pageok
pageok
pageok
Case against flying not so airtight

That's the headline of my latest Rocky Mountain News media column, debunking the claim that commercial air travel for long flights causes greater CO2 emissions than would driving a SUV solo the same distance. To the contrary, air travel causes far few per-capita CO2 emissions. Presumably the emissions of most pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, would also be less.

The column also castigates newspapers for running pre-publication reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Finally, kudos to Fred Thompson for criticizing the over-federalization of criminal law. Along with Glenn Reynolds, Paul Blackman, and Mike Krause (and sometimes by myself), I've written a variety of articles criticizing over-federalization regarding guns, drugs, and abortion.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Case against flying not so airtight
  2. Fred Thompson on Federalism:
cirby (mail):
Of course, the important comparison is between SUVs and private jets, not SUVs and commercial airline travel.

...or private jets and commercial airline travel.
7.28.2007 5:19pm
scote (mail):

That's the headline of my latest Rocky Mountain News media column, debunking the claim that commercial air travel for long flights causes greater CO2 emissions than would driving a SUV solo the same distance.

Yes, because solo driving a gas guzzling SUV is the valid comparison. While interesting, I'd hope that we don't use solo SUV driving as our gold-standard benchmark. In either case, the real lesson is that we shouldn't travel so much without good reason.

I'm torn on the issue of pre-release reviews. I hate spoilers, especially ones that are in the headlines and impossible to miss. But I also dislike embargoes.
7.28.2007 5:51pm
Truth Seeker:
When I saw the headline I thought the case against flying was because of the ridiculous security game and the delays and wasted time.

Until climatologists can predict next week's weather, much less 20 years from now, and prove the Earth isn't warming due to solar activity, I don't even think about CO2.
7.28.2007 6:05pm
rjh:
Nat Geo has less of an excuse than you give them. The fuel consumption per available seat mile and passenger mile for aircraft is regularly published by Aviation Week and others. You find that the gallons of kerosene per asm has grown rather slowly from the lower 30's to about 40 over the past 30 years. (This figure is total fuel burn, including all phases of operation, all flights.) The gallons per passenger mile has done much better, going from low 20's to mid 30's over that period, because load factors are much higher. These figures are part of the regular financial analysis of airlines.

It's hard to see how they could claim an SUV to be superior for a single passenger.The SUV figure is probably for a family of four, where the SUV consumption per passenger is much lower. A highly fuel efficient SUV with four passengers could be half the per passenger consumption.

I suspect that the regular business passengers would also be much happier if those vacationing family of four people would drive instead of flying. :-)
7.28.2007 6:07pm
Smokey:
Since there is no historical correlation at all between CO2 and global temperatures in the real world, I suspect that the crusade against airlines comes from the EU - particularly France - which can not compete head to head with American carriers.
7.28.2007 7:26pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Until climatologists can predict next week's weather, much less 20 years from now, and prove the Earth isn't warming due to solar activity, I don't even think about CO2.
The second part makes sense; the first part is nonsensical. First, climatologists are not meteorologists. Second, there's no logical connection there. You might as well say, "Until you can tell me what the score of tomorrow's Devil Rays game will be, I won't believe you when you tell me that they're going to have a losing season."
7.28.2007 8:13pm
byomtov (mail):
Doesn't this comparison depend on whether the plane is going to fly anyway? IIRC passenger airplanes generally have maximum weight roughly double their weight when empty. If so, each passenger requires less additional fuel than the fuel/passenger averages suggest.

If you propose sending everyone by car then you better figure in the energy cost of widening roads, building and occupying more hotels, etc.
7.28.2007 8:51pm
Aleks:
Re: In either case, the real lesson is that we shouldn't travel so much without good reason.

Given that travel is expensive most of us do not travel without good reason. Maybe the rich jet around for the sheer joy of it, but most of us only get on a jet, or take a long road trip, when we have some darned good reason for it.
7.28.2007 9:15pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Make all SUV owners pay a 70% carbon tax. That'll teach em.
7.28.2007 10:20pm
Zacharias (mail):











You breeders need to get real and admit that having a kid contributes more to pollution than an SUV does. Before banning SUVs, we should ban having kids.

Guaranteed, you will make the animals, plants and atmosphere happier!
7.28.2007 11:29pm
Smokey:
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food, and it is necessary to life on Earth.
7.29.2007 12:13am
scote (mail):

Until climatologists can predict next week's weather, much less 20 years from now, and prove the Earth isn't warming due to solar activity, I don't even think about CO2.

You can ignore CO2 all you want but that won't help us get off of foreign oil dependence or the inarguable fact that oil supplies are not infinite. Saving fuel is an imperative.

CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food, and it is necessary to life on Earth.

Ok, prove it by spending an hour in a chamber with 5% CO2.

Life and the environment are both robust and delicate. Change anything and things can topple. Too much or too little of any of the precise levels of the gasses in the atmosphere can be toxic to individuals in the near term or mankind in the long term. A cavalier attitude is no match for reality in the long term.

You breeders need to get real and admit that having a kid contributes more to pollution than an SUV does. Before banning SUVs, we should ban having kids.

Ultimately all man made environmental disasters relate to over population. If there were only 100,000 people on earth it wouldn't really matter if they drove HumVee's 24 hours a day and ate every plant and animal they could get their hands on. 6 billion people on the other hand...
7.29.2007 12:29am
scote (mail):

Given that travel is expensive most of us do not travel without good reason. Maybe the rich jet around for the sheer joy of it, but most of us only get on a jet, or take a long road trip, when we have some darned good reason for it.

I suspect most "necessary" business trips aren't. I don't mean that the trips are deliberately gratuitous, but that our methods can be grossly inefficient because of the relatively low cost of air travel. What kind of society is so inefficient that it "has to" routinely fly lone individuals or groups of people thousands of miles across the country?

I often fly on business. I'm flown in to do jobs not because I'm the only person who can do what I do but because my clients are familiar with me and trust my work. It seems silly that so much travel occurs because our Rolodex's are too small and we don't know who to trust. Granted, I'm not really planning on putting my money where my mouth is. I'm not really a great paradigm shifter, but that doesn't mean I can't point out how silly it is.
7.29.2007 12:37am
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
Truth Seeker wrote:
Until climatologists can […] prove the Earth isn't warming due to solar activity, I don't even think about CO2.

Nature, Vol. 448, No. 9149 (5 July 2007), pp. 8-9 (http://nature.com/nature/):

“A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

“‘This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,’ says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

“Claims that the Sun, rather than raised levels of greenhouse gases, has been responsible for recent warming have persisted in a small number of scientists and in parts of the media. Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, says he was ‘galvanized’ to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle,’ a television programme shown in March by Britain's Channel 4, as a prime example.

“Together with Claus Frohlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming. […]

“Ken Carslaw, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Leeds, UK, points out that solar effects might still be possible. They might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing [i.e., declining –MEM] solar effect comes to an end.”

(Boldface emphasis in the last paragraph above added.) Thus, for the last score years (since 1987) directly measured solar output has been declining while the Earth has observably warmed.
7.29.2007 10:50am
Curt Fischer:
Readers of past VC threads on climate change will already be familiar with Smokey's obsession with the counterfactual:


there is no historical correlation at all between CO2 and global temperatures in the real world



But I figured for the sake of new readers I would point out graphs Smokey might examine were he interested in facts and not uninformed, opinionated bloviating:

Graph 1


Graph 2

These graphs show very clearly a correlation between temperature and CO2.
7.29.2007 12:10pm
scooby (mail):
Ok, prove it by spending an hour in a chamber with 5% CO2.

Hell, pure oxygen is deadly. A good surgeon can kill you with a few grams of it.

Now, if we want to make sense, let's recheck the definition of the words: a toxin is something that affects an individual organism, a pollutant is something that affects the environment, and a global pollutant is something that affects the environment on a global scale. None of these things compare well with the others.

CO2 is a mild toxin, and it can be both a global fertilizer and a global pollutant.
7.29.2007 1:05pm
Ken Arromdee:
You breeders need to get real and admit that having a kid contributes more to pollution than an SUV does. Before banning SUVs, we should ban having kids.

That argument applies to killing already existing people as well as to having kids. If you were to jump off a building, that would reduce pollution by more than getting rid of an SUV.

But except for a few whackjobs, the point of reducing CO2 is to make the world better *for the sake of people*. So solutions which involve not making people (or killing existing ones) aren't relevant. It's like trying to reduce the robbery rate by saying "don't have children, if there are few people, there will be few people to commit robberies". True but misses the point.
7.29.2007 1:11pm
scote (mail):

But except for a few whackjobs, the point of reducing CO2 is to make the world better *for the sake of people*. So solutions which involve not making people (or killing existing ones) aren't relevant. It's like trying to reduce the robbery rate by saying "don't have children, if there are few people, there will be few people to commit robberies". True but misses the point.


At some point we will have to stop increasing the world population through lower birth rates. We do it proactively to help make the world a better place for people ("for people" doesn't mean or imply and infinite number of people as you would suggest) or we can wait until our over population is such a drain on the environment that it causes massive famine through the whole scale collapse of the environment, including a collapse of the ocean fisheries through over fishing.

The human population cannot grow indefinitely on a world with finite resources--it is a simple and inarguable mathematical fact and one you blithely ignore. Your attempted analogy of preventing robberies is not analogous to environmental collapse. Likewise your suggestion that any thing we do to make the world better for people means we must also commit to making the world a better place for an unlimited population is also counterfactual and, in fact, impossible.
7.29.2007 2:43pm
Smokey:
Note that in Kurt Fischer's Graph #2, global temperatures decreased for thirty years, between 1940 and 1970 -- during a time when CO2 levels increased sharply. That deconstructs the overlay in the chart, which is bogus anyway due to the obvious diddling with the Y-axis. Like they say, figures don't lie but liars figure.

Going back to Fischer's Chart #1, note that CO2 lags temperature by +/- 800 years. Cause can not precede effect; CO2 does not cause temps to increase. If anything, it is an effect of natural climate change.

Next, McNeil claims above that the Sun's irradience peaked between 1985 and 1987. Wrong-O, bucko.

Anyone who claims that the Sun can cause global cooling, but not global warming must be living on another planet. Note in the chart above the direct correlation between the abrupt decline in Solar irradiance and the ''Little Ice Age'' in the late 1600's. Note also the Wolf minimum in the early 1800's -- a time when the Potomac was clogged with ice, and winters around the globe were especially severe. And note the steady increase in Solar irradiance from 1900 onward -- during which time the Earth warmed 0.6 degrees C. The Sun doesn't cause warming??

And the physical fact that the Solar System is warming in tandem with the Earth shows that there is a cause common to all the planets. Mars, Jupiter, Triton [Neptune's moon], and even far off Pluto are have been warming in lock step with the Earth.

Of course, if CO2 caused global warming, then it would show up in this chart. But there is no correlation, as anyone can plainly see. At times in the geologic past, CO2 levels have been many times greater than now, well over 2,000 ppm. Look particularly at the period between the Jurassic and the Paleocene. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. None. At a time when CO2 was many times higher than it is now.

The only 'science' that backs the CO2/global warming conjecture is based on computer climate models, which in turn use highly inaccurate urban temperature measurements as the basis for their AGW conjecture. In computerese, this is commonly referred to as GIGO [garbage in, garbage out]. As a result, computer models are highly inaccurate. When the real world record is observed, it is abundantly clear that CO2 does not cause the so-called ''greenhouse'' effect. If it did, the real world record would show rising temperatures as a result of rising CO2. But that is not the case. Ergo, CO2 can not be the cause of rising -- or falling -- global temperatures.

Climatologists at M.I.T. and elsewhere will never convince anyone who has had a religious conversion regarding anthropogenic global warming. But folks who have an open mind on the subject will see that the overwhelming preponderance of the world's top scientists dismiss the AGW conjecture as completely unproven.
7.29.2007 7:06pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
Smokey--"Going back to Fischer's Chart #1, note that CO2 lags temperature by +/- 800 years. Cause can not precede effect; CO2 does not cause temps to increase. If anything, it is an effect of natural climate change."

That claim is replied to here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Smokey--"Next, McNeil claims above that the Sun's irradience peaked between 1985 and 1987. Wrong-O, bucko."

So we follow the link to the Max Planck Institute where, following another link at the bottom of that page, we find this quote:

"Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun's main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun's magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

"These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. 'Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,' says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research."

Smokey--"And the physical fact that the Solar System is warming in tandem with the Earth shows that there is a cause common to all the planets. Mars, Jupiter, Triton [Neptune's moon], and even far off Pluto are have been warming in lock step with the Earth."

The problem here is that none of the links on this persons blog site actually debunk the notion of AWG. In fact, one article, "Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter," says:

"Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and 'that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,' he said."

In other words, increased heat from the Sun may AGGRAVATE global warming but it is not the main cause, according to this scientist.

And, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, these phenomena are NOT in "lock step" with the Earth, they do NOT represent the entire Solar System, and convincing alternative explanations have been put forth for all of them. It's POSSIBLE that there's a correlation but this has NOT been PROVEN.

Smokey--"Climatologists at M.I.T. and elsewhere will never convince anyone who has had a religious conversion regarding anthropogenic global warming."

Not necessarily true. Reid Bryson is a very interesting and well-spoken critic of global warming. In fact his interview with Mother Earth News, also available online, is even more enlightening as to his views on climate change and humanity.

Smokey--"But folks who have an open mind on the subject will see that the overwhelming preponderance of the world's top scientists dismiss the AGW conjecture as completely unproven."

Again, folks who really have an open mind on the subject will do their own homework. The Soon/Baliunas study you linked to above was highly criticized for its methodology. Half the board of the publishing journal resigned over what they felt was a failure of the peer-review process. In addition, this study was funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which we've already found to be a problematic source of unbiased information.

Richard Lindzen's editorial claims, among other things, that Nancy Oreskes' survey of peer-reviewed science on the subject was debunked by Benny Peiser. But in fact it wasn't and Peiser has since withdrawn his criticisms of Oreskes' work.

The point is that the "authorities" you point to as definitive are, with an occasional exception, just as problematic as those you seek to undermine--and in many cases even provide further evidence of a scientific consensus regarding AWG.

This time you can save yourself the trouble of flinging names at me. As I've said before, I'm nowhere near a Gorebot or alarmist, nor am I convinced that AWG, if it is a real phenomenon, is going dooming the planet. But the vehemence and utter certitude of your posts, combined with their insulting condescension, beg for a response.
7.29.2007 11:09pm
Ken Arromdee:
At some point we will have to stop increasing the world population through lower birth rates.

We all know the joke about the Lone Ranger being surrounded by Indians and telling his sidekick that 'we' were in trouble. "Who are you calling 'we', white man?"

Modern industrial societies don't even reproduce at replacement rate. "We" have no need to stop having children.
7.30.2007 12:35am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"'We' have no need to stop having children."

Quite right. We'll just put up more walls and pretend we can't be affected by global increases in population.

Interestingly, Smokey's own Reid Bryson has quite a bit to say about this topic:

http://tinyurl.com/2jks7q
7.30.2007 1:02am
Smokey:
Grover, me boy, you claim to be impartial, but you are a true convert.

Again, look at this chart and explain the zero correlation for instance between the Jurassic and the Paleocene [as even a True Believer can see, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the entire history of the Earth. None].

Poor Grover. Thomas Malthus was certain that the end was nigh, too. Increasing population will destroy us, doncha know.
7.30.2007 1:11am
Smokey:
For some reason the link didn't work. This chart.
7.30.2007 1:12am
scote (mail):

Poor Grover. Thomas Malthus was certain that the end was nigh, too. Increasing population will destroy us, doncha know.


Population growth, if left unchecked, will lead to the collapse of the environment. It is a mathematical and biological certainty and one you cannot disagree with or disprove. Malthus wasn't wrong about that, even if his timing was off.

Ignoring the issue of global over-population, combined with the industrial aspirations of the 3d world, is as smart not rationing water during a drought. And lack of water, not so coincidentally, is directly related to over population.

You can dance all you want to about CO2, Smokey, but unless you are biding you days until Armageddon it is just stupid to use up oil and other non-renewable resources like there is no tomorrow. Eventually, tomorrow will come and the oil we are completely dependent on for our economy, for raising and transporting food, for making plastics and medicines--for just about everything--will dwindle and dwindle. Why anyone would be so hell bent on using that oil up as soon as possible is beyond reason except for people who are entirely selfish and who only live for today without a care for the future of anyone else.
7.30.2007 2:14am
Smokey:
After centuries of being proved completely wrong, Malthus is being resurrected? Are you serious?? If so, you have absolutely zero faith in both technology and the free market, which for over two centuries has made Malthusian theory the laughingstock of science.

Psychotic pessimism aside, there is no credible reason to believe that Malthusian theory will suddenly be proven right, as Al Gore and his religious followers now claim [''The earth faces a planetary catastrophe within ten years!''], after centuries of Malthus being absolutely, 100% wrong.

Japan is a good example of where the developing world is inexorably headed. Now, if anyone wants to argue with China -- which is building an average of two coal fired power plants per week, and plans to continue at this rate until at least 2024 -- have at it. But no one really attacks China. Or India. Or Russia. Or Brazil. Or Korea, etc., etc. Why not?

Because this entire argument is a political attack against the U.S. The UN's Millenium Development Goals [previously called the ''World Tax'' [until the UN realized the bad press that their proposed 'tax' was causing], is intent on assessing a .7% tax on Americans -- amounting to over $100 billion per year expropriated from American workers -- to be paid into the opaque and completely unaccountable UN, which adamantly refuses any and all requests for an impartial, outside audit.

Money is the driving force behind the UN/IPCC's arm-waving over globaloney. If they had an honest bone in their bodies, they would go after China and the other major polluters rather than America, which has -- voluntarily -- reduced pollution more than any other industrialized country.

But rather than call China, Russia and the others to account, the Kyoto protocol, backed by the UN's apologists in the U.S., shovels 'carbon credit' megabucks into those countries, with zero accountability. Just like the UN's Oil-for-Food scam, which put almost $19 billion in bribes into the pockets of UN/EU theftocrats willing to run interference for the Sadman.

Only the most naive liberal would believe that money is not the primary and overriding motivation of the UN kleptocrats pushing the Kyoto scam.

Anyone who believes otherwise should open their wallets to the UN right now. But leave the U.S. taxpayers out of that particular scam.
7.30.2007 3:21am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Poor Grover. Thomas Malthus was certain that the end was nigh, too. Increasing population will destroy us, doncha know."

Hey, I've only been reading your own authorities, Smokey. Reid Bryson's really got me hooked:

"So our first and best defense is to turn the starving masses aside before they even begin to march. In other words we should be realistic and we should plan ahead. Population must be controlled in all countries and we must build up a reserve of food and other resources that's large enough to tide us over a long and a tough dry spell. And the only way I see to start building that reserve right now is for us all to begin—immediately—using less.

"Conservation isn't enough. Parsimony is what's required. We've got to quit focusing on the Gross National Product and all the throwaway frills that it's based on and get down to basics. The GNP depends too much on Detroit building a record number of new cars every year when what we really need are fewer cars that last longer. And use a hell of a lot less fuel. Gasoline is going to disappear. Period. Anyone who says it isn't is dreaming. It's just a question of 'when', not 'if'. Everything's finite, even uranium. Sooner or later, we're going to run out of all the things we depend on."

Please don't tell me he's a Gorebot!!
7.30.2007 5:07am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Psychotic pessimism aside, there is no credible reason to believe that Malthusian theory will suddenly be proven right, as Al Gore and his religious followers now claim..."

Oh, hell, then Bryson's just a psychotic pessimist! And here I was all ready to buy into his global-warming theories. Guess he's just a kook. But then again, he thought we were all going to freeze in 1974:

"There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving."
7.30.2007 5:27am
Smokey:
Grover me boy, you've opened my eyes. Bryson states quite authoratively that the Earth has been cooling, when the UN/IPCC claims exactly the opposite.

Since you cherry/nit pick one item out of a slew, who, in your faith-based opinion, is correct?

Out of the many, many links I've provided on this subject, why do you hide out from all but the one or two that you desperately want to believe makes your case? My original point, which you jumped in on, was that in the real world, CO2 does not cause global temperatures to increase. Never has, in the real world. When I provided strong evidence that the entire Solar System is warming, you claimed that in the case of each and every warming planet and moon, there is an explanation other than the Sun. Spoken like a True Believer. Provide citations, please, in the case of each planet and moon. I enjoy deconstructing lame arguments that fly in the face of Occam's razor.

Luddites believe that technology is evil. The Gorebots have taken that belief one step further: that human beings are evil, and must stop procreating. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that technology, along with the free market, will solve every problem that the Gorebot/Luddites are wetting their pants over. Technology and the free market will solve all of these problems -- as they always have in the past. Every time. 100%, no exceptions. Only True Believers think feel otherwise.
7.30.2007 10:15am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Grover me boy, you've opened my eyes."

Congratulations on finally reading something about somebody you refer us to as an "authority."

"Bryson states quite authoritively that the Earth has been cooling, when the UN/IPCC claims exactly the opposite."

Yes. So? What's so "authoritative" about Bryson's claims? And why believe a man who once said that aerosols were going to freeze us to death, and who now says we're all going to starve? I thought there was nothing to worry about. At least, you keep telling me that. ;-) Anyway, Bryson does not deny that the earth is now in a warming trend. So where does that leave us?

"Since you cherry/nit pick one item out of a slew, who, in your faith-based opinion, is correct?"

You're the cherry-picker, pal, I just tried to make sense of the mess of contradictory links you provided. I've told you before, if I spend two minutes a week thinking about global warming, it's only when I come across your comments on the topic. ;-)

"Out of the many, many links I've provided on this subject, why do you hide out from all but the one or two that you desperately want to believe makes your case?"

In other words, I've demolished the credibility of your other links, but you've still got a few thin shreds of "proof" hanging between your teeth.

"When I provided strong evidence that the entire Solar System is warming, you claimed that in the case of each and every warming planet and moon, there is an explanation other than the Sun."

Simply put, your "evidence" is not proof that the entire Solar System is warming. But even if it were, why should I dismiss the notion that the Erath's greenhouse gases might makes matters worse?

"Provide citations, please, in the case of each planet and moon. I enjoy deconstructing lame arguments that fly in the face of Occam's razor."

Oh, horse pucky. You're the one claiming the entire Solar System is warming. You provide the proof.

We've already discussed your little chart. Since it's the only thing left to hang your hat on, I'll ask you this: What makes you think that chart is accurate? (After all, the data sets were drawn from the work of two ragingly pro-AGW proponents.) Have you seen the original data? And why do you ignore the points of obvious correlation, such as the Paleocene-Halocene Temperature Maximum, which is accompanied by a massive surge of CO2 into the atmosphere, followed by a sustained warming period? That's what that particular data set was compiled to show. Have you read Pagani's original articles? Also, since the chart flip-flops between correlation and noncorrelation, why do you think it predicts the future with any accuracy?

You're so quick to dismiss everyone else's charts. Why should I buy yours? The fact is, we don't know the precise mechanisms of climate change in the distant past. Your chart doesn't provide all the answers, by any stretch of the imagination.

"The Gorebots have taken that belief one step further: that human beings are evil, and must stop procreating."

No, that's your friend Bryson.
7.30.2007 1:09pm
Smokey:
''And, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, these phenomena are NOT in "lock step" with the Earth, they do NOT represent the entire Solar System, and convincing alternative explanations have been put forth for all of them.''
Heh. Sure. As I said, provide citations, please, in the case of each planet and moon. ''All of them,'' as you contend.

But perhaps you are incapable of providing any credible evidence [eg, other than your opinion, or the speculations of a fellow convert] that each planet/moon noted is warming at the same time as the Earth is, and each for its own different reason?? That would be an astronomical coincidence. I enjoy deconstructing lame arguments that fly in the face of Occam's razor. And you're certainly winging it with the paleocene/holocene babble; there is no correlation, as anyone else can plainly see, between the steady temperatures for millions of years, and the wild swings in CO2 concentrations. That data, BTW, is sourced from the AAAS journal Science. Argue with them if you don't like the real world climate record.

Grover, I've spent over thirty years working in a major calibration lab with physical standards traceable to NIST [formerly the National Bureau of Standards]. I worked in the adiabatic lab for most of that time; mainly temp, humidity and mass. What's your background? The internet? Al Gore? Our metrology lab employs over 160 engineers and technicians. No one -- not one of them -- buys into AGW globaloney. This is their business. What's yours?

Anyway, have a nice day. I should have known better than to argue physical reality with a religious convert.
7.30.2007 4:47pm
Jam:
"kudos to Fred Thompson?"

Where has Mr. Thompson been in the last 20 years? Dr. Ron Paul has been lecturing and voting on this issue while Mr. Thompson earned a living lobbying.


"You breeders"

You must be one lonely individual. What misery to have you as an uncle. Are you spaded?
7.31.2007 9:35am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"As I said, provide citations, please, in the case of each planet and moon."

Fortunately, someone else has taken the trouble:

http://tinyurl.com/3xcc65

"And you're certainly winging it with the paleocene/holocene babble..."

Paleocene/Eocene, my error. No, I'm not "winging it." It's the work of the man who's "data" is purportedly represented in the chart you keep linking to. In fact, if you read the original article (which you can do by registering for free at the Science web site) you'll see that Pagani's C02 data in that article only covers the Miocene, Oligocene and Eocene eras. The chart you link to is not from that article. The C02 data beyond those periods is nowhere represented in that article. So where did the data come from?

Now, it's interesting to note that the authors of the site from which you sourced that chart have in fact removed it. It is no longer found there. They have replaced it with a C02 timeline drawn from a more complete list of sources. They have not super-imposed a temperature line. Also of note is that their new C02 timeline is QUITE different from their old one, including a huge jump during the Permian period which was not represented at all before, and an earlier decline in C02 levels during the Oligocene and Miocene periods corresponding to a cooling period. What seems clear, for one thing, is that they badly represented Pagani's C02 data on the earlier chart. If you imagine the old temperature timeline superimposed on the new C02 timeline, you in fact find many more points of correlation between C02 levels and global temperature.

Your old chart is done, gone, disposed of. Either they themselves revised their data, or someone else called them on it. They no longer have any chart (that I can find) which directly compares historical global temperatures with historical global C02 levels. I wonder why?
8.1.2007 3:12am
Grover Gardner (mail):
...which is not to say that the temperature timeline on the old chart can be relied upon either. Again, there's no data set or sourceable material to compare it to. It seems reasonable to suggest that the chart you keep linking to is outdated, inaccurate and/or misleading.
8.1.2007 3:37am
Grover Gardner (mail):
Actually, the old chart is still found on the site, buried within other links, but no longer featured on the main page. The old and new charts contradict each other, as noted.
8.1.2007 3:53am