Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/13/2011

Date with destiny

By Tom Toles

c_02132011.gif

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02132011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 13, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  DC, Obama White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Misdirection
Next: Circular reasoning

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments


And certainly NOAA has NO concept of atmospheric chemistry and physics. They show basically the same ppm values as NASA describes at:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Do you still think you know more than "rocket scientists?" Do you also think you know more than scientists at NOAA? Rather than simply disagree with anyone who makes the case for GW and who's data you don't understand, maybe you should try to figure out why you don't understand the science that is presented. It is not wrong simply because you don't understand it. Or, if you want, to quote Sarah Palin, "Email me and I'll find it for ya."

To quote Sarah Palin, "

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 13, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 12:14 PM

You're not credible when you say you do your own research. This article is right out of the AGW/denier/Tea Party/GED wannabe handbook. You Googled up some AGW-denier arguments, material you don't understand and you present it as fact. You propagate this garbage around the Internet as is it were gospel. And it is you that is redirecting. The fact is that, in this case, you (actually NASA) are (is) showing a 1.01/year BY MASS increase in CO2 emissions, then stating that that number should result in 1.48 increase in ppmv concentrations at the end of 40 years. This is NOT true. It is NOT scientifically accurate. NASA's figures are quite accurate. AGW-denier arguments are not true, although they have been known to contain an element of truth.

I see no point in going through the physics and math for you. It's all explained very well, including graphs and peer-reviewed research references at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

And if your interested in the decrease in solar energy irradiation of the earth, see:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

But reading the information at these Web pages would be real research. And you don't want to do that.

Finally, please state your position:

1) Global warming is occurring. If you answer "No", then we can debate this. If you answer "Yes, go to 2).

2) Human activity is the primary cause. If you answer "No", then we can debate this. If you answer "Yes, go to 3).

3) We can solve the GW problem at a reasonable cost and effort.
"Yes" or "No."

You have stated positions on all these. But since YOU have posted a quote that states that GW is due to increases in solar radiation, you have conceded to Point 1 above (whether you know it or not) and you agree that GW is occurring (whether you know it or not). Can we go to Point 2?

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 13, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

ptg

I stay away from the prepackaged websites and do my own research. Skepticalscience.com Is a hard core believers website with a known bias.

I found the JPL quote on my own. You can twist the quote and redirect all you want but numbers presented show a .44% compounding increase over the years specified not 1%. Percent is given not ppmv. This is a clear overstatement of the facts on an official government website.

The short list I presented were published peer reviewed scientists and there was no unification of thought in the papers .This list were examples of published differing point of view. Some I am in agreement and others not.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 13, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 12, 2011 1:18 PM

Regarding your post as follows:

"From NASA jet propulsion Lab's website and others
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/

"Natural sources of CO2 emit approximately 300 Gigatons of CO2 each year, while human activities are responsible for about 6 Gigatons, just under 2% of that total. Measurements from a global network of surface stations indicate that atmospheric CO2 increased by 1% annually over the past 40 years -- i.e., from 326 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010."

A 1% annual increase would put CO2 today at 486 ppmv.

These Rocket Science people, Rocket Scientists,!!! have overstated the annual percent change by nearly 250%. Exaggerated the annual increase 2.5X. Fibbed as to the extent of annual increase. What other science facts have been exaggerated in this discussion. Tell me again there is no agenda.

I suppose it does not make for good press when saying human contribution to total CO2 emissions is just 2% and the earth absorbs 80% of this 2%."
------------------------------------------------
You are comparing an annual weight (actually mass) increase in emissions to a volumetric increase in concentration. The ppmv values are probably used because they are not dependent on temperature or pressure. And this accounts for the apparent discrepancy in the relative ppmv values--it turns out that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Oops, that pretty much accounts for YOUR error. Not very scientific on your part! You're no rocket scientist! Would it be accurate to say that YOU are prevaricating? I don't think so. I think you looked at this misinformation, which you snatched from some conservative Web site and posted it w/o understanding anything about it.
I won't even bother with the remainder of your post. But...

In one of your previous posts, in which you quoted some AGW denier, that person said that solar energy increases are causing the rise in temperatures on earth. Unfortunately, those that measure solar irradiance (watts/m**2) of the earth have found decreasing irradiance since about 1960. Temperatures should be decreasing, but YOU have conceded that global temperatures are increasing by posting that quote. Oops, again!

If you did some QA on your posts, we wouldn't have to do the work for you.

References:

http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per-million.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 13, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Tom Toles the Obama Revisionist ...

Obama alienated everyone sane by NOT trying to pass something ... ACTUAL health care reform and he was repudiated at the polls for fighting AGAINST a robust public option and fighting AGAINST real financial reform and keeping almost the entirety of Cheney's agenda intact ... or expanding on it.

Posted by: spigzone | February 12, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama keeps dying his hair gray then black then gray then black until it's warm enough to play golf and then he can wear a cap.

Posted by: obam44 | February 12, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 12, 2011 2:29 PM
"Reagan has already done that! Strange that Nixon hasn't? Perhaps it's because his dark shaven chin area made him look like a crook?

That's what he said, anyway."

Could be, though I don't see any dark shaven chin area at this press conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M&feature=related


What do you think?

Posted by: bushidollar | February 12, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's recent attempt to compare himself to the "Gipper" is analogous to a flea crawling up an elephant's butt with the delusion of 'rape'. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | February 12, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Presidential cycles or Earth cycles, there is room for improvement.

By the way, the Adam & Eve "story" is a metaphor for the
real history. Anyone who's had 8 thousand years of ancestors
reading the creation stories (even in any religion) knows that
metaphor is the writer's main tool.

There are those who don't know?

Posted by: Tony-KS | February 12, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Year 11+, "Try to outlive people's memories."

Reagan has already done that! Strange that Nixon hasn't? Perhaps it's because his dark shaven chin area made him look like a crook?
That's what he said, anyway.

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 12, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Rewrite History"" does not mean it is wrong. But finally a chance to tell the truth and not owe anyone for it.

If it is less than ten years old, it is not history - just paid pollitical junk.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 12, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

From NASA jet propulsion Lab's website and others
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/

"Natural sources of CO2 emit approximately 300 Gigatons of CO2 each year, while human activities are responsible for about 6 Gigatons, just under 2% of that total. Measurements from a global network of surface stations indicate that atmospheric CO2 increased by 1% annually over the past 40 years -- i.e., from 326 ppmv in 1970 to 389 ppmv in 2010."

A 1% annual increase would put CO2 today at 486 ppmv.

These Rocket Science people, Rocket Scientists,!!! have overstated the annual percent change by nearly 250%. Exaggerated the annual increase 2.5X. Fibbed as to the extent of annual increase. What other science facts have been exaggerated in this discussion. Tell me again there is no agenda.

I suppose it does not make for good press when saying human contribution to total CO2 emissions is just 2% and the earth absorbs 80% of this 2%.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 12, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

TT: Your date with destiny 'toon is a perfect argument for taking something from Mexico other than mariachi singers: the system of 6 year presidential term with no right of succession. I have long believed the presidency to be mired in a constant political campaign. At least half goes up in smoke. 8 / 2 = 4 years of a real presidency. And don't get me started about Congress! Estimates are a senator must raise $60000 daily for the NEXT campaign. Why are we surprised about a plutokleptocracy?

Posted by: DougMUSN | February 12, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Toles was just giving the libs something to try and cheer them up since everyone knows Obama's only a one termer. Just look at the ineptitude of the handling of the Egyptian crisis it looked like a bad version of Abbott and Costello's who's on first, what's on second and I don't knows on third.

Posted by: jornolibist | February 12, 2011 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Today's Toles cartoon is really silly. He should have saved it for POTUS election time. Can't hit a home run every time you're up at the plate I suppose.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 12, 2011 4:12 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday in 1899 it was 15 below zero in Washington D.C. During the winter of 1898/99 in D.C. there were 54 inches of snow and multiple cold arctic masses and big nor'easters. During the winter of 1898/99 2 days after Valentine's Day in which 2 days earlier when 20 inches of snow fell an ice storm struck bringing transportation to a stau. So much for climate change caused by Gore made global warming.

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 11, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Good to know you believe in fate Toles : )

Posted by: bertzel | February 11, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Scientific uncertainty doesn’t necessarily imply doing nothing. Given the sum of the evidence today, I think the risk of global warming is sufficient to warrant buying insurance. The question then becomes how much insurance and what kind, and here I think the skeptics are especially useful in challenging what’s mistakenly called “the scientific consensus”: that if you believe global warming is a risk, you should be supporting drastic cuts in carbon emissions and expanded versions of the Kyoto Protocol.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

dave

I agree with ranger.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 11, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

On the subject of how old the earth is...
The Bible does not say how old the earth is and time is not a constant. It is based on one revolution of the earth. The rotation of the earth could be slower or faster. According to the Bible, a day to God is as a thousand years.
The age of the earth to people is not as important as how much longer it survives.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 10, 2011 9:24 PM

------------------------

Dave,

Touching post yesterday. Seriously - you're okay when your not mired in the negative.

rgr

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 11, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company