2011-08-12 10:33:34Hot liquid warning!!! Wacky Joe Bastardi dares to put in an appearance at Open Mind
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Joe Bastardi

When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earths temperature has leveled off, if co2 continues to rise and it is supposed to be what is causing the rise.. The answer is obvious. it is the earths temperature which is driving the co2 release into the atmosphere. That is what Salby opines, and he is correct.

For the sake of argument, lets assume you are correct, the co2 is adding energy to the system. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly , which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. As if that is not small enough , the TOTAL energy in this system is ocean, land, and atmosphere, with the ocean containing the vast majority of energy in the system. So lets just try to measure the addition of energy of co2, assuming that it is adding energy. The fact is you cant measure it. It is infinitely small. You dont have a leg to stand on, except the idea that the temperatures have gone up since 1800. So even if I give to you the idea that co2 is adding energy, its so small for all intents and purposes the energy added is neglible.

Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. For after a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity the past 200 years until now can easily be argued as the introduction of extra energy into the system. Much more so than the argument is co2, which gets shot down since the earths temps have leveled off the past 15 years while co2 is rising.

So what is it you deny? DO you deny co2 is rising? Or do you deny the hadley center, hardly right wing idiots like you think we are, has the correct measurements. What makes sense is there is continued response to previous warming of the system that is being driven, but not the driver. That is real world observation.

I am not going to call you the nasty things you call me, or any other person that argues with you. But the fact remains that a simple test over the next 20-30 years suffices. With the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing, there should be a drop in global temps as measured by objective satellite measurement, back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temps start up again, you carry the day. But you are already busting, the temps have stopped rising and its not me but a source very much vested in your side of the debate that is saying so.

Stop the name calling and demonizing, and think the way the opened minded progressive is supposed to think.. freely, objectively and in pursuit of what we all want. A better world

2011-08-12 13:39:52Have to smile at his attempt to turn the 'denier' turn around
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.177.173.40

Apparently, we're the deniers, not him.

2011-08-12 14:48:15worth a response post?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Bastardi tosses up so many softball here, it's hard to pass up taking a swing at them.  Is this worth a response post?  I'd be willing to draft one up this weekend.

2011-08-12 15:06:01
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Paraphrasing the great PT Barnum:

"It's morally wrong to let such stupid go uncontested"

2011-08-12 15:06:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good God, the stupid it hurts.  I almost feel sorry for him.  Either he is really deluded or he is shameless liar.  The well-infomred folks at Tamino's place are having a field day, it is painfall to watch.  How can Joe read the responses and not feel incredibly devastated and stupid....I'd be mortified if people ripped by musings to shreds like that.

2011-08-12 16:45:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Oh good grief, the old idea that the small CO2 proportion of the atmosphere is important raises it's head again.
Can this be tackled as a specific rebuttle, I can't actually see one this addresses.

I know someone is going to say it is covered by X number of other rebuttles, but really the proportion of the atmosphere meme is a specific attack by denialists that many pick up on because they can understand simple percentages and proportions.

It needs it's own rebuttle.

2011-08-12 17:48:42
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

There's a sort of rebuttal <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm">here</a>.

 

I wanted to try and write an analogy to explain it.

 

One kind of parallel was how the other month I pushed a cup off a table by mistake. It broke. In reality the pressure I applied by pushing the cup was absolutely tiny (someone had left it slightly hanging over the edge and I just caught it with a magazine), nowhere near enough to break it.

But because of the natural force of gravity, it broke. Now logic from Bastardi is that since the total amount of energy put into the 'smash' by me was tiny, then the breakage is natural and it's basically all natural and not my fault.

Could this analogy be cleaned up and used to communicate how stupid he is?

 

 

Also, there's maths.

 

Change in atmospheric CO2 = emissions + absorption

Change in atmospheric CO2 = natural emissions (NE) + human emissions (HE) + natural absorption (NA) + human absorption (NA)

Change in atmospheric CO2 = dC_a

Human emissions minus human absorption ~= 2*dC_a

 

Therefore natural emissions + natural absorption = - dC_a

out of the atmosphere.

 

I could write up a blog post to try and get across just how stupid Bastardi is being here. We have 3 options:

 

1) Logic of causality is wrong

2) Addition is wrong

3) There is a 'Bastardi Correction Factor' in the equation, perhaps human CO2 is transmutated into gold and rains down at the end of the rainbow?

2011-08-12 22:12:31
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.145.187

Mark, you have natural absorprtion (NA) and human absorption (NA). What's human absorption anyway?  I'd like to see your rebuttal - sounds like fun!

2011-08-13 00:50:18
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144

It's in the blog post section now!

I've tried to explain each step as I go through, and in some steps I'm treating Bastardi like he's an intellectual child. Not sure if I missed some bit of explanation or whether it's too condescending to the layreader. I've tried to point it towards Bastardi to avoid pissing off a reader, but I'm not sure whether I need to tone it down to avoid scaring off readers...

2011-08-13 00:54:54
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

MarkR I am working on the advanced rebuttal for the residence time argument http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2494&r=0 and have a discussion of the mass balance argument there (best to start off by demonstrating the argument is incorrect and then explain why).

Bastardi made a bit of a fool of himself : OpenMind.  It amazes me that skeptics think they should be taken seriously when making arguments that are so obviously wrong, even to someone who hasn't given the issue any thought!

2011-08-13 01:55:44
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

OMG.  That was amazing reading Bastardi's comments.  He sets the stage for his level of understanding (or lack thereof) so perfectly with this shopping cart analogy.

2011-08-13 03:09:54What if...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

the posting is a hoax?

2011-08-13 03:12:55
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Tamino would know (email/IP address).

He devoted a whole post to Bastardi here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/can-bastardi-learn/

2011-08-13 03:34:16
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You know, Tamino doesn't go through and list off all the inaccuracies in Bastardi's comments.  That leaves the door open to make the list and knock 'em down.

2011-08-13 08:29:38
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'm planning on doing that tomorrow, Rob.  Or maybe tonight, if I have time.

2011-08-13 08:42:17Fox Commentator Distorts Physics -- Blog post on Scientific America
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

This article slam-dunks Bastardi's false assertions.

2011-08-13 11:30:32
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.51.236

The take-home message is just as Bastardi has argued before:

we should wait 30 years to see if global warming stops before we take any action.

By then he'll be either 95 or pushing up daisies.

 

As to his grasp of science, he is getting-hold-of-the-wrong-end-of-the-chainsaw stupid.

2011-08-13 13:36:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Thanks badger, I made use of that article in the blog post, which is now up for review in the blog post forum.