Bummer: Satellite Records Still Not Following UN IPCC Prognostications

Nor all the other “computer models” Warmists use

(The NO CARBON TAX Climate Skeptics Blog) Each month Professor Ole Humlum from the University of Oslo published the latest month’s data in a report called Climate4you.  He has just issued the latest for June 2013. (link – pdf)

  • The two satellite records continue to show cooling;
  • All three surface air temperature records continue to show negative temperature trend for the last 5 and 10 years; however

Also noted is that CO2 continues to increase. Yet, the computer models of Warmists are failing miserably. Here’s a good graph on just how bad they are failing

And another

Regarding Dr. Roy Spencer, he had this to say about the Democrats little “climate change” hearing on Thursday

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”

OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.

This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm Period (RWP). So how is it we know today’s warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldn’t have been caused by humans? Hmmm?

Here’s the thing: “skeptics” are not arguing warming. I will argue with anyone who proclaims there hasn’t been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and any who fail to note that, yes, there was a nice uptick starting in the late 1970’s. What we are arguing is causation. Warmists say it is mostly or solely caused by Mankind, primarily through the greenhouse gas CO2, what they unscientifically call “carbon”. We say that most, if not all of the temperature increases are caused by natural forces. If the Warmists were right, we’d continue to see statistically significant increasing temperatures. Real world data doesn’t show this. And real world data beats garbage in garbage out computer models every time.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

72 Responses to “Bummer: Satellite Records Still Not Following UN IPCC Prognostications”

  1. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: I know that you think you are correct, but the fact of the matter is that “carbon fixation,” a noun, is not the same thing as “fixed,” a verb.

    Gee Willikers.

    “Organisms that grow by fixing carbon are called autotrophs—plants for example.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation

    “The Calvin Cycle is the MOST Common Pathway for Carbon Fixation. Plant Species that fix Carbon EXCLUSIVELY through the Calvin Cycle are known as C3 PLANTS.”
    http://www.biologycorner.com/APbiology/cellular/notes_alternative_paths.html

    “Chloroplasts Capture Energy from Sunlight and Use It to Fix Carbon.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26819/

    The notion of fixed comes from the sense of being set in place rather than free.

    gitarcarver: it is not the plants that are increasing the CO2, but the animals

    That’s right. Animals release the carbon that was recently fixed by plants.

    gitarcarver: The car itself is not “carbon neutral.”

    That’s right. Most cars burn fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which had been sequestered for millions of years. This can be offset, but it takes a lot of new trees to offset even a single car. Fossil fuels have the advantage of being a very compact source of energy.

    gitarcarver: The moment the rabbit enters the system as we have defined it, it is breathing and producing CO2 whether the rabbit eats anything from the system at that point in time doesn’t matter.

    Unlike the car, any carbon the rabbit exhales was recently fixed by plants. The rabbit’s respiration is only releasing carbon that was in the atmosphere a short time before.

  2. Zachriel says:

    Not sure why you are having difficulties with this. The plant absorbs an atom of carbon; atmospheric CO2 minus one. The animal eats the plant and metabolizes the atom of carbon; atmospheric CO2 plus one.

    minus one plus one = carbon neutral

  3. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    C3 plants fix the Carbon atom that is taken in as part of the respiratory process that absorbs CO2 molecule. It either puts the Carbon in to the ground or as part of its fibrous tissues.

    Eventually, that carbon makes its way in to the ground.

    Once there, according to some, that Carbon is turned in to petroleum-based products.

    Man comes along and releases that carbon and adds it back in to the air as CO2 for plants to utilize once again.

    CARBON NEUTRAL.

    “Not sure why you are having difficulties with this.”

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Zachriel,

    I am not having any problems with this at all. I have shown your statement and premise to be false. It is clear you don;t know what you are talking about and just parrot ideas without understanding.

    First you said the car was carbon neutral, now it isn’t. You claimed the plants couldn’t discern where the CO2 came from, now you claim they can and do.

    I am sorry you got exposed here for a fraud, but in the end, you should learn from it.

    But I doubt you will.

  5. Zachriel says:

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Man comes along and releases that carbon and adds it back in to the air as CO2 for plants to utilize once again.

    Over geological time scales, atmospheric CO2 varies considerably. As we pointed out above, there are a variety of mechanisms that both add and subtract from atmospheric CO2 over such periods. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether fossil fuels are having an effect on CO2 concentrations in the present day.

    gitarcarver: First you said the car was carbon neutral, now it isn’t.

    No, most cars are not carbon neutral, nor is that what we said. Here is your scenario:

    gitarcarver: let’s take the example of a car putting out 20 lbs of CO2 per year. If the owner of the car installed plants that consumes 20 lbs of CO2 per year, no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

    If you create an offset equal to the emissions, then it is considered carbon neutral, and we linked to a site that uses the term in exactly that manner. The net change in atmospheric CO2 is zero.

    A similar example would be growing algae in giant vats to produce fuel, then burning the fuel in your car. That would also be considered carbon neutral. The net change in atmospheric CO2 is zero.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    No, your source did not back you up.

    What you fail to understand is that neither the rabbit nor the car is “carbon neutral” as nether the car nor the rabbit by itself is able to change CO2 nor create”carbon offsets.”

    By your own admission, it is only when either the car or the rabbit is part of a defined system in which their is another mechanism for converting CO2 that the defined system may be carbon neutral.

    The rabbit is no different than the car in that both are CO2 producing machines – one totally mechanical and the other bio-mcehanical.

    By themselves, neither are “carbon neutral.”

    I have no idea why you won’t admit to that simple truth, but it is ckear that you are so wedded to an ideology that truth doesn’t matter to you.

  7. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: By your own admission, it is only when either the car or the rabbit is part of a defined system in which their is another mechanism for converting CO2 that the defined system may be carbon neutral.

    Um, that is what is meant by carbon neutral.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

    You have to consider the fuel source to determine carbon neutrality. With rabbits, it’s solar energy captured by plants.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Once again, the rabbit is not carbon neutral by itself. Clearly you have not read or understand your own citation.

  9. Zachriel says:

    We provided you the standard definition of carbon neutral. According to your very strained use of terminology, cars are carbon-neutral. They’re only carbon emitters when you add fuel to burn.

    It doesn’t matter if you have one bunny or a million, there will be no net change in atmospheric CO2. That’s because the fuel for bunnies is solar energy captured by plants.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    No, you supplied a definition and then did not apply it to rabbits.

  11. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    It doesn’t matter if you have one bunny or a million, there will be no net change in atmospheric CO2. That’s because the fuel for bunnies is solar energy captured by plants.

    Now we know that you all are complete idiots. All of you.

  12. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: No, you supplied a definition and then did not apply it to rabbits.

    Sure we did. And furthermore, even the very carbon of the rabbit itself was recently atmospheric CO2.

    gitarcarver: All of you.

    Plant: 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2
    Animal: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

  13. Zachriel says:

    The last comment should have been attributed to Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    At this point in time Zachriel, we are tired of explaining to you that there is a difference between a rabbit as a system and a system containing both the rabbit and plants.

    We bow and acknowledge not only your obstience but your entrenched ignorance.

    Have a good day.

  15. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: At this point in time Zachriel, we are tired of explaining to you that there is a difference between a rabbit as a system and a system containing both the rabbit and plants.

    Yes, and according to your strained use of terminology, a car is carbon neutral.

  16. gitarcarver says:

    Yes,…..

    So you agree there is a difference but won’t eamine what that difference means.

    ……. and according to your strained use of terminology, a car is carbon neutral.

    What I said:

    Comment by gitarcarver 2013-07-23 21:51:26

    “…. no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

    What you said:

    Comment by Zachriel 2013-07-24 07:59:25

    ” Yes, that’s exactly what they would say” (the car is carbon neutral)

    At this point in time, I am moving on.

    Feel free to say what you want. Trust when I say I won’t read it.

    Enjoy your cult.

  17. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: …. no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.

    Yes, that makes your position inconsistent. You want to separate the rabbit from its fuel, but not the gasoline-powered car. That’s clearly not how the term carbon neutral is used.

    Saying that rabbits are carbon neutral means they don’t exhale any more carbon than is removed from the atmosphere by their fuel source. Indeed, a rabbit’s entire body is made from photosynthesizing organisms.

  18. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    Then so are we Zachriel. As well as anything that is produced using that logic.

  19. Zachriel says:

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: As well as anything that is produced using that logic.

    Everything that is within the natural biosphere is carbon neutral (with a very few exceptions). Even traditional farming using horses and plows is essentially carbon neutral. That’s because horses are harnessed solar power. On the other hand, while fossil fuels have led to profound economic growth and prosperity, they also change the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

  20. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    And that good sirs, is why everyone knows your full of horse sh*t. all animals add CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn’t there just prior.

    As well as cars and petroleum-burning machines.

    However, if you are trying to claim that animals are carbon neutral (and thanks for again affirming that humans are carbon neutral and thus your whole cult is then moot), then so are cars. As cars burn previously sequestered carbon, they are also returning stored carbon back to the atmosphere in a similar way animals do. Animals burn food as fuel and expel the freed carbon. Cars burn their food as fuel and expel the freed carbon.

    If you can’t see this, then you will not get one response ever again on this blog from the commentors.

  21. Zachriel says:

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: animals add CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn’t there just prior.

    Typically, ingested within the last few days, from plants grown recently, so the net effect on atmospheric CO2 is zero.

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: As cars burn previously sequestered carbon, they are also returning stored carbon back to the atmosphere in a similar way animals do

    The difference , of course, is that fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years, so burning fossil fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6185 access attempts in the last 7 days.