Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#213 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your input. See even you can respond without the use of calling names. I do disagree with your statement.
Why of course, it was too high brow for you.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#214 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
Only three category-5 storms have hit the United States since record-keeping began—the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, which devastated the Florida Keys, killing 600; Hurricane Camille in 1969, which ravaged the Mississippi coast, killing 256; and Andrew in 1992, which leveled much of Homestead, Fla. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was a category-5 storm at peak intensity over the central Caribbean, Mitch in 1998 was a category-5 storm at its peak over the W Caribbean, and Gilbert in 1988 was a category-5 storm at its peak. Gilbert was the strongest Atlantic tropical cyclone of record until Wilma in 2005, which was at its peak while category-5 storm over the W Caribbean. The 1970 Bay of Bengal tropical cyclone killed some 300,000 persons, mainly by drowning, and devastated Chittagong (now in Bangladesh); some 130,000 died when a cyclone struck Myanmar along the Andaman Sea in 2008. The deadliest U.S. hurricane was the 1900 Galveston storm, which killed 8,000–12,000 people and destroyed the city. Hurricane Katrina (2005), one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, was economically the most destructive U.S. storm, devastating the SW Mississippi and SE Lousiana coasts, flooding New Orleans, killing some 1,200 people, and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless. Hugo (1989) in South Carolina and Opal (1995) and Charley, Ivan, and two others (2004) in Florida, and Rita (2005) in Louisiana and Texas also caused billions of dollars worth of damage. Weak hurricanes can still cause major flooding and damage, even when downgraded to a tropical storm, as did Hurricane Agnes (1972).
And you were saying.
Ignore numbers killed in the above, since a small storm that hits Guatemala might kill more than a massive storm that hits Florida. Look at the dates of the storms listed above:
1900
1935
1969
1970
1972
1989
1992
1995
1998
2004
2005
2005
2005

2 huge storms before 1969.(1/35 years)
3 storms in the 20 years between 1969 and 1989 (1/7 years)
7 storms in the 15 years that follow.(1/2 years)

And this stops at 2005, no mention of anything later and we've had some big storms since then.

THAT is what I was saying.
Rem223

Hamden, CT

#215 Feb 15, 2013
Climate crapola is just that designed to fill the pockets of scum like al gore and george soros and the other clowns who started this carbon bank shit to get richer while bankrupting the middleclass and working poor. More wealth distrubution in favor of the rich.

Call these weather issues what they are EVOLUTION !!

If you believe the lies from obammy and his buddies, then look at it this way 2 of the worlds largest polluters China and India will never clean up their air. You want to see bad air in our hemisphere go visit Mexico City, Brazil, Columbia and Argentina.
Our air is clean compared to all the above.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#216 Feb 15, 2013
Rem223 wrote:
Climate crapola is just that designed to fill the pockets of scum like al gore and george soros and the other clowns who started this carbon bank shit to get richer while bankrupting the middleclass and working poor. More wealth distrubution in favor of the rich.
Call these weather issues what they are EVOLUTION !!
If you believe the lies from obammy and his buddies, then look at it this way 2 of the worlds largest polluters China and India will never clean up their air. You want to see bad air in our hemisphere go visit Mexico City, Brazil, Columbia and Argentina.
Our air is clean compared to all the above.
You are making two mistakes out of either ignorance or just stupidity.

While it is true that these other places are struggling with pollution, the pollution that you "see" in the air is not the only form of pollution, and doesn't necessarily effect climate. For example, dust storms make the air very "dirty" but don't have any lasting impact on climate.

So, yes, the Chinese are dealing with a high particulate count in their air (which is also our air) and should concern us. However, we are still a massive contributor to CO2 and other greenhouse gases despite the fact that our particulate count is low. CO2 is clear.

However, on a bigger note, the argument that: They're doing it, too! is not a valid reason to poison yourself. Or to destroy the world for future generations.

We should be investing a lot more of our ENORMOUS resources into green energy technology which we can then export to these places to help them reduce their pollution as well.

The only downside to green energy is that it will reduce the amount of money we send to the Middle East for their oil. Good thing none of that money ever finds its way into the pockets of terrorists. Oh, wait...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#217 Feb 15, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why are you here other than to promote yourself...?
I'm here to promote what accomplished dissident scientists like Miklós Zágoni, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson are saying.

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -- Richard Lindzen.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#218 Feb 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
So far that "tenth of a degree" has resulted in several "Biggest Storms we've ever seen"
You don't know that. There is no such law of physics. You just believe all the hysteria that you've been told.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#219 Feb 15, 2013
Lindzen has been repeatedly debunked.
The fact is he failed and has been lying about it ever since!
DETAILS:
In March 2001, Lindzen theorized about a negative feedback to CO2 from water vapor [that he dubbed the Iris Hypothesis]. He concluded a reduction in tropical cloudiness would produce a marked cooling effect overall and thus serve as a stabilizing negative feedback.

Except OOPS: Peer review by NASA Langley researchers found:
<<... the much smaller albedo and lower outgoing heat flux assumed by Lindzen exaggerated the cooling effects of the outgoing radiation over cloudy, moist regions while minimizing the warming effects of incoming sunlight through regions covered by cirrus (Lin et al. 2001).“
Using the new satellite data from Ceres:
"Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models, Lin concludes. And when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won't work.>>
See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iri...
Evidence Against the Iris Hypothesis is in more detail here
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.n...

II Lindzen's more recent 2009 paper no longer claimed there was a **strong** negative effect for an Iris hypothesis.
Nor was he able to propose ANY scientific mechanism that would explain a negative feedback (which he now switched to claiming still existed but was now small)
Here is his paper.
It too was debunked by another group of NASA climatologists.
Revisiting the Iris Effect
Feb 22, 2010 NASA's Earth Science News Team

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blo...

“A study published last summer by MIT's Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi showed a curious thing: 15 years of observations of the tropics revealed that the Earth responds to rising sea surface temperatures by dumping more radiation to space.“

Wong summarized a few basic problems that led to the surprising finding:
1. Lindzen and Choi focused on a number of selective time periods. But if the beginning and end points of those time periods are adjusted only slightly, their result falls apart.
2. The paper also treated the tropics as a closed system. In other words, it did not take into account any outside influences on what was happening in the tropics, such as the large amount of energy transport moving in and out of the tropics on ocean currents and atmospheric waves during events such as El Nino and La Nina."The tropics is not a closed system," Wong said. "But they treated it as such in the study."

3. Lindzen and Choi took their result from the tropics and applied it globally, instead of using global data to study the link between global temperature increases and global outgoing radiation to space.

They wrote up their results against Lindzen in a technical study here.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL0...
see last line

<<Consequently, regressions of radiation with SSTs in the tropics may have nothing to say about climate sensitivity. >>
Lindzen never had a rebuttal that answered these criticisms. He’s through in scientific circles.
#3 Even a favorite of conservatives -- Professor Judith Curry --has stated she had "no confidence" in Lindzen's paper

"So, this large negative SW feedback with small positive IR feedback is not presently associated with a likely physical mechanism; e.g. Lindzen's iris feedback wouldn't produce this type of SWR/IR signature.... Even with a redo of the LC calculations fixing the implementation errors (e.g. using the correct version of the ERBE data, etc.),

*** I am not convinced that the overall methodology used by LC can give a credible result for the climate feedback factor and climate sensitivity.... Summary: No confidence in the analysis of LC.>>

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-revi...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#220 Feb 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm here to promote what accomplished dissident scientists like Miklós Zágoni, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson are saying.
Miklós Zágoni -- who??????????

"A search of Google Scholar for Miklós Zágoni returns two articles, one on a philosophical subject, and another published in the International Journal of Physics, titled the "Relationship between physical constants and the electron mass."

Yeah, we see how you value science.
Answer you don't.

You just want the Libertarian ideology, and NOT the science.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#222 Feb 15, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Miklós Zágoni -- who??????????
http://www.dailytech.com/Resea rcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equatio ns+Totally+Wrong/article10973. htm

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#223 Feb 15, 2013
Here is the meat:

<<So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down>>

And what is that negative feedback. I already proved with Lindzen it isn't clouds. That was actually a good try and it was a bust.

You realize that is mumbo jumbo and not physics.
Which is why he never published anything.

LOL. Only right wing rags print this type of crap.
And they have LOTS like this.

Wouldn't you think more skeptics would be pointing to this -- and be more specific.

THINK! Assuming that's what you cared about.
I doubt it, sadly.

Why? Because right wingers WANT the ideology and not the physics/science.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#224 Feb 15, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Which is why he never published anything.
His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#225 Feb 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
wow... in Hungarian no less.

Get a clue: If it was ANYTHING at all: The skeptics would be all over the theory and you'd see the details.

The right wing sites will publish ANY trash they can get their hands on -- even when the theory conflicts with their earlier articles.**NO PROBLEM**

That was one of my early clues when I first started debating global warming that they weren't serious.

Don't you think the right wing sites would be EXCITEDLY all over a theory -- if the finally found one that could even be ... right?

Instead, all one sees is the standard mysterious/magical references to an unknown force.
This is code it is fake.

Wake up.
But I suspect you like being fooled.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#226 Feb 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
wow... in Hungarian no less.
Get a clue: If it was ANYTHING at all: The skeptics would be all over the theory and you'd see the details.
The right wing sites will publish ANY trash they can get their hands on -- even when the theory conflicts with their earlier articles.**NO PROBLEM**
That was one of my early clues when I first started debating global warming that they weren't serious.
Don't you think the right wing sites would be EXCITEDLY all over a theory -- if the finally found one that could even be ... right?
Instead, all one sees is the standard mysterious/magical references to an unknown force.
This is code it is fake.
Wake up.
But I suspect you like being fooled.
You have already exposed yourself as having a psychopathic brain disorder by selectively mine-quoting from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29...
for the ridiculously transparent evil of grossly maligning the unquestionable genius of Freeman Dyson.
PHD

Overton, TX

#227 Feb 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Why of course, it was too high brow for you.
You’re confused again spaced out spacedoutblues. I will make an effort to respond around K level for you in hopes that you can understand the message.
PHD

Overton, TX

#228 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You have already exposed yourself as having a psychopathic brain disorder by selectively mine-quoting from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29...
for the ridiculously transparent evil of grossly maligning the unquestionable genius of Freeman Dyson.
Excellent, you walloped the wallop10 again and again.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#229 Feb 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope you picked a particular image because you hoped it showed you to be correct and me to be wrong. It did not work for several reasons, primarily because it was not designed for the purpose you are suggesting. It did not show concentrations over the last x number of years. It did not show the majority of the southern hemisphere and it was not designed to show the historical spread of CO2 throughout the atmosphere.
What it was designed was to take a snapshot at a particular point in time and colour code CO2 concentrations. Without the levels represented by the colours the map is worthless.
Rather like the Wmap image of the CMB, the blue does not mean it’s not there, it means that the blue areas are few thousandths of a degree colder than the green which are a few thousandth of a degree colder than the yellow which are a few thousandth of a degree colder than the red. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0302/sky_wmap...
If this is a graphic of CO2 distribution, then there's a whole lot more blue and green than there is red or yellow.

Actually, CO2 is currently approx 400ppm, that means there is not CO2 everywhere in the atmosphere. Of every million parts of the atmosphere, only 400 parts in each million are CO2. Without a descritpion of the graphic, we don't know what the colors represent.

The reference for your graphic would be appreciated, I would like to see how the graphic was developed and the data set used. Maybe they have similar graphics for different times of the year, that would be interesting too.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#230 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Actually, CO2 is currently approx 400ppm, that means there is not CO2 everywhere in the atmosphere. Of every million parts of the atmosphere, only 400 parts in each million are CO2.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say with this.

No one is suggesting that the entire atmosphere is being replaced by CO2. They are saying that as the amount of CO2 (and other specific gasses) increases, the result on temperature is an increase.

So, pointing out that CO2 has gone from say 200ppm to 400ppm is important if it mirrors warming.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#231 Feb 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say with this.
No one is suggesting that the entire atmosphere is being replaced by CO2. They are saying that as the amount of CO2 (and other specific gasses) increases, the result on temperature is an increase.
So, pointing out that CO2 has gone from say 200ppm to 400ppm is important if it mirrors warming.
Our discussion was about the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. I agree greenhouse gases do retain heat in the atmosphere. My point is that altho an important greenhouse gas, CO2 is still very sparse in our atmosphere and located more in low elevations and low latitudes.

I contend that temperatures raise CO2 values not the other way around. Ice core data indicates that temps change first and CO2 follows. If true, then our recent rise in temps would cause our atmospheric CO2 to go up. Yes if more heat is in the atmosphere then CO2 can trap more heat, if less heat is in the atmosphere then CO2 traps less heat.

CO2 can't make heat. It can trap heat, some discussion is still ongoing about it's ability to back radiate heat, but it can't make heat. Heat must be in the atmosphere for CO2 to trap. Which is why ice core data shows CO2 changes following temperature.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#232 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You have already exposed yourself as having a psychopathic brain disorder by selectively mine-quoting from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29...
for the ridiculously transparent evil of grossly maligning the unquestionable genius of Freeman Dyson.
You mean you want to forget these forgetable quotes? LOL

<<I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge.">>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29... ;

or these

Per Wikipedia quoting Dyson:

* " My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.[13]

* " I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.

I repeated them for you, since you seem so desparate to want to ignore them... ha ha

YOUR kinda expert, no?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#233 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our discussion was about the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. I agree greenhouse gases do retain heat in the atmosphere. My point is that altho an important greenhouse gas, CO2 is still very sparse in our atmosphere and located more in low elevations and low latitudes.
I contend that temperatures raise CO2 values not the other way around. Ice core data indicates that temps change first and CO2 follows. If true, then our recent rise in temps would cause our atmospheric CO2 to go up. Yes if more heat is in the atmosphere then CO2 can trap more heat, if less heat is in the atmosphere then CO2 traps less heat.
CO2 can't make heat. It can trap heat, some discussion is still ongoing about it's ability to back radiate heat, but it can't make heat. Heat must be in the atmosphere for CO2 to trap. Which is why ice core data shows CO2 changes following temperature.
thank you for being clear.

Here's why I disagree:

We don't need to explain where the heat is coming from. It's coming from the Sun. CO2 doesn't need to create heat.

The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is not the result of warming. Warming does not generate carbon. It merely increases the movement of existing molecules.

The carbon in our atmosphere is increasing because we are actively searching for large sources of carbon which are not in our atmosphere, digging them up and converting them to carbon dioxide which we release into the atmosphere.

We are causing the increase in carbon. To argue otherwise would mean that you can find an alternate source of carbon aside from fossil fuels which FAR outstrips the amount of carbon released by fossil fuels. Good luck.

As for ice core and temp changes - Carbon is not being released at the polar caps. The carbon that is being released does not stay at ground level, nor does it clump. As you rightfully pointed out it disperses more or less evenly.

So, if a great deal of carbon is released at the equator, it is evenly distributed by the time it is captured some years later in the ice cap.

However, temperature disperses MUCH faster throughout the atmosphere. As such, it gets represented more quickly in ice core samples.

If carbon around the equator is increasing the temp around the equator, the relative temp at the poles will go up more quickly than the amount of carbon showing up at the poles.

Now, if you had evidence that temperature increased significantly for 500 years or so prior to an increase in carbon, that would be significant. That's not what we find.

What we find is that the two of them go up in lock step.

And that this is happening despite cycles of greater or lesser sun activity, meaning the heat increase here is not the result of heat output from the sun.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min red and right 340,747
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Chimney1 173,399
News Thousands of bees stolen from local farmer 20 min Willy Tonka 1
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 28 min Dragnet52 230,312
News Scholarships ease burden for agriculture student 42 min Rural Rubin - Farmer 1
News Obama to wage climate fight at Alaskan frontline 1 hr SpaceBlues 4
News Residents raise concerns about growth (Oct '09) 17 hr reserves stolen 42
More from around the web