One of my favorite warmists did a post yesterday. David Appell was calling out an alarmist. Here’s the quote he was frustrated with…..
“Climate change affects everything that you do,” said report co-author Susan Cutter, director of the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute at the University of South Carolina. “It affects where you live, where you work and where you play and the infrastructure that you need to do all these things. It’s more than just the polar bears.”
I had contemplated writing about this myself, but you can only laugh at alarmists so often. After a while it gets boring and a bit irritating.
David states, “Frankly, I can’t think of a single instance in my entire lifetime where I considered climate change in any of my decisions about anything. Anything.”
He goes on to discuss some of the weather he’s experienced in various places in the US. He’ spot on in that regard. What the alarmist nutters are calling extremes is simply weather which has been experienced here for thousands of years. He accurately states that Climate Change simply isn’t a problem here.
But, David is a warmist, so he can’t help throwing in some strange talking points. One of them I’d like to point out, not because I want to try to cast David in a bad light or anything, but to simply make an observation and generate thought and discussion. Here’s what David wrote which piqued my interest……
If you’re not a well-to-do American, a relatively impoverished person living near the equator in a developing country, climate change can already be a problem. And it’s going to be a problem for everyone if CO2 emissions keep increasing exponentially, as they are.
Like I said, he’s a warmist so he can’t help but to write some silly utterance such as that.
Back when the alarmism was still Global Warming, the alarmists used to have all sorts of fanciful equations regarding energy budgets and they tied them to our global temperatures. There’s plenty of reasons to mock this sophistry, but, it’s part of the literature.
For years, many skeptics have pointed out the energy required to raise the temperature of any given object is dependent upon the starting temperature. Relatively very little energy is needed to raise the temperature of something 10 degrees if the starting temperature is minus 90 C compared to raising it 10 degrees if the starting temp is 90 C.
Now, these energy budget calculations have all but been abandoned because the earth’s temps haven’t been raising.
As noted many times, I’m a bit lazy. And, back of the envelope calculations always seem to have a flaw or two in them or they over generalize. So, I’ll leave it to more capable readers. But, this takes me back to David’s statement about people living around the equator. Let’s look at what the temps are telling us for that location…….
Yes, the start point is cherry-picked. But, the question remains, how much additional energy was required to for us to see this? I’m going to take a stab at it….. uhmm none? How’s that possible if we’re to believe the “well mixed atmospheric CO2” proclamation? Well, it isn’t. Given the recent revelations about Alaska’s temps and the Antarctic’s, we have to say there’s much to question and perhaps revisit about the energy calculations and budgets.
Many alarmists don’t really give us much energy calculations anymore. They’re babbling, incoherently, about volcanoes, ENSO and the like. Willis has a pretty good post up on WUWT regarding the ENSO idiocy. It questions the validity of subtracting it from the signal and wonders why wouldn’t we subtract other known events. Essentially asking the same questions I asked over a year ago. Well, some catch up quicker than others.
The Foster and Rahmstorf line of thought can be easily ignored. The reason why I’m posting this is that it goes to the foundation of the Global Warming premise. Strip away all of the blathering about “extreme weather events” and volcanoes and ENSO and the like because this isn’t what drives the alleged science. What drives it is the thought about energy retention of the so-called Green House Gases. This is the money shot. All of that energy retention is raising the earth’s temp, except when it doesn’t.