<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Tell the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Don’t promote climate change denial	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/29/tell-the-minneapolis-star-tribune-dont-promote-climate-change-denial/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/29/tell-the-minneapolis-star-tribune-dont-promote-climate-change-denial/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 06:47:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Marco		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/29/tell-the-minneapolis-star-tribune-dont-promote-climate-change-denial/#comment-489724</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marco]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 06:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=18046#comment-489724</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.&quot;

And still he understands the GHE better than you. Heck, even Fred Singer thinks you are a crank for denying the GHE (which you actually deny when discussing that Trenberth diagram).

&quot;the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.&quot;

One wonders why no one told the cryosphere and the ocean that they should not have been warming &quot;for twenty years&quot;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.&#8221;</p>
<p>And still he understands the GHE better than you. Heck, even Fred Singer thinks you are a crank for denying the GHE (which you actually deny when discussing that Trenberth diagram).</p>
<p>&#8220;the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.&#8221;</p>
<p>One wonders why no one told the cryosphere and the ocean that they should not have been warming &#8220;for twenty years&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/29/tell-the-minneapolis-star-tribune-dont-promote-climate-change-denial/#comment-489723</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 01:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=18046#comment-489723</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Great Climate Change Bamboozle
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 45,000 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 GT of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred Gt/y +/- ?? ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?

Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/-  8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2) perpetual loop w/o work, 3) cold to hot w/o work, 4) doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming. Of course Trenberth says they are wrong because their results are not confirmed by the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.

Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Great Climate Change Bamboozle<br />
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”<br />
H. L. Mencken</p>
<p>Earth’s carbon cycle contains 45,000 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 GT of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred Gt/y +/- ?? ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?</p>
<p>Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/-  8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.</p>
<p>One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2) perpetual loop w/o work, 3) cold to hot w/o work, 4) doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming. Of course Trenberth says they are wrong because their results are not confirmed by the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.</p>
<p>Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.</p>
<p>As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.</p>
<p>BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lenketorsdag &#124; Anna Blix		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/29/tell-the-minneapolis-star-tribune-dont-promote-climate-change-denial/#comment-489722</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lenketorsdag &#124; Anna Blix]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=18046#comment-489722</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] LA Times trykker ikke lengre innlegg fra såkalte klimaskeptikere. Noe for norske aviser? Vi vet at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte, så hvorfor skal ikke media også ta ansvar og heller bruke spalteplass på hva vi burde gjøre med klimaendringene? (Uenig i at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte? Les den nye norske boka &#171;Klimaendringer i Norge&#187; skrevet av blant annet Dag O. Hessen. Enig i at det er klimaendringer, og lurer på hvorfor vi ikke gjør noe? Les boka Drivhuseffekten. Klimapolitikken som forsvant av Erik Martiniussen) [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] LA Times trykker ikke lengre innlegg fra såkalte klimaskeptikere. Noe for norske aviser? Vi vet at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte, så hvorfor skal ikke media også ta ansvar og heller bruke spalteplass på hva vi burde gjøre med klimaendringene? (Uenig i at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte? Les den nye norske boka &laquo;Klimaendringer i Norge&raquo; skrevet av blant annet Dag O. Hessen. Enig i at det er klimaendringer, og lurer på hvorfor vi ikke gjør noe? Les boka Drivhuseffekten. Klimapolitikken som forsvant av Erik Martiniussen) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
