Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Global Warming

Where Are The Hurricanes?

no-cyclones.jpgRemember when all the hurricanes were pounding Florida and the Gulf Coast a few years back? All the greenbats and global warmists were blaming greenhouse gas and other horrible man-made things for the weather; the warming apocalypse was nigh!

Well, it’s the middle of freaking huricane season and if you go to the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center website you get the “No tropical Cyclones at this time” message.

This must be An Inconvenient Truth for the Goracle and all the other warmist liars.

12 Jul 2012 by Environment Global Warming Greenbats

Asian Aerosols and US Climate Change

circle.jpgI learned through World Climate Report that a group at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, wrote a paper outlining “Potential Impacts of Asian carbon aerosols on future US warming.”

The paper postulates that Asian emissions have a greater effect on climate change in the US than US emissions do. It would seem that the EPA’s efforts to regulate carbon in the country would be rendered moot by the NCAR report.

Image: atmospheric circulation in the north Pacific Ocean

The climate along the Pacific coast of the US is affected by air and ocean current circulation way more than Asian carbon. That’s why temperatures along the coasts of western states remain relatively stable – cooler in summer and warmer in winter than most places in the contiguous US.

Now, after doing all the numbers in terms of atmospheric volume versus greenhouse gasses, the actual impact of Asian, as well as US emissions, do very little to affect the climate. Urban Heat Islands and solar activity have far more effect on the environment.

It seems to us that the efforts by the paper’s authors, even though it short-circuits the measures taken in the US by the EPA, is just another attempt at “proving” Anthropogenic Global Warming is reality. We’re still saying that AGW is bullsh*t.

08 Jun 2012 by Environment Global Warming Greenbats

Let Them Eat Bugs

insect.gifThis is from the “You’ve gotta be kidding me” file. A group of so-called scientists in India wrote a paper addressing the topic of “increasing pressure on land is making meat production from macro-livestock less sustainable than ever before.” Their solution to the so-called problem is for people to stop raising cattle, hogs, etc. and to commence harvesting and eating insects.

Sherwood Idso of the CO2 Science website thinks that global-warming and climate change activists themselves should be leading the charge for entomological cuisine:

Globe-trotting Al Gore, for example, could dine on wasps, bamboo caterpillars, crickets and locusts, which Premalatha et al. tell us “are sold as delicacies in the finest restaurants and food shops in Thailand.” Or he may choose the very special rice-field grasshopper, which they say “is a luxury food item in Japan,” as are canned hornets. And James Hansen: when in Mexico, he could feast on escamoles (the pupae of an ant species) and gusanos (butterfly larvae), which are sold there for half the price he would have to pay in Canada, where they go for almost two U.S. dollars per gram (that’s over $900 per pound!).

Well said, Mr. Idso. Read the entire article at CO2science.org.

30 May 2012 by Environment Global Warming Greenbats

A Century of Global Temperature Data Proves – Not Much

I read a recent article at the CO2 Science website entitled “One Hundred Years of Global Temperature Change: 1906-2005.” The article discusses the conclusions of a study made to try and determine if 20th century warming is the result of an anthropomorphic-related temperature increase.

Working with 2249 globally-distributed monthly temperature records covering the period 1906-2005, which they obtained from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the authors evaluated “to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation.”

What was learned:

Ludecke et al. report that “the mean of all stations shows 0.58°C global warming from 1906 to 2005,” but they say that “if we consider only those stations with a population of under 1000 and below 800 meters above sea level, this figure drops to 0.41°C.” In addition, they note that “about a quarter of all records show falling temperatures,” which in itself, in their words, “is an indication that the observed temperature series are predominantly natural fluctuations,” where the word natural means that “we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution.” And continuing to explore this aspect of their analysis, they evaluated – with a confidence interval of 95% – the probability that the observed global warming from 1906 to 2005 was a natural fluctuation, finding that probability to lie “between 40% and 70%, depending on the station’s characteristics,” while “for the period 1906 to 1955 the probabilities are arranged between 80% and 90% and for 1956 to 2005 between 60% and 70%.”

It’s interesting that this study went to the trouble to factor out the Urban Heat Island effect by removing densely populated areas from the results. Of course, the alarmists try and capitalize on the UHI effect to support their erroneous beliefs.

05 Apr 2012 by Environment Global Warming Science

CO2 Global Warming: Proven or Unproven?

Unproven wins hands-down.

From CO2 Science:

Anthropogenic-CO2-Induced Global Warming: Proven or Unproven?
hyper-stuck.jpg

The fact that there has been little to no net warming of the earth over the past dozen or so years, in almost all of the global temperature databases that are maintained by the various research groups that study this important subject, has led many people to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not having the large global warming effect the world’s climate alarmists assign to it. And this fact has led many climate alarmists to devise complex explanations for this dilemma.

On 12 August 2011, for example, Science published Solomon et al.’s contribution to this effort, which begins with the statement that “understanding climate changes on time scales of years, decades, centuries, or more requires determining the effects of all external drivers of radiative forcing of earth’s climate, including anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols, natural aerosols, and solar forcing, as well as natural internal variability.” The result of their effort in this undertaking was the finding that “near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period [since AD 2000] of about -0.1watt per square meter, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred,” although they emphasize that additional contributions to global climate variations of the past and future decades such as from solar variations, natural variability, or other processes “are not ruled out by this study,” which pretty much means that the study does not mean very much, and that it can thus be forgotten within the context within which it was conducted.

. . .

Clearly, the weight of real-world evidence continues to suggest that it is the recurrent millennial-scale cycling of earth’s mean global air temperature that has been responsible for the bulk of the warming of the 20th century, which could yet continue its upward course, level out, or begin a slow decline; for this phenomenon has created such warmings and subsequent coolings time and time again without any help from mankind. And if it’s done so before – innumerable times, in fact – it can do it again. In fact, it has actually got to be expected that it would do so, and at about this point in earth’s history.

[more]

06 Mar 2012 by Environment Global Warming

Challenging the AGW Scam – Do the Math (Again)

I’m re-posting this article from September of 2010. Yesterday, the gentleman that sponsored the billboard contacted us for permission to use the post and our remarks in connection with an upcoming book. Here is the comment that Paul left . . .

Requesting permission to use your comments and observations of our Billboard, posted on Cap’n Bob & the Damsel on September 13, 2010, in promoting our soon to be published book, “AN ALARM WENT OFF When I Heard ‘G.D. America’”. Please read IT’S REALLY SIMPLE on our website, www.psnorac.com. You are doing a great job. We thank you for it. Paul

My answer was in the affirmative, of course. Follow the link to check out his new book.

Here’s the original post . . .

green signDuring our return trip to California over the weekend, we passed this billboard on Interstate 10 near Quartzsite, AZ. The sign admonishes readers to “DO THE MATH” with regard to greenhouse gasses. I checked out the website www.psnorac.com and navigated to the Greenhouse Gasses write-up. In the lengthy treatise, the author breaks down the numbers of the composition of the atmosphere and in layman’s terms, explains the extremely small part of the atmosphere that can be considered as greenhouse gasses.

Image: billboard – click to enlarge

We did some research and found some graphics from the National Center for Policy Analysis and posted them in February of 2008. If you read the greenhouse write-up on psnorac.com, you will be able to visualize the numbers in the graphics in our post from 2008. You can download the National Center for Policy Analysis pamphlet (PDF), “A Global Warming Primer,” at this link. There is a lot of other information in the pamphlet that relate to the AGW issue.

02 Feb 2012 by Environment Global Warming Whacko Politics

Categories

Archives