don’t need any ignorant politicians pretending there is a debate when there isn’t.
Most of the math for this is actually high-school level, too.
Mr. Blawt almost 7 years ago
Republicans misuse science as well as they misuse the bible. the only science they believe has been proven wrong time after time. They should ask him about his thoughts on mercury in vaccines, they know ALL about that “science”
Masterskrain Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Just remember, Rick “Oops” Perry is a blithering idiot, sort of a male version of Klondike Barbie Palin.
Hippogriff almost 7 years ago
Not bad, but Yip Harburg did it better. It took me awhile to match Harold Arlen’s tune to it. Wonderful World was more obvious. I guess I am slowing down in my filk.
lonecat almost 7 years ago
It’s embarrassing to watch Perry burble his way through his incoherent mumbles.
Radish the wordsmith almost 7 years ago
You mean we cant endlessly burn fossil fuels without causing damage?
No wonder they don’t “believe”, it affects their wallets.
DrDon1 almost 7 years ago
Do @MDAVIS…. and @BRASS O. really intend to be prime examples of the Dunning Kruger effect?
DrDon1 almost 7 years ago
Sadly, Perry belongs in #45’s Cabinet!
Dtroutma almost 7 years ago
VERY unsettling that moron now has control over our nuclear weapons stockpile.
twclix almost 7 years ago
Hey Brass…just publish, why don’t you? You know, where actual climate scientists can review your claims and all…
Kip W almost 7 years ago
“The glasses do nothing!” —Rainer Wolfcastle
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
@Guy Fawkes, et al:
The thing about dealing with BO is that he makes me understand quite well what Wolfgang Pauli meant when he said of someone’s theory, “It’s not even wrong.” So it is with BO. The truth is, he does state some true principles. Nevertheless, he tries to snow you and sneers at the idea of showing how all this actually does work.
Contrary to his bluster, scientists have understood the physics he claims they do not understand. What BO refuses to recognize is that natural events that take place at glacial speeds are not relevant to any discussion about the effects of AGW. AGW is concerned with actions and consequences on human civilization time scales, not glacial time scales.
Just look at the time interval of glacial cycles. Over than last several hundred thousand years, the time it took for CO2 to go from minimum to maximum ( a difference of roughly 85 ppm) was no less than 7000 years. No less than 7000 years. That’s a glacial scale. Changes in global climate on that sort of time scale allow living systems to adapt to the slowly changing conditions. .In contrast, humans have dumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the oceans such that the CO2 has increased by 85 ppm in 50 years. That would be the amount of increase from the time when CO2 and temperatures are near their minimums. 50 years for AGW, so far, versus 7000 years for natural change!
BO talks about warm waters evaporating and moving to the land. Obviously that happens, contrary to his assertions that scientists don’t believe him. We know the water came from the oceans because we have physical evidence that during the ice ages, water levels are lower. He’s describing, however, a process that proceeds at a glacial pace. You know, really, really slow on the human time scale.
Continued …
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Continuing…
Moreover, his “analysis” does not allow for the fact that humans are using up groundwater stored over millions of years at a pace that leads to their exhaustion in centuries… or less. The amount of sea level rise due to that factor alone is nearly equal to the rise due to the melting of ice.
These changes to the environment from human civilization are too fast for living systems to adapt, as we see all around the world. Living systems, you know, those things which are supposed to benefit from an increase in CO2, but which somehow don’t, because, gosh willikers, increasing temperatures which will follow increasing CO2, tend to affect plants and animals in adverse ways. Adaption occurs in some cases, but there are limits to the speed of adaption and to the speed with which different species colonize more favorable land (or sea). This, the deniers uniformly fail to understand.
All of BO’s snide, yet in the end really foolish, comments are meant to obscure the issue. The goal of CO2 reduction is not to create an ice age. All his questions are trying to shift attention from what can be done on the human time scale, not on the glacial time scale.
Reducing Greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere slows down the rate of increase of temperature rise. That will eventually slow down sea level rise. Glacier melt? Maybe.
But the glaciers grow best under conditions when insolation is reduced as occurs in the natural glacial cycles. (Look up Milankovitch theory.) BO doesn’t like to think about insolation variations.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
@GF https://xkcd.com/1732/
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Average Greenland precipitation: about 1 meter per year. If we used 10 units of snow equal 1 unit of rain, then it would be 10 meter/year of snow With only snow and no melting, you’d expect 500 meters to accumulate in the Glacier Girl case (50 years). Instead, it was under 82 meters of ice and snow. Well, of course ice is nearly as dense as water, so if half the 82 meters were ice, that would be equivalent to 400 meters of loose snow. So the 10 meters of snow per year (without any melting, etc etc etc) is roughly on the mark.
BO’s 20,000 meters of snowfall is 2000 years of snowfall. Big whoop! Sloooowwww!
And of course, BO never, ever provides any kind of reference, so worthless comments.
lonecat almost 7 years ago
Thanks, Baslim. Clear and concise.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
BO, still incapable of showing a timeline.
twclix almost 7 years ago
Thanks, Baslim, for having the energy to respond to BO. His explanations make little sense in light of the time scales involved. I wonder what it is that motivates him to carry on. Perhaps his farcical recitation of half truths and falsehoods make him feel superior to all of the mere full-time scientists who study this year after year. It is special, after all, to spout demonstrably silly stuff while claiming insight and erudition that elude thousands of climate scientists. His take on climate change certainly casts doubts on anything else BO has to say about anything else.
It is also interesting how BO phrases his comments. His language is anything but straightforward and his reasoning is often impossible to tease out of the perpetual word salad. I’m not smart enough to parse his language successfully-my guess is that people like BO obfuscate reflexively.
But thanks for your persistence in explaining facts in evidence to the poor deluded fellow. While I’m sure YOU would change your views given contradictory new evidence, I am equally sure that BO never even considers the totality of the available evidence, and turns a blind eye to anything that would disrupt his carefully constructed alternate reality.
martens almost 7 years ago
One final point. As Baslim mentions, the biological responses to environmental changes are slow. This is, perhaps, the crux of our argument that AGW is detrimental to human life, as shown by the accelerated species extinction rates occurring at this time (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full?con=&dom=pscau&src=syndication) and expected rates of recovery (http:/www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.091092698). Although BO has some knowledge of some basic physical principles, he has never shown any understanding of biological principles nor appreciation of the current extensive data on effects on biological systems. I have found this to be a common characteristic of the deniers.