Swarming Darwins, Glaciers, and their Flying Spaghetti Monster Climate Theory
Whenever I write anything about Darwin, or even post an article on the topic without commentary, a swarm of drones dutifully buzzes to the attack. I swear that if I were ever lost in Siberia I could simply clear an area around me, whisper ``Darwin was a dope!`` and would soon have dozens of furious atheists seeking to devour my hide. Shakespeare put it succinctly; ``Me thinks he doth protest too much!``
That said, I rarely see any interest from these people about any other subject, so I was surprised to see that a couple of them posted responses to my post Shrinking Glaciers or Shrinking Truth. I removed one comment because it was gratuitously nasty and reiterated what the previous poster had said, but here are the comments:
argystokes said...
Remember, those glaciers form at high altitudes, and one would expect them to shrink from increased solar radiative forcing i.e. a warmer sun melts the ice faster. High altitude means less air to block the sun. Do the math, folks!
Air is warmer at higher altitudes? Don't forget to pack your swim trunks and flip flops on your next trip to your favorite alpine lake!
8:06 PM
Jake said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
7:41 AM
Timothy Birdnow said...
Not saying it`s warmer at high altitudes, just that it is exposed to more radiation, which means that a hotter sun will be more likely to have an impact. Otherwise, you would have no loss of glaciers on Mars...
2:09 PM
Timothy Birdnow said...
Oh, and the daytime temperature on the Moon is around 250* F. The Moon is in hard vacuum. Why isn`t it bitterly cold?
2:19 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp said...
You can't really be serious can you?
Silly me! I assumed that these people would either be intelligent enough to understand a reasonably simple point, and that they would be honest enough to not try to twist what I was saying. As long as I have dealt with these people, you think I would know better!
I seem to consume a very large amount of their attention, and I knew they wouldn`t be able to resist trashing me, so I ran a Technorati search. Lo and behold, anonymous (the guy who kept calling me Timmy to belittle me on the Darwin post) had stormed to the attack. Either he and his friends are monumentally ignorant, or monumentally dishonest. I suspect the latter; I think he understood full well what I was saying but twisted it to attack me. Anyway, here it is.
Here are some of the choice comments:
``Here it is... the blogging equivalent of the brown note (if this doesn't make you shit yourself from laughing too hard, you're lucky):
Remember, those glaciers form at high altitudes, and one would expect them to shrink from increased solar radiative forcing i.e. a warmer sun melts the ice faster. High altitude means less air to block the sun. Do the math, folks!
No, this is not a misquote. He really did say that it's natural for the air to be warmer the higher you go. Reminds me of a story about some guy who stuck feathers to his arms with wax...
To such an astoundingly idiotic statement as the one I've quoted, there can be only one proper response: oh my f****** God! Obscenity edited by Mr. Birdnow
Tara Mobley said...
Timothy Birdnow? Of the spastic flibertigibbet dance? He's still spouting his lack of understanding on the internet? I'd have thought that run in with PZ would have taught him a lesson.
AustinAtheist said...
Oh, my f****** God!
BigHeathenMike said...
Reading that, I'm reminded of "Cousin Merle" from the Simpsons running into the office and saying to Sideshow Bob and Cecil, "Mr Terwilliger! Come quick! There's trouble down to de ce-ment mixer!" Slack-jawed yokel, indeed.
Jake said...
The coward deleted my comment! Wanker!
A comment he made further increases the holy-shit-buffoonery-in-action jaw drop from this.
Not saying it`s warmer at high altitudes, just that it is exposed to more radiation, which means that a hotter sun will be more likely to have an impact. Otherwise, you would have no loss of glaciers on Mars...
Is it possible that Timmy thinks that Global Warming is because we are making the sun hotter not because we are affecting the climate?
Anyway, you all get the idea. I don`t know if they all mis-understood my point, or if they are willfully ignorant. I decided to explain exactly what I was saying so that anybody who DOESN`T understand what is being discussed can perhaps learn a thing or two. Casual readers may come to see what I`m speaking about and realize what a dishonest bunch of people these militant Darwinists really are.
The whole theory of CO2 driven Global Warming was first postulated in the 1970`s, and was based on observations of the planet Venus. Venus has an atmosphere 100 times as dense as the Earth`s, and is composed principally of CO2. Temperatures are around 900* F. because the Venusian atmosphere traps and holds in heat in a fashion similar to a greenhouse. The idea of anthropogenic (man-caused) Global Warming was not taken seriously then because the prevalent theory was we were entering another ice age.
This theory ignores the very serious fundamental differences between Earth and Venus, and does not account for Mars. More on that in a moment.
When Global Cooling went belly-up, environmentalists jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon. They noted that the average worldwide temperature had increased by a whopping 1* in the 20th Century, and they claimed that this proved that rising CO2 from industrial emissions was at fault. CO2 levels have risen from around 280 ppm to 330 ppm, and this they claimed was the explanation for this dire temperature rise. Of course, this ignores the fact that we had two cold periods in the 20th Century-during the `30`s and `40`s and again during the `70`s at a period of heavy industrialization, but, hey, what`s a degree or two among friends?
So Man-made Climate Change became Gospel. The problem GW enthusiasts have is that it is very easy to account for this mild temperature increase, while at the same time we don`t understand the carbon cycle very well, or what affect an increase in CO2 has on the climate. Venus is closer to the Sun, has a much thinner crust than the Earth (thereby being subject to greater vulcanism) and rotates very slowly and retrograde (backwards); modeling Earth`s climate on a Venusian model does not work. What about Mars? Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2, but is very cold because it`s atmosphere is thin. Much of the Martial atmosphere is frozen as permafrost or in the Polar Caps. Why, if CO
is such a powerful greenhouse gas?
Enter astronomy. Sunspots have been studied for a long time, and during the 20th century the Sun was in a period of heavy sunspot activity-especially in the latter third of the century. The Sun is hotter during periods of heavy sunspot activity, and cooler during quieter times. During the Maunder Minimum there was almost no record of sunspots, and this coincided with the Little Ice Age. Ice core sampling (Beryllium is formed in those cores during heavy sunspot periods) shows that the Medieval Warming Period which preceded the LIA was a time of heavy stellar activity.
There are a number of other factors which influence worldwide temperatures; Malankovich Cycles (variations in the Earth`s eccentricity) are particularly tied to Ice Ages, and recently it has been shown that Heinrick Svensmark`s theory about Cosmic Rays being linked to cloud formation is valid. But it is the more energetic Sun that drives the warming we have seen in the last century.
One of the continuous problems plaguing GW researchers has been the disagreement between satellite data and surface measurements; satellites have shown little warming of the atmosphere, while oceanic sampling has shown a temperature increase. What does that mean? It means that the more massive things-oceans and the like-are heating but the air isn`t, which suggests that CO2 is not the engine forcing this but an increase in solar activity. Sunlight is, to put it simply, stronger these days, and the dense oceans are absorbing this energy and warming, while the relatively thin air is heating far more slowly. One would expect the exact reverse if CO2 were the culprit.
It should be pointed out that CO2 levels have historically increased AFTER global temperature increases.
At any rate, let`s get back to glaciers and Mars; there are thick ice caps covering both of the Martian poles. These caps are composed of dry ice and water ice (more dry ice at the south pole) and they shrink in summer and grow in winter (in fact, the north pole sometimes nearly disappears). Now, let`s get this straight; Mars is very cold, and the poles never reach the melting point for water. These ice caps sublimate, that is, they evaporate straight into the atmosphere without ever becoming liquid. Why? Because during the summer they are exposed to more sunlight, more radiation, more energy. Their great mass absorbes this energy, and can only release it by sublimation-just like water evaporates from a pot on the stove. The process reverses in winter, and the caps grow.
This is the very same principle employed in passive solar heating of houses. You don`t let warm air into the house, you let sunlight strike something with thermal mass. By nightfall your thermal mass has warmed, and will continue to radiate heat for most of the night (at least in theory). That is what happens on Mars, and that is what happens to glaciers at high altitudes.
THAT, dear reader, is the point I was making; if Nepalese glaciers are shrinking, it can easily be explained by the fact that they are receiving stronger sunlight. The sun is burning warmer, and the extra radiation is sublimating or melting more ice.
But is the Sun warmer? Well, Mars is warming. For that matter, so is Pluto. Suggestive, no?
I have written about Global Warming at length; go here and here. Of course my friendly neighborhood Darwinists could have taken the effort to learn what I have to say before insulting me, but that would have taken all of the fun out of it!
Instead, those Seekers after Truth launched a particularly nasty attack on my credibility, heedless of the profound foolishness coming from their pie holes.
But, of course, it still isn`t about the science, is it boys? Perhaps you would like offer us your flying spaghetti monster theory of Climate?
That said, I rarely see any interest from these people about any other subject, so I was surprised to see that a couple of them posted responses to my post Shrinking Glaciers or Shrinking Truth. I removed one comment because it was gratuitously nasty and reiterated what the previous poster had said, but here are the comments:
argystokes said...
Remember, those glaciers form at high altitudes, and one would expect them to shrink from increased solar radiative forcing i.e. a warmer sun melts the ice faster. High altitude means less air to block the sun. Do the math, folks!
Air is warmer at higher altitudes? Don't forget to pack your swim trunks and flip flops on your next trip to your favorite alpine lake!
8:06 PM
Jake said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
7:41 AM
Timothy Birdnow said...
Not saying it`s warmer at high altitudes, just that it is exposed to more radiation, which means that a hotter sun will be more likely to have an impact. Otherwise, you would have no loss of glaciers on Mars...
2:09 PM
Timothy Birdnow said...
Oh, and the daytime temperature on the Moon is around 250* F. The Moon is in hard vacuum. Why isn`t it bitterly cold?
2:19 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp said...
You can't really be serious can you?
Silly me! I assumed that these people would either be intelligent enough to understand a reasonably simple point, and that they would be honest enough to not try to twist what I was saying. As long as I have dealt with these people, you think I would know better!
I seem to consume a very large amount of their attention, and I knew they wouldn`t be able to resist trashing me, so I ran a Technorati search. Lo and behold, anonymous (the guy who kept calling me Timmy to belittle me on the Darwin post) had stormed to the attack. Either he and his friends are monumentally ignorant, or monumentally dishonest. I suspect the latter; I think he understood full well what I was saying but twisted it to attack me. Anyway, here it is.
Here are some of the choice comments:
``Here it is... the blogging equivalent of the brown note (if this doesn't make you shit yourself from laughing too hard, you're lucky):
Remember, those glaciers form at high altitudes, and one would expect them to shrink from increased solar radiative forcing i.e. a warmer sun melts the ice faster. High altitude means less air to block the sun. Do the math, folks!
No, this is not a misquote. He really did say that it's natural for the air to be warmer the higher you go. Reminds me of a story about some guy who stuck feathers to his arms with wax...
To such an astoundingly idiotic statement as the one I've quoted, there can be only one proper response: oh my f****** God! Obscenity edited by Mr. Birdnow
Tara Mobley said...
Timothy Birdnow? Of the spastic flibertigibbet dance? He's still spouting his lack of understanding on the internet? I'd have thought that run in with PZ would have taught him a lesson.
AustinAtheist said...
Oh, my f****** God!
BigHeathenMike said...
Reading that, I'm reminded of "Cousin Merle" from the Simpsons running into the office and saying to Sideshow Bob and Cecil, "Mr Terwilliger! Come quick! There's trouble down to de ce-ment mixer!" Slack-jawed yokel, indeed.
Jake said...
The coward deleted my comment! Wanker!
A comment he made further increases the holy-shit-buffoonery-in-action jaw drop from this.
Not saying it`s warmer at high altitudes, just that it is exposed to more radiation, which means that a hotter sun will be more likely to have an impact. Otherwise, you would have no loss of glaciers on Mars...
Is it possible that Timmy thinks that Global Warming is because we are making the sun hotter not because we are affecting the climate?
Anyway, you all get the idea. I don`t know if they all mis-understood my point, or if they are willfully ignorant. I decided to explain exactly what I was saying so that anybody who DOESN`T understand what is being discussed can perhaps learn a thing or two. Casual readers may come to see what I`m speaking about and realize what a dishonest bunch of people these militant Darwinists really are.
The whole theory of CO2 driven Global Warming was first postulated in the 1970`s, and was based on observations of the planet Venus. Venus has an atmosphere 100 times as dense as the Earth`s, and is composed principally of CO2. Temperatures are around 900* F. because the Venusian atmosphere traps and holds in heat in a fashion similar to a greenhouse. The idea of anthropogenic (man-caused) Global Warming was not taken seriously then because the prevalent theory was we were entering another ice age.
This theory ignores the very serious fundamental differences between Earth and Venus, and does not account for Mars. More on that in a moment.
When Global Cooling went belly-up, environmentalists jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon. They noted that the average worldwide temperature had increased by a whopping 1* in the 20th Century, and they claimed that this proved that rising CO2 from industrial emissions was at fault. CO2 levels have risen from around 280 ppm to 330 ppm, and this they claimed was the explanation for this dire temperature rise. Of course, this ignores the fact that we had two cold periods in the 20th Century-during the `30`s and `40`s and again during the `70`s at a period of heavy industrialization, but, hey, what`s a degree or two among friends?
So Man-made Climate Change became Gospel. The problem GW enthusiasts have is that it is very easy to account for this mild temperature increase, while at the same time we don`t understand the carbon cycle very well, or what affect an increase in CO2 has on the climate. Venus is closer to the Sun, has a much thinner crust than the Earth (thereby being subject to greater vulcanism) and rotates very slowly and retrograde (backwards); modeling Earth`s climate on a Venusian model does not work. What about Mars? Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2, but is very cold because it`s atmosphere is thin. Much of the Martial atmosphere is frozen as permafrost or in the Polar Caps. Why, if CO
is such a powerful greenhouse gas?
Enter astronomy. Sunspots have been studied for a long time, and during the 20th century the Sun was in a period of heavy sunspot activity-especially in the latter third of the century. The Sun is hotter during periods of heavy sunspot activity, and cooler during quieter times. During the Maunder Minimum there was almost no record of sunspots, and this coincided with the Little Ice Age. Ice core sampling (Beryllium is formed in those cores during heavy sunspot periods) shows that the Medieval Warming Period which preceded the LIA was a time of heavy stellar activity.
There are a number of other factors which influence worldwide temperatures; Malankovich Cycles (variations in the Earth`s eccentricity) are particularly tied to Ice Ages, and recently it has been shown that Heinrick Svensmark`s theory about Cosmic Rays being linked to cloud formation is valid. But it is the more energetic Sun that drives the warming we have seen in the last century.
One of the continuous problems plaguing GW researchers has been the disagreement between satellite data and surface measurements; satellites have shown little warming of the atmosphere, while oceanic sampling has shown a temperature increase. What does that mean? It means that the more massive things-oceans and the like-are heating but the air isn`t, which suggests that CO2 is not the engine forcing this but an increase in solar activity. Sunlight is, to put it simply, stronger these days, and the dense oceans are absorbing this energy and warming, while the relatively thin air is heating far more slowly. One would expect the exact reverse if CO2 were the culprit.
It should be pointed out that CO2 levels have historically increased AFTER global temperature increases.
At any rate, let`s get back to glaciers and Mars; there are thick ice caps covering both of the Martian poles. These caps are composed of dry ice and water ice (more dry ice at the south pole) and they shrink in summer and grow in winter (in fact, the north pole sometimes nearly disappears). Now, let`s get this straight; Mars is very cold, and the poles never reach the melting point for water. These ice caps sublimate, that is, they evaporate straight into the atmosphere without ever becoming liquid. Why? Because during the summer they are exposed to more sunlight, more radiation, more energy. Their great mass absorbes this energy, and can only release it by sublimation-just like water evaporates from a pot on the stove. The process reverses in winter, and the caps grow.
This is the very same principle employed in passive solar heating of houses. You don`t let warm air into the house, you let sunlight strike something with thermal mass. By nightfall your thermal mass has warmed, and will continue to radiate heat for most of the night (at least in theory). That is what happens on Mars, and that is what happens to glaciers at high altitudes.
THAT, dear reader, is the point I was making; if Nepalese glaciers are shrinking, it can easily be explained by the fact that they are receiving stronger sunlight. The sun is burning warmer, and the extra radiation is sublimating or melting more ice.
But is the Sun warmer? Well, Mars is warming. For that matter, so is Pluto. Suggestive, no?
I have written about Global Warming at length; go here and here. Of course my friendly neighborhood Darwinists could have taken the effort to learn what I have to say before insulting me, but that would have taken all of the fun out of it!
Instead, those Seekers after Truth launched a particularly nasty attack on my credibility, heedless of the profound foolishness coming from their pie holes.
But, of course, it still isn`t about the science, is it boys? Perhaps you would like offer us your flying spaghetti monster theory of Climate?
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 4:00 PM
1 Comments:
Tim,
They suffer from CFSS.
Can't Fix Stupid Syndrome
They are shining examples of how our school systems are failing again. They can not muster the scientific knowledge to properly evaluate research.
Post a Comment
<< Home