Experts Speak Out About Global Warming

12 Responses to Experts Speak Out About Global Warming

1. Fred from Canuckistan says:

   January 4, 2014 at 6:58 pm

   Future job for Barry . . . Acting in Coke commercials.

   Reply
2. Pathway says:

   January 4, 2014 at 7:57 pm

   A coke head in Coke commercials? Perfect!

   Reply
3. Stephen Richards says:

   January 4, 2014 at 8:13 pm

   Great photoshop !!! If only it were real. The next shot would be a white polar bear with a black tongue.

   Reply
   • gator69 says:

     January 4, 2014 at 8:30 pm

     Or a polar bear spitting out a goofy bike helmet and a pair of mom jeans.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1MH_UEpVjQ

     Reply
     • Eric Simpson says:

       January 4, 2014 at 9:31 pm

       Lol, a funny video! Now, if you think you’ve seen it already, you probably haven’t because it’s more than just Obama throwing a baseball like a girl. But he does… throw like a girl. A (typical) girl throws with her elbows instead of, like you are supposed to, with your shoulders.

       Any guy raised in this country knows how to throw a baseball not like a girl.

       So, yes, as we know, Obama wasn’t raised in this country. I don’t think the founders would approve. An even greater danger then someone that wasn’t born in this country as far as becoming president, the founders must have thought, would be somebody that wasn’t raised in this country, so doesn’t share its values. That’s what we got.

       Reply
       • gator69 says:

         January 4, 2014 at 10:07 pm

         Yes, Skeeter throws like a girl in mom jeans. Now watch how a man in big boy pants throws a pitch.

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeSNNQZNJo0
4. rah says:

   January 4, 2014 at 8:19 pm

   Their tongues are already blue black just like their skin. But the imagery of what your suggest is pleasant.

   Reply
5. Eric Simpson says:

   January 4, 2014 at 8:29 pm

   On CO2, here’s my opus comment on that, which I made in wuwt about a month ago:

   There is no actual evidence that CO2 does… anything!

   Well, beyond being plant food. What the warmists have is a theoretical model on CO2, but zero empirical evidence supporting their model. The plight of the doomers is summarized by The Economist: “The mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures [15 year ‘pause’] is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.” And now, as time has unfolded, ALL the models have failed… miserably. CO2 has not been doing of late what it was supposed to do.

   But it’s not just the last 15 years, it’s … throughout history.

   Going back hundreds of thousands of years we can see in ice core samples that temperatures rise or fall, and then CO2 follows. Changes in CO2 result as an effect of temperature change. Yet there is no evidence at all that CO2 is also a cause of temperature change. What the Chicken Littles want us to believe is that CO2 could be both a cause and an effect of temperature change. Sure, that’s possible (if improbable), but the fact is that there’s no evidence for that. None.

   And if we go back even further, hundreds of millions of years, we again see no evidence that CO2 affected temperatures. From Larry Bell on Forbes: “Fossil records reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million [vs ~ 400 ppm today]. Then approximately 480 million years ago those levels gradually dropped to 4,000 ppm over about 100 million years, while average temperatures remained at a steady 72 degrees. They then jumped rapidly to 4,500 ppm and guess what! Temperatures dove to an estimated average similar to today, even though the CO2 level was around twelve times higher than now. Yes, as CO2 went up, temperatures plummeted.” Even ice ages occurred at these high CO2 levels!

   And looking at recent history, it’s the same thing, no evidence on CO2! Since 1850 or so we have been recovering from the Little Ice Age with mild warming (we have had only 0.7°C of warming). Now look at this woodfortrees graph. What we see is a near identical rate of temperature change during the first (low CO2) and second half (high CO2) of the 20th century. Nearly identical. Where is the signal for CO2? CO2 appears to be doing nothing, zilch. C3 presents more on this here.

   If we look at the evidence, or the lack thereof, for CO2 affecting temperatures, maybe it’s time we start to take a more serious look at alternative theoretical models on CO2 that maintains that CO2 does not markedly affect climate temperatures beyond ~ 200 ppm, or that the feedback from water vapor is negative, thus negating any warming.

   Reply
   • X says:

     January 4, 2014 at 10:09 pm

     The Sun is the main agent of climatic variations.
     If we make the hypothesis that periods of high solar cycles like the XX century are the *exception* instead of the rule, then even the speed of the beginning and end of glacial periods can be easily explained by solar forcing.

     Reply
   • Rosco says:

     January 4, 2014 at 10:34 pm

     I tried to demonstrate the basic “simplified” model of the greenhouse effect using two spotlights and a thermometer.

     I heated the thermometer to a certain temperature by each spotlight and then measured the temperature when both are turned on at once.

     The “greenhouse effect” simplified model says radiation from the sun of 239.7 W/sqm combines with radiation from “greenhouse gases” of 239.7 W/sqm to induce a temperature of 303 K or 30 C on the surface of the Earth.

     So I heated the thermometer to 30 C – 478 W/sqm is about double 239.7 – with one spotlight and to 36 C with the other and then turned both on.

     The final result was 46 C.

     The simplified mode; predicts the sum of 478 W/sqm (30 C) + 517 W/sqm (36 C) = 995 W/sqm at about 364 K or 90+ degrees C.

     Of course they claim some conductive/convective cooling effects but look at the data.

     The maximum thermal effect was an extra 10 degrees above the 36 C temperature while they expect you to believe a massive cooling effect of greater than 44 degrees C from conduction/convection ?

     Add in the radiation due to the ambient air temperature and the “simplified model” predicts temperatures in excess of 120 degrees C.

     Obviously the term “simplified model” is incorrect – it should be “simpleton’s model”.

     If only we could apply energy in the manner climate “scientists” think are real – we would double efficiency and halve costs.

     Reply
6. Morgan Wright says:

   January 4, 2014 at 11:20 pm

   That thermometer / spotlight experiment is retarded. The room temperature is 20. One spotlight heats it from 20 to 36 and the other heats it from 20 to 30. Both together heat it from 20 to 46. What in the he-double hockey sticks does that have to do with a hockey stick?

   Reply
7. Andy Oz says:

   January 6, 2014 at 8:36 am

   Barry’s go to guy charging the cannons in the valley of death.
   Why not throw more billions the US doesn’t have at crap climate research?

   http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/01/03/climate-change-state-department-submits-climate-action-report-to-united-nations/

   Reply