"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

[RandomGuy]

mF_anaVcCXg10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.

I normally detest cheap youtube videos. But I may transcribe this at some point, because it makes the best arguments about the whole debate itself.

Whether or not you believe global warming is real, you should still watch this, because this guy has it nailed.

I am all about risk management.

[xrayzebra]

Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.

I want to know where all the cat five hurricanes are that they
predicted?

I also want to know, how come the sun cant cause things to
heat up here on Earth?

I also want to know how come it takes three or four or five
computers to track the weather daily, but the doomsayers
can use one computer program to tell us that people are
causing the earth to heat up. How come?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.

I want to know where all the cat five hurricanes are that they
predicted?

I also want to know, how come the sun cant cause things to
heat up here on Earth?

I also want to know how come it takes three or four or five
computers to track the weather daily, but the doomsayers
can use one computer program to tell us that people are
causing the earth to heat up. How come?


someone is faithful ditto head. geez ray hush's show has been over 5 minutes and you are already repeating his stuff?

[xrayzebra]

someone is faithful ditto head. geez ray hush's show has been over 5 minutes and you are already repeating his stuff?

Ahhhh, you listened, didn't you?

But you are wrong, it is not his stuff. I have often thought
why some our most wonderful scientist, like RNR, and others
think that a damn computer model of Earth warming is
so much better than the others than takes about humpteen
programs to figure out what the weather will be like
the next few days. Like Steve on channel 12. Of
course here on the SpursTalk we got Manny. Maybe he
can answer that question.

[RandomGuy]

Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.

I want to know where all the cat five hurricanes are that they
predicted?

I also want to know, how come the sun cant cause things to
heat up here on Earth?

I also want to know how come it takes three or four or five
computers to track the weather daily, but the doomsayers
can use one computer program to tell us that people are
causing the earth to heat up. How come?

Irrelevant. Either we cover our risk or we don't. It is that simple. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, one should still mitigate the risk, and do something about it.

[RandomGuy]

Like the guy in the video said, you can't always avoid car accidents, but you can avoid the financial disaster by buying insurance.

Sure you can toodle along without insurance, and quite possibly never need it, but is it responsible to do so?

[xrayzebra]

Irrelevant. Either we cover our risk or we don't. It is that simple. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, one should still mitigate the risk, and do something about it.

RRG, some are saying we will be in a cooling period in
less than a decade. Do we cover that risk factor also. How
bout we let old Mother Nature take it's course and realize
mankind is just that mankind. We can change little and
only on a temporary basis.

[RandomGuy]

RRG, some are saying we will be in a cooling period in
less than a decade. Do we cover that risk factor also. How
bout we let old Mother Nature take it's course and realize
mankind is just that mankind. We can change little and
only on a temporary basis.

That isn't the way it works, and this is alluded to in the video when the guy talks about light switches.

As for cooling, one should use the same logic that structures the matrix that the guy gives.

One has to cover for worst case scenarios that are somewhat likely. The thing about cooling is that there is little evidence to support it that I am aware of at the moment. I am sure you or Cobra can find a link, but I simply defer to the general scientific consensus on this for now.

[Wild Cobra]

Irrelevant. Either we cover our risk or we don't. It is that simple. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, one should still mitigate the risk, and do something about it.
Agreed when they are tempered with probability too.

Now riddle me this. If the world is so concerned with greenhouse gasses, then why aren't all nations treated equally under Kyoto?

I have seen enough evidence to convince me we (the USA) cannot make a dent in global warming with our current regulations. However, SE Asia is not only expelling more greenhouse gasses than us, they don't use current technology for pollution control. If you want me to believe the world leaders believe in man made global warming, then apply the rules equally. The way they go about it, I only see it as elitists trying to bring down the economic powers.

As for the risks? Again, the only evidence I have seen that man has caused any global warming it the black carbon from Asia melting the polar ice. Everything else is clearly disputable through reputable science.

Get Asia in line, then we can talk.

[Nbadan]

Where is this 'evidence' that China and SE Asia are propelling more greenhouses gasses into the air than the U.S?

[Wild Cobra]

Where is this 'evidence' that China and SE Asia are propelling more greenhouses gasses into the air than the U.S?
It's already old news and I listed a source in a different posting somewhere. I'm not going to look for it again. China alone exceeded us by 8% in CO2 I think in 2006. They have been building coal powered plants like crazy.

[Nbadan]

I am all about risk management.

If you are all about risk management then think about this for a second...the GW debate can be wrapped up in to choices...

1. Either GW supporters are right and working to reduce GW gasses is a worthy cause - therefore spending money to regulate industry or raising taxes to reduce GW gases are a worthy cause because the alternative is war, famine, and lots of death....

or

2. the GW supporters are wrong and spending tax money and regulating industry are a big waste of money and we all live happily ever after....

so, your risk-management choices are 1) spend money that you don't necessarily have to spend 2) or war, famine, and death........

[Wild Cobra]

If you are all about risk management then think about this for a second...the GW debate can be wrapped up in to choices...


Thing is, with CO2, it may contribute as much as 36% of the greenhouse effect, and that is the worse case of a controversial number. It is more likely about 12%. It is already blocking in the high nineties of what it is capable of blocking by spectra. I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's assume 98%. The greenhouse effect is approximately 32 C. 36% of that is 11.52 C. Doubling the CO2 would then trap 98% of the remaining 2%, or another 0.226 C maximum, worse case scenario. This would be changing the CO2 from about 370 ppm to 740 ppm. Only a 0.226 C theoretical maximum change.

More realistic, say 18% for the CO2 contribution make the CO2 effect half of the maximum worse case scenario.

Take the sun now. Scientist have shown a pretty good change from 1900 in average solar radiation to today. I think amount 1.6%, but I'm not sure by just looking at the graph. It's about 2.5% from 1700 to today. There is an almost linear relation between the solar intensity and the earths average temperature. The mildest case we can make for the sun would be to say that the earth would be at maybe 200 K (K = Kelvin, which has the same slope as Celsius. 0 C = 273.15 K) with no solar radiation. We currently enjoy an average of about 288 K. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation is a 1.41 C change. A 2.5% change would be 2.2 C change in temperature. 100 K with no solar radiation is more likely I think. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation would be a 3.008 C change. A 2.5% change would be 4.7 C change in temperature. These 1.6% and 2.5% are based on C14 proxies as these ratios change proportional to solar radiation.

The sun has far more effect on our temperature than greenhouse gasses, and we have no way or controlling it.

Now before you ask why we don't see the dramatic 3 degree change from 1700 to now, the oceans carry and store most the heat changes. The lag time is at least 800 years I think.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Carbon14-sunspot.svg/800px-Carbon14-sunspot.svg.png


Note that the Carbon 14 readings lag by 60 years. It takes that long for them to settle from the upper atmosphere, which also means it is a 60 year smoothing for the graph.

[scott]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

[Phil Hellmuth]

probability is probability.

He is using the same logic that some people used to prove the existence of God in the 13th Century b/c the best rational decision when faced with risk of burning in hell for eternity. It is convincing because of the scare tactic.

he could be right, but hey we live in a live now society, i don't think people are going 2 change overnight. they are worried about their 9 to 5's and have no time for decisions like theese.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif


My God. You found the root cause. I applaud you. It has so much more credibility than what the alarmists propose with CO2!

[RandomGuy]

Agreed when they are tempered with probability too.

Now riddle me this. If the world is so concerned with greenhouse gasses, then why aren't all nations treated equally under Kyoto?

I have seen enough evidence to convince me we (the USA) cannot make a dent in global warming with our current regulations. However, SE Asia is not only expelling more greenhouse gasses than us, they don't use current technology for pollution control. If you want me to believe the world leaders believe in man made global warming, then apply the rules equally. The way they go about it, I only see it as elitists trying to bring down the economic powers.

As for the risks? Again, the only evidence I have seen that man has caused any global warming it the black carbon from Asia melting the polar ice. Everything else is clearly disputable through reputable science.

Get Asia in line, then we can talk.

The answer to the riddle: Politics is messy. It is a comprimise between what should happen and what is possible to end up with what happens.

The future of debate on this will be per capita emissions. By that measure, China and India can contribute roughly 3 times what the US does, and that is pretty fair. That measure DOES treat all countries equally.

The trick will be reducing per capita carbon emmissions world-wide.

As for everything else, yes it is disputable, but disputable is irrelevant, as the video points out.

We will not have certain data to act on and must choose a course of action based on incomplete data, as is often the case in anything.

[RandomGuy]

If one really wants some perspective, one should watch the videos by Hans Rosling. He has two main videos that should be watched in order, although the second one is where he starts talking about carbon emissions.

The main thrust of this is a presentation about economic data of all sorts in a global perspective. Each presentation is about 20 minutes, but is VERY VERY worth watching. It is not your normal dry, boring presentation and is quite engaging and informing.
The second one has an ending that one would not expect from from any normal economist, and made me absolutely determined to get this guy's autograph, because I am that kind of nerd.

2006 presentation

Here is a 20 minute google video sample of Hans Rosling (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2670820702819322251).

or if you prefer the youtube version (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4993386800939356610).

2007 presentation

2nd presentation from Hans at the second symposium anothe google video. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7102910242768763763)

Couldn't find the second one on youtube, but if you like the above, I am sure you can find them if you put your mind to it.

[RandomGuy]

probability is probability.

He is using the same logic that some people used to prove the existence of God in the 13th Century b/c the best rational decision when faced with risk of burning in hell for eternity. It is convincing because of the scare tactic.

he could be right, but hey we live in a live now society, i don't think people are going 2 change overnight. they are worried about their 9 to 5's and have no time for decisions like theese.

That is so very wrong.

This is not logic that "proves" anything. This is logic that defines courses of actions, based on incomplete information.

[RandomGuy]

Thing is, with CO2, it may contribute as much as 36% of the greenhouse effect, and that is the worse case of a controversial number. It is more likely about 12%. It is already blocking in the high nineties of what it is capable of blocking by spectra. I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's assume 98%. The greenhouse effect is approximately 32 C. 36% of that is 11.52 C. Doubling the CO2 would then trap 98% of the remaining 2%, or another 0.226 C maximum, worse case scenario. This would be changing the CO2 from about 370 ppm to 740 ppm. Only a 0.226 C theoretical maximum change.

More realistic, say 18% for the CO2 contribution make the CO2 effect half of the maximum worse case scenario.

Take the sun now. Scientist have shown a pretty good change from 1900 in average solar radiation to today. I think amount 1.6%, but I'm not sure by just looking at the graph. It's about 2.5% from 1700 to today. There is an almost linear relation between the solar intensity and the earths average temperature. The mildest case we can make for the sun would be to say that the earth would be at maybe 200 K (K = Kelvin, which has the same slope as Celsius. 0 C = 273.15 K) with no solar radiation. We currently enjoy an average of about 288 K. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation is a 1.41 C change. A 2.5% change would be 2.2 C change in temperature. 100 K with no solar radiation is more likely I think. Therefore, a 1.6% change in solar radiation would be a 3.008 C change. A 2.5% change would be 4.7 C change in temperature. These 1.6% and 2.5% are based on C14 proxies as these ratios change proportional to solar radiation.

The sun has far more effect on our temperature than greenhouse gasses, and we have no way or controlling it.

Now before you ask why we don't see the dramatic 3 degree change from 1700 to now, the oceans carry and store most the heat changes. The lag time is at least 800 years I think.

Note that the Carbon 14 readings lag by 60 years. It takes that long for them to settle from the upper atmosphere, which also means it is a 60 year smoothing for the graph.


This is, again getting into the specifics of the debate, and that is covered in other threads. Did you actually watch the video in the OP?

[Wild Cobra]

The answer to the riddle: Politics is messy. It is a comprimise between what should happen and what is possible to end up with what happens.

Politics is sometimes just flat out wqrong too. Take the same aspect and apply it to Christianity. On the very slight chance that a consencuc of people could agree that souls would be lost to hell if they do not accept Jesus, should we force such an action?

Political and public consensus is manipulated when it comes to global warming. When you look at the facts, it is clear than man is not the cause of warming to any scale cited.



The future of debate on this will be per capita emissions. By that measure, China and India can contribute roughly 3 times what the US does, and that is pretty fair. That measure DOES treat all countries equally.

Does it? I would agree with that assessment of the forces of world governments required the developing nations to use the latest technologies, but they dont!



The trick will be reducing per capita carbon emmissions world-wide.

Solar, wind, geothermal power generation will help. These are insignificant to the needs of future power. If the powers to be are really concerned about the greenhouse gasses rather than taking the reigns of economic power, then why is there a push for things like ethonal and carbon credits. Ethanol creates even more greenhouse gasses, and carbon credits are just a tax that really is more for show than making a difference.

We need to build more nuclear plants and generate hydrogen fuels from them. Otherwise, the only way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to stop the usage of fossile fuels and go dark.



As for everything else, yes it is disputable, but disputable is irrelevant, as the video points out.

If they had a valid concept, I would agree. However, the idea that we are generating greenhouse gasses to a level of causing problems is flat out false. Nobody who understands the sciences behind greenhouse gas emmissions agree that we are causing the problems with CO2. Only the people who stand to gain power or money from the scare are promiting it, except those who remain ignorant of the facts.



We will not have certain data to act on and must choose a course of action based on incomplete data, as is often the case in anything.

What data. I have so far been able to dispute everything. I', not so good at the black and white of the law, but I am at the physical sciences.

The only man made global warming I have seen any evidence of is the black carbon (soot) that traps the suns energy on ice, melting it rather than reflecting the energy back into space. Once we lose the ice cap over the arctic, the ocean then absorbs about 90% of the sunlight rather than reflecting about 90%! This is pollution, in the form of unburned carbon, not CO2 as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

First world nations have limited pollutions, methane, and other gasses as good as practical. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas on earth. To take CO2 to levels that might start having a measurable effect on the temperature, you have to increase it to lethal levels first. Considering how much the biosphere and oceans absorb, we would likely have to burn 20 to 30 times as much fossil fuels as we do today to achieve that, and we might then raise the average temperature by 0.3 C

The sun clearly has a greater effect on the earths temperature than CO2. Consider this graph:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

The red graph is temperature. It has fluctuated from about a -1 C to a +2 C over the last approximate 11,000 years, Notice how it most closely resembles the pattern of the upper of the two orange lines, which is another isotope proxy. Oxygen-18. Like Carbon-14, it is created in the upper atmosphere by the solar radiation. The stronger the solar radiation, the more atoms get converted.

When you look at atmospheric concentrations closely of CO2 and CH4, it becomes clear that their levels roughly follow temperature changes. As life grows more abundant, so does the gasses that are part of the cycles of life. Notice how CO2 and CH4 levels for the most part follow each other with the cycle of life.

Another thing to consider. Now if memory serves me, this is a 2004 graph. It shows CO2 at about 285 ppm to the far left. Today, it is well over 350 ppm. At the same time, about 11,000 years ago, our temperature went into the approximate 1,500 year cycle from the +2 to -2 C, CO2 is still rising without having an effect on this cycle. Now if temperature followed CO2, shouldn’t, by this graph, temperatures today be more like +4 of the right temperature scale?

Oh… one more thing to consider. The Solar Proxies, C-14, O-18, Be-10, etc. all track close to the solar activity. They are not created by temperature changes, but by solar radiation levels.

Some wiki references:

Berylium Isotopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium#Isotopes):


10Be is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray spallation of oxygen and nitrogen. Because beryllium tends to exist in solution at pH levels less than about 5.5 (and most rainwater has a pH less than 5), it will enter into solution and be transported to the Earth's surface via rainwater. As the precipitation quickly becomes more alkaline, beryllium drops out of solution. Cosmogenic 10Be thereby accumulates at the soil surface, where its relatively long half-life (1.51 million years) permits a long residence time before decaying to 9B. 10Be and its daughter products have been used to examine soil erosion, soil formation from regolith, the development of lateritic soils, as well as variations in solar activity and the age of ice cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

Carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14):


Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:

1n + 14N → 14C + 1H

The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 feet) and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in water and thus permeates the oceans.


Oxygen 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_18)


Paleoclimatology

In Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, O-18 is used to retrieve the original temperatures of the precipitation during different years by analyzing the isotope ratio of the respective annual layers of ice.

Now here is a copy of a past argument I made:





That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.
Utter tosh. But a very complex subject, nonetheless:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

That doesn't debunk anything I said. I never implied the 2x M&M theory. In fact, I always said it is not a linear function. Why does the IPCC treat is as a linear function, along with other climatologists that are in line with you?

Notice how little more of the band a four-fold increase by that link gives. My contention is that CO2 has the ability to trap about 16% of the radiated heat at current levels. Your link suggests a four-fold increase changes transmission from about 66.2% to about 59.8%. I can live with that, although I know of some finer nuances that will reduce the change. For the sake of argument, I will accept those numbers.

OK, 33.8% absorption and the maximum argued amount of 26% that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is estimated to be 32 C. That equates to 8.32 C warming by CO2. A fourfold increase and we now have 40.2% absorption. That is 19% more absorption and now the CO2 effect on temperature is 9.9 C. So it takes a fourfold increase in CO2 to increase the global temperature by 1.58 degrees C!

Now remember, I'm allowing for worse case numbers which I don't agree with. That 26% only applies at a humidity of ZERO! H2O is already trapping half the spectra, so the effect this can cause is about half, or only 0.8 C for a four-fold. If we linearize that small segment, then that amounts to 0.088 Celsius for every 100 ppm worse case.

The truth of the outer range of the absorption spectra is that it is not smooth. It is averaged on most any graph you see. When you look at the data in 0.1 micro-meter resolutions, it peaks and goes to 100% transmission for hundreds of micrometers. Those outer areas cannot peak at 0 transmission, only about 50% because of that nuance.

If I were to accept that data, I will say that when you consider the common spectra absorption with H2O, out industrialized CO2 can only account for 0.06 C increase in temperature.

Now I later supplied graphs of the finer resolutions of CO2 spectra:


More on the atmospheric saturation of heat trapping.

Please note that in the Real Climate link describing the spectral data (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/), it gave calculations and a nice graph for CO2. It is similar to this. Note that each mark of the left side are factors of 10. It is not a linear graph, but logarithmic:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2spectra.jpg

Now remember what I said about looking at the data in finer resolution? I said 0.1 micrometers, but you actually need to look finer than that. My mistake, sue me. Also note that you need equipment sensitive enough to make true measurements. Here are refined views of the area in question:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO215umexpanded.jpg

Consider how the narrow bands are so discrete. They really never get to 100%. Equipment measurements that cannot discern such resolutions give false reading. This is another indication that CO2 does not trap as much heat as you guys suspect.

Molecules vibrate at pure frequencies. As an electronics expert, and operating several types of Frequency Selective measurement equipment, I know how the sensitivity and bandwidth affects a graph. There are not really any curved areas when dealing with molecular vibration frequencies. What you see is the lack of the equipment to give clear resolution. The higher the bandwidth that the receiver, the smoother the signal looks. Often to the point of making the changes invisible from zero to maximum.

Link for above data from CalTech:

Carbon dioxide images from HITRAN 2004 (http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2hitran2004imagesmicrons.htm)

[RandomGuy]

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/hijacklive.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Heh. You haven't actually watched the video have you?

[Wild Cobra]

Heh. You haven't actually watched the video have you?
I did. I find the theory sound when dealing with possibilities that actually exist.

[RandomGuy]

BUT

For the record: nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls, for a lot of reasons.

Not that I am against nuclear per se, I just don't see it as very practical.

Distributed solar and wind will step up to the gap, as will very clean coal.

Long term, nuclear will fall by the wayside for things like this:

Space-based solar power (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html)

The sun puts out more energy in 2 second than mankind has ever used.

Solar power in space offers 24 hour power uninterrupted by clouds/storms.

It might not even be horribly efficient, but when you can build a collecting array 200 miles long by 200 miles wide, it doesn't have to be.

[RandomGuy]

I did. I find the theory sound when dealing with possibilities that actually exist.

(grins) You want a fight over "does man-made global warming exist?"

As the guy in the video points out, you can fight guys who are much better at this sort of stuff than I am, like say, the National Academy of Sciences.

I will go to town on economics, finance, military affairs, geopolitics, and energy, but I have long ago given up on trying to debate "yes/no global warming".

You can no more conclusively prove causality than the side you propose to debunk, despite your statements otherwise. The fact that you say "it doesn't exist" actually proves little other than your unfamiliarity with the scientific method.

[Yonivore]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
Say scott! How'ya been? Apparently, that never get's old.

35 Inconvenient Truths (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)


A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/goreerrors/3.jpghttp://texpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/gore_fire.jpg
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” [a variation of which I've seen repeated in this forum. --Y] In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

***

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

***

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
The memorandum goes on from there to itemize 35 errors in the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."

So, we go from "...thousands and thousands..." of fact down to a few dozen and, of those, 35 are FUBARed?

Okay, I'll watch the movie now...it should be a real hoot.

[RandomGuy]

I find it rather amusing that conservatives have taken up "no global warming" as some kind of cause celebre with the only aim being to discredit the green movement.

As the video in the OP points out, I do not have to be an expert on such things to figure out a course of action.

You have made up your mind, Cobra, and that is good, but don't pretend you have "conclusive" proof anymore than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.

For me, it is not my area of interest/expertise. Until we have some greater scientific consensus, I will act on the probability that those thousands of scientists aren't lying and have some decent reason to believe they are correct.

If you want an argument about the specifics, you will not get it from me.

[Wild Cobra]

BUT

For the record: nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls, for a lot of reasons.

Not that I am against nuclear per se, I just don't see it as very practical.

I disagree. We have learned many things about nuclear safety that activist pressures keep us from applying.



Distributed solar and wind will step up to the gap, as will very clean coal.

Clean coal is what we use in the USA. We need to get China to use it. It still produces CO2 for those concerned about greenhouse gasses.



Long term, nuclear will fall by the wayside for things like this:

Space-based solar power (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html)

The sun puts out more energy in 2 second than mankind has ever used.

Solar power in space offers 24 hour power uninterrupted by clouds/storms.

It might not even be horribly efficient, but when you can build a collecting array 200 miles long by 200 miles wide, it doesn't have to be.

Hmmm.... about 1 Giga Watt and less power per cm than a cell phone? At 1 square KM surface antenna, the intensity has to be about 100 milli-watts per cm, or is my math wrong? I don't consider that low intensity, but it is at least at safe levels should the transmission get knocked out of alignment temporarily.

At least they might be on a right path here.

[Wild Cobra]

You can no more conclusively prove causality than the side you propose to debunk, despite your statements otherwise. The fact that you say "it doesn't exist" actually proves little other than your unfamiliarity with the scientific method.
Probem is that there is no evidence when looked at closely that we are causing global warming, except for the black carbon issues. Propaganda is the major force here.

Have you noted for example how many IPCC scientists were actual climatologists?

You are right. I cannot conclusively say what I imply. However, the probability that I am wrong is so rediculously small, we are more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid.

[RandomGuy]

Nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls because at the end of the day, you still have to dispose of the waste, something politically impossible.

If you think otherwise, we can locate the facility 10 miles from your house. ;)

I know that modern reactor designs are very safe. Safety isn't as much of an issue to me, as the increased amounts of fuel and waste shipments required, and the determination of a certain suicidal segment of the human population's determination to use materials from fuel/waste shipments as major components of carbombs.

In the end it will be about ecnomics. The economics of making the extra plants, fuel and waste shipments secure from suicide attacks will drive up the costs of that power far beyond what nuclear proponents either know about, or would admit if they did.

[RandomGuy]

The thing about microwave power transmission is that it can be attuned so that you can literally stand on the antenna while it is working.

Microwave ovens cook because the frequency used is absorbed by water and other organic matter. It is a simple matter to simply attenuate the transmission into a band that is not harmonic with organic matter.

[RandomGuy]

The main barrier to space based power is, as the article points out, cost.

The main cost driver for space based power is the cost of getting things into orbit, roughtly 5-10 thousand per pound.

The easiest way to overcome this cost is avoid it.

The easiest way to avoid it, is to use materials that are already near the earth in the construction. A manufacturing facility at a LaGrange point using asteroid material (asteroids are VERY rich in metals) can crank out simple panels at ZERO cost to the environment, other than the rocket exhaust from servicing missions.

[RandomGuy]

Here is something on asteroid mining for the more scientifically and business minded. (http://www.permanent.com/)

The first company or nation to get into space in a big way will reap MASSIVELY.

We can let that be China or India, or we can do it. Hell after we get the first real infrastructure built, private industry will pick up the ball and get things rolling, to create a self-sustaining and profitable space-based economy.

(shrugs)

It is possible now, except for the political will. Sad really, because it has the potential to improve living standards world-wide.

[101A]

I find it rather amusing that conservatives have taken up "no global warming" as some kind of cause celebre with the only aim being to discredit the green movement.

As the video in the OP points out, I do not have to be an expert on such things to figure out a course of action.

You have made up your mind, Cobra, and that is good, but don't pretend you have "conclusive" proof anymore than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.

For me, it is not my area of interest/expertise. Until we have some greater scientific consensus, I will act on the probability that those thousands of scientists aren't lying and have some decent reason to believe they are correct.

If you want an argument about the specifics, you will not get it from me. Meh.

If the global warming alarmists spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the greenie sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "GW" movement is a religion.

[xrayzebra]

I find it rather amusing that conservatives have taken up "no global warming" as some kind of cause celebre with the only aim being to discredit the green movement.

As the video in the OP points out, I do not have to be an expert on such things to figure out a course of action.

You have made up your mind, Cobra, and that is good, but don't pretend you have "conclusive" proof anymore than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.

For me, it is not my area of interest/expertise. Until we have some greater scientific consensus, I will act on the probability that those thousands of scientists aren't lying and have some decent reason to believe they are correct.

If you want an argument about the specifics, you will not get it from me.


RG, they haven't taken up: No Global Warming! Most
just say mankind is not causing it. The temp of the
Earth has always fluctuate and always will.

As for the scientific consensus part. Many said the
world was flat and that everything revolved around
the earth. And those two things were by a consensus
of scientist of that period. They were wrong, weren't
they? Now I will give you one point, we, I, could be
wrong and we are causing it. But like you, someone
with more credibility than RNR and Gore and a bunch
of earth worshipers are going to have to convince me.
I just don't think mankind can affect the whole of the
earth. Maybe a small area, but not as a whole.

[Wild Cobra]

The thing about microwave power transmission is that it can be attuned so that you can literally stand on the antenna while it is working.

Microwave ovens cook because the frequency used is absorbed by water and other organic matter. It is a simple matter to simply attenuate the transmission into a band that is not harmonic with organic matter.
I was in the field of communications for 10 years, specifically microwave communication. I now a thing or two about them.

Now consider if we allow an intensity of 1 watt per centimeter, which would be safe for such an undertaking, it would take one billion centimeters of are to capture 1 giga-watt, assuming a perfectly confined beam. It would take the pattern of a circle most likely, and be a diameter of 357 meters (0.222 miles). OK, we can fit quite a few satellites and recieving station at that size. Not to disrupt communications? I'm not qualified for that, but I'm going to assume the power has to be reduced to the mid microwatt/cm levels not to interfere with satellite recieves that operate at pico-watt levels, by the minor troposheric scattering. Let's say 100 microwatts. That is 1/10,000th the power, and we now need a reciever 100 times larger in diameter, or 35.7 km (22.2 miles) What type of impact does that have over the ocean or desert? How many of these giga-watt producing facilities can the earth accomodate before running scare of land or sea for other reasons?

Where does the real power levels and size come in at? I can only guess, but there are problems involved with such things.

[xrayzebra]

Nuclear power sucks sweaty monkey balls because at the end of the day, you still have to dispose of the waste, something politically impossible.

If you think otherwise, we can locate the facility 10 miles from your house. ;)

I know that modern reactor designs are very safe. Safety isn't as much of an issue to me, as the increased amounts of fuel and waste shipments required, and the determination of a certain suicidal segment of the human population's determination to use materials from fuel/waste shipments as major components of carbombs.

In the end it will be about ecnomics. The economics of making the extra plants, fuel and waste shipments secure from suicide attacks will drive up the costs of that power far beyond what nuclear proponents either know about, or would admit if they did.

You are right on the disposal of waste material. It has
been politicized to the point it has become one of those
"not in my backyard" things.

You made the statement a couple of post back about
wind power. Well the environmentalist are bitching
now that the wind turbines are killing the birds. Coal,
like WC said, gives off CO2 and anything else that burns.
And all these do-gooders are bitching they are
destroying the earth. So are we suppose to do?
Do without I suppose.

[RandomGuy]

I was in the field of communications for 10 years, specifically microwave communication. I now a thing or two about them.

Now consider if we allow an intensity of 1 watt per centimeter, which would be safe for such an undertaking, it would take one billion centimeters of are to capture 1 giga-watt, assuming a perfectly confined beam. It would take the pattern of a circle most likely, and be a diameter of 357 meters (0.222 miles). OK, we can fit quite a few satellites and recieving station at that size. Not to disrupt communications? I'm not qualified for that, but I'm going to assume the power has to be reduced to the mid microwatt/cm levels not to interfere with satellite recieves that operate at pico-watt levels, by the minor troposheric scattering. Let's say 100 microwatts. That is 1/10,000th the power, and we now need a reciever 100 times larger in diameter, or 35.7 km (22.2 miles) What type of impact does that have over the ocean or desert? How many of these giga-watt producing facilities can the earth accomodate before running scare of land or sea for other reasons?

Where does the real power levels and size come in at? I can only guess, but there are problems involved with such things.

This is waaaay beyond my area of expertise to answer. From what I remember, the size of the receiver is roughly analogous to the size of most power plant facilities.

[RandomGuy]

You are right on the disposal of waste material. It has
been politicized to the point it has become one of those
"not in my backyard" things.

You made the statement a couple of post back about
wind power. Well the environmentalist are bitching
now that the wind turbines are killing the birds. Coal,
like WC said, gives off CO2 and anything else that burns.
And all these do-gooders are bitching they are
destroying the earth. So are we suppose to do?
Do without I suppose.

Fuck the birds. If they can't figure out how to avoid the things, our needs for power trump their survival. I am something of an environmentalist, but even *I* have my limits.

[RandomGuy]

Meh.

If the global warming alarmists spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the greenie sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "GW" movement is a religion.

This stuff is actual science, and beyond my capabilities to adequately assess. If you tell me that you have the expertise to effectively evaluate it, I would likely not believe you.

[Wild Cobra]

This is waaaay beyond my area of expertise to answer. From what I remember, the size of the receiver is roughly analogous to the size of most power plant facilities.
OK, how large is that? Any idea?

Just look at it this way. The total power received divided by the receiving antenna's area in centimeters will give an average power per centimeter rating which is a standard measurement.

1 gigawatt = 1,000,000,000 watts. Rather than using the standard power per square centimeters, I'll look at watts per square foot. Consider the following graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/wattsvsacres.jpg

Now if we had a perfect beam from the satellite, we could trap nearly all the radiated power. There will be quite a bit of loss just from the fact line of sight transmissions have scatter. Still, assuming a small power plant generating 100 mega-watts with a 20 acre receiving field, anyone walking in the area will receive a continuous 100+ watts of radiation! How is this safe at all?

A standard parabolic antenna wouldn’t work for the satellite transmitter very well because they don’t produce a tight enough pattern. How does one generate that much power of coherent microwave energy? How powerful can a MASER be made? Since they operate with resonance chambers, containing any amount of high power is next to impossible.

I wonder if this is all just a dream, or if these problems have been addressed.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck the birds. If they can't figure out how to avoid the things, our needs for power trump their survival. I am something of an environmentalist, but even *I* have my limits.
If a power station collector is the size of a standard power plant, how will the birds avoid being cooked by the microwave oven effect?

[Ignignokt]

One can apply this same logic to going into Iraq.

[RandomGuy]

OK, how large is that? Any idea?

Just look at it this way. The total power received divided by the receiving antenna's area in centimeters will give an average power per centimeter rating which is a standard measurement.

1 gigawatt = 1,000,000,000 watts. Rather than using the standard power per square centimeters, I'll look at watts per square foot. Consider the following graph:

Now if we had a perfect beam from the satellite, we could trap nearly all the radiated power. There will be quite a bit of loss just from the fact line of sight transmissions have scatter. Still, assuming a small power plant generating 100 mega-watts with a 20 acre receiving field, anyone walking in the area will receive a continuous 100+ watts of radiation! How is this safe at all?

A standard parabolic antenna wouldn’t work for the satellite transmitter very well because they don’t produce a tight enough pattern. How does one generate that much power of coherent microwave energy? How powerful can a MASER be made? Since they operate with resonance chambers, containing any amount of high power is next to impossible.

I wonder if this is all just a dream, or if these problems have been addressed.

It depends on the frequency of that power, if memory serves. I can find a link or two can get back to you on this one.

[RandomGuy]

If a power station collector is the size of a standard power plant, how will the birds avoid being cooked by the microwave oven effect?


Actually my response was aimed more at wind generators than microwave power receivers.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a good start, but I would guess you want something a bit more technical, Cobra (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html)

Initial feasibility study by the DOD (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm) Link to the pdf file can be seen from this 2007 report

Here is a link to the National Space Society Solar Power library (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

Actually my response was aimed more at wind generators than microwave power receivers.
I know that. However, you refered to how dumb birds are flying into the blades. My point was that birds cannot avaid being cooked by radiation they cannot see. I have my limits too. I can also say fuck the birds that are too dumb to avoid another moving object, but an unseen threat...

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a good start, but I would guess you want something a bit more technical, Cobra (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html)

Initial feasibility study by the DOD (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm) Link to the pdf file can be seen from this 2007 report

Here is a link to the National Space Society Solar Power library (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm)
I like the third link. Thanx. I'm downloading some of the PDF files.

Still, the simple fact is that what ever power you bean down, simple math tells you the power levels per area. Frequency matter to the extent that the higher the frequency, the smaller the actual antenna element is to collect a full wave energy signature, and that the atmosphere attenuates the power of some frequencies more than others. Also, the higher the frequency, the more sensitive the design is to phase problems. Without looking at a detailed graph, it appears most frequencies under 10 GHZ are usable. 10 GHZ is a 3 centimeter wave.

I have a pretty extensive knowledge of the sciences. I have modeled this idea and every time I found a problem, I found a solution. It is very feasible if we ignore the dangers of the power densities. If we use a 1 GHZ signal, we can have a phased array of transmitters in space. One example would by a 100 x 100 array each transmitting 100 k watts. Now we wouldn't use a simple box design, but for simplicity of example, it will suffice. The farthest two transmitters could be as far as 1.3 km apart in space, and their signals would be no more than 1 cm different at the earth receiver, or about 12 degrees of phase. The math gets a little more complex here, need trigonometry to see the power change. Still, 12 degrees has a minor effect on the power, but the less the better for efficiency. This 0.94 km would also be a 9.4 meter spacing between transmitters, whereas a meter or less would be sufficient, reducing the phase farther. I earlier mentioned problems in the coherent power, then though of using a single driver signal with phase control, going to multiple TWATs (Traveling Wave Amplifier Tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWT).) I've used them as powerful as 10,000 watts, why not 100,000 watts each?

Still, the major problem lies with my very first assessment. Power densities are too high. They present unacceptable dangers. To make a large enough field to reduce the power density then gets you into the phase problems as well, canceling out usable power.

[Yonivore]

You would think this (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/11/01/u-n-scientist-rejects-nobel-prize-share-denounces-alarmism) would have been as newsworthy as Algore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

A United Nations scientist has refused the Nobel prize that he (as part of the IPCC) is supposed to share with Al Gore, and for the most damning possible reason.

The scientist (IPCC member John R. Christy) claims that the prize was based on a misunderstanding of science:


Has the global warming alarmism movement hit its apex? Maybe so. In recent weeks, we've seen a resurgence of hard scientists who have come out strongly against the warm-mongers, the latest of which is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member John R. Christy who in an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal tells the world that not only does he not believe no one's proven humans cause global warming, he's refusing his "share" of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science.
Sheffield quotes from Christy's piece in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) which explains further:


I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat.....

[...]

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
What Christy has done amounts to high treason, if not outright apostasy.

Fortunately, the global warming alarmists don't issue fatwas or behead people, so I think he won't suffer the extreme penalty.

I admire him for his skepticism.

But I'm old enough to remember when skepticism was considered an integral part of science. And the idea of heresy was thought of in religious terms (and medieval ones at that).

Considering the resurgence of the heresy meme via newly invented morality in so many areas, I sometimes wonder about something.

Do humans need heresy? Is it possible that there is a deep-seated human need to regard certain views as heresy? I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that there might be a heresy gene, but it seems to occupy a stubborn emotional niche, especially for those who believe in collective thinking, and it is not going away. I realize that people want definitive answers to unknowable questions as well as questions which are over their heads. But what is it that drives intelligent people to want such definite answers so badly that they must label dissenting views as heretical, immoral, and downright evil?

I wish I knew.

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, even more global-climate change 'propaganda' effects are surfacing.......


Empty shelves in Caracas. Food riots in West Bengal and Mexico. Warnings of hunger in Jamaica, Nepal, the Philippines and sub-Saharan Africa. Soaring prices for basic foods are beginning to lead to political instability, with governments being forced to step in to artificially control the cost of bread, maize, rice and dairy products.

Record world prices for most staple foods have led to 18% food price inflation in China, 13% in Indonesia and Pakistan, and 10% or more in Latin America, Russia and India, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive, says the UN. Next week the FAO is expected to say that global food reserves are at their lowest in 25 years and that prices will remain high for years.

Last week the Kremlin forced Russian companies to freeze the price of milk, bread and other foods until January 31, for fear of a public backlash with a parliamentary election looming. "The price of goods has risen sharply and that has hit the poor particularly hard," said Oleg Savelyev, of the Levada Centre polling institute.

India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year, something not seen in decades of low global food commodity prices. Meanwhile, there are shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/03/food.climatechange)

[Walter Craparita]

Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.

Haha me too.

Americans are cool with the government using global warming as a way to get into office and spend their money but when it comes to buying TVs and SUVS just swipe the credit card mang.

Life is good.

[Yonivore]

Did anyone see the irony in yesterday's NBC Football broadcast where Bob Costas and gang sat in a dark studio, using candle light, for the half-time and post-game shows while they did a remote spot with Matt Lauer, on a glacier in the Arctic circle, that was lit up like a freakin' football stadium?

We'll save the planet by sitting here looking like fools in the dark while Matt Lauer uses 10 times more energy to heat up the surface of a glacier so we can talk about global climate change.

This whole global climate change nonsense has become farce.

[Yonivore]

Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[Wild Cobra]

Great find Yoni. On part three right now. This guy nails it.

[Yonivore]

C'mon, I thought this was the crisis of our lifetime -- and that of our children's lifetimes -- can't anyone be bothered to view the video and respond to the claims?

You guys will spend 20 pages talking about WTC 7 but, when someone actually posts a thoughtful, intelligent, and informative refutation to the global war...er, climate change nonsense, you ignore it as if it isn't pertinent.

What kind of forum is this?

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::


Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[Yonivore]

Where are all the gardamned Global Warmer nuts all of a sudden?

What's the matter, Algore hasn't posted a response to Professor Carter?

[Wild Cobra]

C'mon, I thought this was the crisis of our lifetime -- and that of our children's lifetimes -- can't anyone be bothered to view the video and respond to the claims?

You guys will spend 20 pages talking about WTC 7 but, when someone actually posts a thoughtful, intelligent, and informative refutation to the global war...er, climate change nonsense, you ignore it as if it isn't pertinent.

What kind of forum is this?
The science of this matter is way past most liberals heads. They know it. They are at least smart enough to stay silent oin this one.

Dammit. They are no fun today...

Nice discovery for me on the NewsBusters link:

NewsBusted Conservative Comedy, Ep. 117 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Xs_8lzMA4)

Wow... I have allot to watch!

[Yonivore]

And, speaking of Algore...c'mon you chicken bastards!!! Defend his inconvenient truths.

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

You guys are pathetic.

[101A]

Meh.


The Liberals never answer any tough questions on this board. Just review the threads that end with one directed at them. Just let them fall off the front page.

[Yonivore]

This one will be bumped to the front page until I lose interest.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history)

Global warming hysteria is the signature approach to everthing for liberals. They develop a narrative, draft an article of faith, and then hold onto to it until, well, I can't say I've ever seen a liberal admit they're wrong on issues this large.

[Holt's Cat]

Meh.

If the global warming alarmists spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the greenie sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "GW" movement is a religion.


Indeed. Just another variation of the neo-Luddite green movement which has spawned such artists as The Unabomber.

[Yonivore]

Indeed. Just another variation of the neo-Luddite green movement which has spawned such artists as The Unabomber.
Unfortunately, this has spawned a movement of political leaders ramping up to spend trillions of dollars to accomplish nothing.

Funny you mention the Unabomber. I'm reminded of this:

Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber? (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html)

[xrayzebra]

I wished old RNR from Aussie land would come on in and refute
the video's. And tell us once again how he is fighting the
global warming issues with his sacrifices.

Even old Chump and GGA cant come up with one of their little
put downs.

[xrayzebra]

Unfortunately, this has spawned a movement of political leaders ramping up to spend trillions of dollars to accomplish nothing.

Funny you mention the Unabomber. I'm reminded of this:

Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber? (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html)

And Yoni, the really sad thing is is some of the Republicans
are now jumping on the "global warming" band wagon.
Damn politicians don't know anything and are experts
on everything. About the only thing they are good at
is spending our money.

[Yonivore]

And Yoni, the really sad thing is is some of the Republicans
are now jumping on the "global warming" band wagon.
Damn politicians don't know anything and are experts
on everything. About the only thing they are good at
is spending our money.
Well, I'm optimistic this has been nipped in the bud and that the shameless panderers (of all political stripes but, particularly, Republican) that are buying in simply because they thought the battle was lost and, therefore, were becoming joiners because they couldn't be beaters, will begin to pull back in the face of significant scientific refutation of their folly.

We'll see. I'm hopeful it's not too late.

[Wild Cobra]

I wished old RNR from Aussie land would come on in and refute
the video's. And tell us once again how he is fighting the
global warming issues with his sacrifices.

Even old Chump and GGA cant come up with one of their little
put downs.
I think I spanked RnR's butt too good for him to come back and try to dispute my claims.

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::


Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[BradLohaus]

We'll save the planet by sitting here looking like fools in the dark while Matt Lauer uses 10 times more energy to heat up the surface of a glacier so we can talk about global climate change.

This whole global climate change nonsense has become farce.

:tu

[UV Ray]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
Pirate Attacks Increase Worldwide (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/10/17/pirate.attacks.ap/)

It should start cooling off any day now.

[Yonivore]

Pirate Attacks Increase Worldwide (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/10/17/pirate.attacks.ap/)

It should start cooling off any day now.
Never let it be said the U. S. Military can't fight a war on multiple fronts AND solve the global warming crisis!

Report: Somali pirates want U.S. Navy to back off (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/02/somalia.pirates.japan.ap/index.html)

North Korea thanks U.S. Navy for help in fighting off pirates (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/08/nkorea.pirates.ap/)

Pirates leave ships under US Navy escort (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071104/ap_on_re_af/somalia_pirates)

and on and on and on the stories go...

[UV Ray]

Which reminds me of a joke, as retold in the book Plato And A Platypus Walk Into A Bar by Cathcart and Klien:

It was autumn and the Indians on the reservation asked their new chief if it was going to be a cold winter. Raised in the ways of the modern world the chief had never been taught the old secrets and had no way of knowing whether the winter would be cold or mild. To be on the safe side, he advised the tribe to collect wood and be prepared for a cold winter. A few days later, as a practical afterthought, he called the National Weather Service and asked whether they were forecasting a cold winter. The meteorologist replied that, indeed, he thought the winter would be quite cold. The chief advised the tribe to stock even more wood.

A couple of weeks later, the chief checked in again with the Weather Service. “Does it still look like a cold winter?” asked the chief..

“It sure does,” replied the meteorologist. “It looks like a very cold winter.” The chief advised the tribe to gather up every scrap of wood they could find.

A couple of weeks later, the chief called the Weather Service again and asked how the winter was looking at that point. The meteorologist said, “ We’re now forecasting that it will be one of the coldest winters on record!”

“Really?” said the chief. “How can you be so sure?”

The meteorologist replied, “The Indians are collecting wood like crazy!”

[UV Ray]

Never let it be said the U. S. Military can't fight a war on multiple fronts AND solve the global warming crisis!


lol

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::


Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[101A]

Never let it be said the U. S. Military can't fight a war on multiple fronts AND solve the global warming crisis!

Report: Somali pirates want U.S. Navy to back off (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/02/somalia.pirates.japan.ap/index.html)

North Korea thanks U.S. Navy for help in fighting off pirates (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/08/nkorea.pirates.ap/)

Pirates leave ships under US Navy escort (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071104/ap_on_re_af/somalia_pirates)

and on and on and on the stories go...No, Yoni.

The U.S. is actively REDUCING the number of Pirates; thus INCREASING the instance of Global Warming (it is a reverse correlation).

Big oil, the Repugs and the Religious Right are, no doubt, behind this.

I saw an NBADan post that indicated that the reason for the whole thing is some rich Republican Donors have bought up a bunch of Islands buried beneath both polar ice caps.

By reducing pirates it serves two purposes for these people that don't pay their own way: It makes it easier to ship their indentured servants and piles of bullion to those islands, which will soon be uncovered as the ice melts!

[Yonivore]

No, Yoni.

The U.S. is actively REDUCING the number of Pirates; thus INCREASING the instance of Global Warming (it is a reverse correlation).
Ooops! My bad, I never looked at the axis. Very deceptive, Scott! Kind of like the "hockey stick" graph, the statistically insignificant data sets graphs, etc...

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...uh, well, mmmm, you just can't fool me again.


Big oil, the Repugs and the Religious Right are, no doubt, behind this.

I saw an NBADan post that indicated that the reason for the whole thing is some rich Republican Donors have bought up a bunch of Islands buried beneath both polar ice caps.

By reducing pirates it serves two purposes for these people that don't pay their own way: It makes it easier to ship their indentured servants and piles of bullion to those islands, which will soon be uncovered as the ice melts!
Makes sense. Yes, all of it makes sense now.

[Yonivore]

bump

[101A]

The silence is deafening!!!

Come on, bring us some consensus!

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::


Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[101A]

:::bump:::


Good Video on Global Warming


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8431/globalwarmingvideoby4.th.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch), which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.Since Yoni apparantly isn't here:

bump

[Yonivore]

Looks to me like a few good volcanic eruptions could fix this whole global warming thing, pronto!

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

[xrayzebra]

Along about January we will be wanting some of that global
warming.

[boutons_]

From the mid-19th century, when the above graph shows ramping up through 57F, the industrialization, buring coal and oil and wood, plus industrial farming (animal farts) has been pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air.

So what is cause(s)? a few eruptions? or human activity? or something else? we know atmospheric pollution from human activity has been monotonically increasing, as has the temperature, the basis of why non-politicized, uncorrupted scientists are convinced humans are causing the warming.

[inconvertible]

500,000,000 years from now the sun is going to swallow the earth, how green do we have to get to prevent it?

[Yonivore]

And, another nail in the anthropogenic global climate change alarmist's coffins.

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming ::cough::Algore::cough:: want you to believe that the science is settled and there is nothing left to debate. But this is the opposite of the truth; in fact, climate science is in its infancy and virtually every proposition relating to it is controversial.

A case in point: the computer programs that tell us that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming assume that warmer temperatures will give rise to more high-altitude clouds, which in turn will trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop. Recent research suggests, however, that increasing temperatures will have the opposite effect, reducing the incidence of high-altitude clouds and thereby creating a safety valve rather than reinforcing the original warming. The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont Fuck With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):


The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

As the Earth's surface warms - due to either manmade greenhouse gases or natural fluctuations in the climate system - more water evaporates from the surface. Since more evaporation leads to more precipitation, most climate researchers expected increased cirrus cloudiness to follow warming.

"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."

"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."

The team analyzed six years of data from four instruments aboard three NASA and NOAA satellites. The researchers tracked precipitation amounts, air and sea surface temperatures, high and low altitude cloud cover, reflected sunlight, and infrared energy escaping out to space.

When they tracked the daily evolution of a composite of fifteen of the strongest intraseasonal oscillations they found that although rainfall and air temperatures would be rising, the amount of infrared energy being trapped by the cloudy areas would start to decrease rapidly as the air warmed. This unexpected behavior was traced to the decrease in cirrus cloud cover.

"Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall," Spencer said. "Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise ..."

There are significant gaps in the scientific understanding of precipitation systems and their interactions with the climate, he said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."
That's a remarkable quote: "Everyone just assumed" that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That is the level of scientific certainty on which claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest.

[Mr. Peabody]

And, another nail in the anthropogenic global climate change alarmist's coffins.

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming ::cough::Algore::cough:: want you to believe that the science is settled and there is nothing left to debate. But this is the opposite of the truth; in fact, climate science is in its infancy and virtually every proposition relating to it is controversial.

A case in point: the computer programs that tell us that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming assume that warmer temperatures will give rise to more high-altitude clouds, which in turn will trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop. Recent research suggests, however, that increasing temperatures will have the opposite effect, reducing the incidence of high-altitude clouds and thereby creating a safety valve rather than reinforcing the original warming. The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont Fuck With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):


That's a remarkable quote: "Everyone just assumed" that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That is the level of scientific certainty on which claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest.

This NASA study already took the Iris Effect into account --


NASA SATELLITE INSTRUMENT WARMS UP GLOBAL COOLING THEORY

Measurements from a NASA Langley Research Center satellite instrument dispute a recent theory that proposes that clouds in the Tropics might cool the Earth and counteract predictions of global warming. The Langley instrument indicates these clouds would instead slightly strengthen the greenhouse effect to warm the Earth.

Scientists at NASA Langley in Hampton, Va., used observations from an instrument called CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite to test the Iris effect?the proposed cooling mechanism.

"The Iris effect is a very interesting but controversial idea for how clouds might act to stabilize the climate system. If correct, it would be welcome news for concerns over future climate change," said Bruce Wielicki, CERES principal investigator at NASA Langley. "We tested the Iris hypothesis by looking down at these clouds using the latest generation of satellite data in the Tropics and found the opposite answer. If anything, these clouds appear to slightly destabilize climate."

According to the Iris effect, the climatically important canopy of clouds in the Tropics decreases as climate warms. As its size shrinks, so does the area of ocean and land covered by the canopy. With more of the Earth's surface and atmosphere free from heat-trapping clouds, more emitted thermal energy (or heat) can escape to space and, according to the theory, cool the Earth.

While a smaller cloud canopy could allow more heat to leave the Earth, it also means more sunlight could reach the surface. In the battle between the cooling of escaping heat and the warming of incoming sunlight, cloud properties determine which one will have a stronger effect on climate. CERES provides the most accurate measurements ever of how much heat clouds trap and how much sunlight they reflect.

"We used the cloud observations from CERES, placed them inside the Iris climate model and found a slightly destabilizing effect of these clouds," said Wielicki. "The result is that the Iris effect slightly warms the Earth instead of strongly cooling it."

"A recent study by Dennis Hartmann at the University of Washington has seriously challenged whether the Iris decrease in cloud canopy would occur in a warmer climate," Wielicki adds. "Our study takes the next step and shows that, even if the Iris effect decreases the cloud canopy, the resulting change in the planetary energy balance would not act to stabilize the climate system."

Bing Lin, a NASA Langley researcher and CERES team member, will present the paper on this research during Session 10 of the 13th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations at the American Meteorological Society annual meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 16, at 1:45 p.m. The Journal of Climate published this paper in the January 1, 2002, issue.

Designed and managed by NASA Langley, there are CERES instruments aboard the TRMM and Terra satellites. The CERES instruments were built by the TRW Corp., Redondo Beach, Calif.

The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

[Mr. Peabody]

The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont Fuck With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):


I know the PowerLine Blog post you copied didn't have the link available, but here is a link to the abstract on the paper.

Link (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml)

[Mr. Peabody]

The silence is deafening!!!

Come on, bring us some consensus!

Evidently the Bush EPA believes there is some consensus --




What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


What's Very Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

[Yonivore]

I know the PowerLine Blog post you copied didn't have the link available, but here is a link to the abstract on the paper.

Link (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml)
Thanks Peabody.

[Yonivore]

Evidently the Bush EPA believes there is some consensus --
More bureaucrats. I think it's an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phenomenon. As the science becomes more definitive, the politicians will begin to back away.

[smeagol]

Who care if the Earth is heating. We can all move to Alaska and sew the land.

[Yonivore]

Who care if the Earth is heating. We can all move to Alaska and sew the land.

That's the spirit.
:cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer :cheer

[Yonivore]

NASA and university scientists have determined (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) that reversals in Arctic Ocean circulation, which is caused by atmospheric circulation changes, vary by the decades. "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Not to get too scientific on you, the pattern of circulation in the Arctic affected the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, which decreased its weight (specific gravity) and changed its circulation. But this is a naturally occurring change. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

According to the report, it is too early to say but the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to its counterclockwise circulation pattern .. but change back it will, and then back the other way ... and so forth. I wonder what OwlGore will be saying when that happens.

[boutons_]

... except that when most/all the millenially Arctic/Greeland ancient ice is melted, talk about decadal differences will be, is, meaningless. Yoni is ridiculous.

[xrayzebra]

... except that when most/all the millenially Arctic/Greeland ancient ice is melted, talk about decadal differences will be, is, meaningless. Yoni is ridiculous.


When is this all suppose occur. Not in my lifetime or yours
or your kids lifetime. All these global warming people
will only tell you that it is a crisis and must be addressed
now. Including you boutons. Science my foot. There
are some either side of the issue. I choose the one where
man has little difference to earth. Except in localized
cases. Like burning leaves in your yard and the folks
next door get the smoke.

[Walter Craparita]

500,000,000 years from now the sun is going to swallow the earth, how green do we have to get to prevent it?

That wouldn't be a problem if Bush hadn't assassinated Captain Planet.

[Yonivore]

Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm)

Wow! Who woulda thunkit?

[boutons_]

Compounding natural warming cycles with inustrially/agriculturally produced gases over the last 150 years is a great idea.

Natural warming/cooling cycles are, duh, cyclic, while human activities are monotonically increasing, even accelerating as India and China add their shit to advanced countries' shit.

[Yonivore]

Saw this quote on one of my "victim" blogs -- wish I had seen it before I posted the article 'cause I woulda stolen it.


"Global warming scientists are like OJ Jurors, looking about for unlikely conspiracies when there's a guy dripping with blood right in front of them."

He also points out the BBC spends a good part of the article trying to debunk the theory espoused in the beginning but, gives them credit for at least reporting it.

Priceless quote from the BBC piece:

"Proponents of this mechanism [solar caused global climate change] have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence."

Of course, it's not like Algore and company haven't spent the last several years doing the same with anthropogenic global climate change theory, is it?

[RandomGuy]

Clean coal is what we use in the USA.

Then you can eat fish downwind from one of the "clean" coal power plants, and drink the water from the same area.

Go on. I'll catch the fish, if you promise to eat one per day for 5 years.

[RandomGuy]

Meh.

If the global warming alarmists spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the greenie sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "GW" movement is a religion.

A religion? Not quite.

Dogma, certainly.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"

or

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."

Perhaps Cobra can answer that one.

[Wild Cobra]

Then you can eat fish downwind from one of the "clean" coal power plants, and drink the water from the same area.

Go on. I'll catch the fish, if you promise to eat one per day for 5 years.

Actually, I eat quite a bit if fish. Mostly wild salmon, about 2 pounds a week, and I go to a Sushi bar about one a week.

Oooops... now you guys will say I'm like I am because of mercury poisoning...

I wish I noted a link I say a few days ago. It showed levels of mercury in various fish and their locations.

You are right. They are not "clean" but they are "cleaner" to some pretty decent levels.

Problem is, we still see environmental damage of things like mercury from decades past. My understanding is with the dispersal patterns of the newer technologies, we now contribute very little past natural levels that exist anyway.

Am I wrong?

There are trace levels of toxins just about everywhere in nature.

[Wild Cobra]

A religion? Not quite.

Dogma, certainly.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"

or

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."

Perhaps Cobra can answer that one.

I say there is no denial that our activities do have a very minor influence on nature. Neither above statement is true. I say the alrmists are way off on their assessments. I never did hear a reliable denier say we have no impact, just that our impact is not a concern because it is too small to affect nature.

Nature heals itself. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. Still, the earth has a natural thermostat. More heat makes more clouds which in turm end up reflecting more sunlight. I would say that even at ice age levels of CO2, this natural therostat would maintain the earth between an average of 14C to 15C. Research in the last few years show that natural CO2 levels are a cause of temperature. That CO2 levels do not control the earths temperature. The levels lag by an average 800 years.

Now here is some intersting data I've been looking into...

Carbon Dioxide with only carbon 12 and oxygen 16 comprise of 98.42% of the CO2. It is near saturation for the Infared it can absorb. CO2 with Carbon 13 is at 1.106% of the CO2 mix. CO2 with one Oxygen 18 atom accounts for 0.395% of the mix, and the other 15 isopopic forms are insignificant. Current increases of these two probable increase the effect more than the most common form because they are still far from saturation. With about 380 ppm CO2, they account for about 4.2 and 1.5 ppm respectively. These levels however probably account for 0.5C (about 15%) in the 6 C to 7 C CO2 greenhouse effect even though they are only about 1.4% of the CO2. They have nearly a linear effect to about a 3 C influence. Past this point of about 40 ppm combined, their influence tapers off and becomes nearly flat at about 200 ppm each. The most common form of CO2 will at most add another 0.1 C as these levels rise. It would take about a 2-1/4% (2280 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere before we could see a 3 C rise from CO2. To see the proper relationship with CO2, each isotopic relationship must be considered properly. Now is since these two lesser forms are nearly linear to anout the 40 ppm.

Now assuming I've reaserched this correctly, we can assume an approximate 0.16 C increase per 100 ppm of added CO2. This is right on board with my assesments that the sun changes account for about 75% of the 0.6 C change we see since the start of industrialization.

I did not try to make these numbers match. The math just panned out that way.

[DarrinS]

Here's an interesting website

http://www.surfacestations.org/


They are doing surveys of the temperature measurement stations in the US. It's amazing how many of them are in need of paint, are located near machinery, BBQ pits, urban areas, etc.

Here are a couple of pics

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=833&g2_serialNumber=2

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=839&g2_serialNumber=2

[Wild Cobra]

Here's an interesting website

http://www.surfacestations.org/


They are doing surveys of the temperature measurement stations in the US. It's amazing how many of them are in need of paint, are located near machinery, BBQ pits, urban areas, etc.


Yep, how true. Funny how we hear anything and everything about warming, but none of the truth that drives some of the false presumptions when they are exposed. This has been known for years, yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge it as an issue. A very high percentage of these monitoring station have had urban growth skew their reading. They are suppose to be clear of all those items pointed out. Such station can no longer be realistically consider as valid, but they are.

[Wild Cobra]

For the last two days, I heard on two different radio programs that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" used computer aided graphics stolen from "The Day After Tomorrow." Anyone have both movies to compare and find this? I have Al Gore's PoS, but I don't have the rediculous movie. Write-up in Neal Boortz's site:

April 23, 2008 Archives (http://boortz.com/nuze/200804/04232008.html):


AL GORE FAKES IT

Ok global warming cultists – Al Gore fans – you really need to sit down on this one. We don't want you to get too upset. This is about his Oscar winning film on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a scene in that movie that shows the Antarctic ice shelf breaking up and virtually disintegrating. The problem is that wasn't ice. That was Styrofoam. ABC News is reporting that Al Gore took that footage from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and used it in his documentary. Way to go Al. That ice is just about as fake as you are.

Before we go on this day after Earth Day stuff ... you will be interested in knowing that only about 35% of the people in this country are all that concerned about global warming. That is about the same percentage as about 20 years ago. At least our collective ignorance hasn't increased all that much on this issue.

And while we're learning that Al Gore used Styrofoam in his movie to depict his dream of melting ice caps, here we have some sort of think tank in the UK saying that climate change (the newest term for global warming) could lead to centuries of world war. Read into the story and you'll find that the chief author of the report from what is termed a "defense think tank" is also the head of an environmental group. These people have an investment in so-called "climate change." When we all realize that this climate change is part of a normal cycle that has been going on for millions of years what are the environmental groups going to do to raise money?

I was hoping for a more substantial link. I get too many hits to narrow it down well.

[DarrinS]

Yep, how true. Funny how we hear anything and everything about warming, but none of the truth that drives some of the false presumptions when they are exposed. This has been known for years, yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge it as an issue. A very high percentage of these monitoring station have had urban growth skew their reading. They are suppose to be clear of all those items pointed out. Such station can no longer be realistically consider as valid, but they are.


Not only the urban heat island effect, but also some of the units that contain the instrumentation are in bad need of fresh paint. Without a good coat of paint, these units are much like your car in a parking lot on a hot day.


Here's another one that cracks me up.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Tahoe_city3.JPG

[DarrinS]

And another

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Hopkinsville_current.jpg

[DarrinS]

Gee, I wonder if this one might read high

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/lovelock_mig480.jpg

[DarrinS]

How does the paint on the Stevenson screens affect reading? (Stevenson screens are the enclosures for the instrumentation)

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/

[RandomGuy]

A religion? Not quite.

Dogma, certainly.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"

or

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."

Perhaps Cobra can answer that one.

I say there is no denial that our activities do have a very minor influence on nature. Neither above statement is true. I say the alrmists are way off on their assessments. I never did hear a reliable denier say we have no impact, just that our impact is not a concern because it is too small to affect nature.

Nature heals itself. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. Still, the earth has a natural thermostat. More heat makes more clouds which in turm end up reflecting more sunlight. I would say that even at ice age levels of CO2, this natural therostat would maintain the earth between an average of 14C to 15C. Research in the last few years show that natural CO2 levels are a cause of temperature. That CO2 levels do not control the earths temperature. The levels lag by an average 800 years.

Now here is some intersting data I've been looking into...

Carbon Dioxide with only carbon 12 and oxygen 16 comprise of 98.42% of the CO2. It is near saturation for the Infared it can absorb. CO2 with Carbon 13 is at 1.106% of the CO2 mix. CO2 with one Oxygen 18 atom accounts for 0.395% of the mix, and the other 15 isopopic forms are insignificant. Current increases of these two probable increase the effect more than the most common form because they are still far from saturation. With about 380 ppm CO2, they account for about 4.2 and 1.5 ppm respectively. These levels however probably account for 0.5C (about 15%) in the 6 C to 7 C CO2 greenhouse effect even though they are only about 1.4% of the CO2. They have nearly a linear effect to about a 3 C influence. Past this point of about 40 ppm combined, their influence tapers off and becomes nearly flat at about 200 ppm each. The most common form of CO2 will at most add another 0.1 C as these levels rise. It would take about a 2-1/4% (2280 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere before we could see a 3 C rise from CO2. To see the proper relationship with CO2, each isotopic relationship must be considered properly. Now is since these two lesser forms are nearly linear to anout the 40 ppm.

Now assuming I've reaserched this correctly, we can assume an approximate 0.16 C increase per 100 ppm of added CO2. This is right on board with my assesments that the sun changes account for about 75% of the 0.6 C change we see since the start of industrialization.

I did not try to make these numbers match. The math just panned out that way.

I noticed you dodged the question here too. I thought I remembered your dumb ass from somewhere.

Which is the more dogmatic statement, brain-trust?

[Wild Cobra]

I noticed you dodged the question here too. I thought I remembered your dumb ass from somewhere.

Which is the more dogmatic statement, brain-trust?
I didn't dodge the question. I'm sorry you fail to understand my answer. You could at least tell me what part doesn't make sense so I can simplify it for you.

If you consider not picking a statement a dodge, then fine. Both can be considered dogma, but the first more so. Depends on the level of blind faith involved. Deniers do not use blind faith on the subject. It is not a preached viewpoint. The preached viewpoint is "I am right, and this theory is correct" by the alarmist. They do not adequately back up their theory. If they have, I would agree with the facts. You can find snippets of deniers saying there is no manmade global warming, but all that are respected say there is a very small effect by us.

Like those who are alarmists, here are some deniers that take idiotic positions. This isn't an all or nothing argument. It shouldn't be. When talking in general terms, we have no measurable effect outside of probable scientific error. This truth is on the side of the deniers. It is opposite for the alarmists. Their claim is outside of probable scientific error. I know, their papers say otherwise, but look at the factors they ignore. Especially solar variations. When they address it, they downplay this below measurable facts.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't dodge the question... you fail[ed] to understand my answer.

:rolleyes



Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"

or

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."


Carbon Dioxide with only carbon 12 and oxygen 16 comprise of 98.42% of the CO2. It is near saturation for the Infared it can absorb. CO2 with Carbon 13 is at 1.106% of the CO2 mix. CO2 with one Oxygen 18 atom accounts for 0.395% of the mix, and the other 15 isopopic forms are insignificant. Current increases of these two probable increase the effect more than the most common form because they are still far from saturation. With about 380 ppm CO2, they account for about 4.2 and 1.5 ppm respectively.

Yeah, the fault is mine for not being smart enough to understand your answer to a simple either/or question.

... and you wonder why I say you have a pattern of not being able to answer straight questions?

[RandomGuy]

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"

or

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."

Both can be considered dogma, but the first more so.

Still not quite a straight answer, but close enough.

I would point out that both sliced turkey and dog shit can be considered good sandwich fixin's, but the first, more so.

At least we can agree what is more dogmatic.

Now let's move on to a better question.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"They do not adequately back up their theory."

or

"In my opinion, they do not adequately back up their theory."?

[RandomGuy]

You haven't actually watched the video have you?


I did. I find the theory sound when dealing with possibilities that actually exist.

Let's rearrange this last statement and add in the implication.

What Wild Cobra essentially and fairly said:

"There is no possibility that the theory of man-made global warming is correct."

He didn't say,

"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that the theory of man-made global warming is correct."

Now who exactly is being more dogmatic again?

The guy who can't admit the possibility that he is wrong, or the guy who can?

I fully, positively, acknowledge the possibility that the theory man-made global warming could be wrong.

[101A]

The measurement stations crack me up.

(I've decided to stop being bitter and pissed off at the government, policy makers and every other manipulator or useful idiot out there - can't change anything, after all; however, for entertainment value, their existence is invaluable.)

Now I'm gonna get drunk and read the tax code.

[SAGambler]

RRG, some are saying we will be in a cooling period in
less than a decade. Do we cover that risk factor also. How
bout we let old Mother Nature take it's course and realize
mankind is just that mankind. We can change little and
only on a temporary basis.

See, man thinks that at some point they can "control" ol' Mother Nature. Man is an egotistical beast. But like the dinosaurs that once ruled the earth, mankind will also perish. Some day, Some time. It will be a "planet void of people".

[Wild Cobra]

Now let's move on to a better question.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"They do not adequately back up their theory."

or

"In my opinion, they do not adequately back up their theory."?

RG, I'm getting tired of your waste of cyberspace (in my opinion,) But I'll humor you.

Neither of those is dogmatic. The first can be said by seeing evidence not considered within the theory. Evidence that must be included for valid results.

The second is just that. Opinion.

Dogma comes in play when a result is based upon the faith of someone else's word. Someone's word that cannot be backed up.

Now you'll call my word dogma. Problem is, I can show why the alarmists are wrong, yet I have seen nothing to show many of my points they ignore shown otherwise. Call it dogma if you must. After all, there is a fine line between faith and science.

[starwolf]

yes it is a religion too...even the pope is writing enviromentalism into their wacko theolgy...it is fringe science with absolutely no proof....except some computer graphs

[xrayzebra]

Global warming is a hoax, a rip off. It is just another way for
the busy bodies of the world to run things their way.
Think about those environmentalist the next time you fill up your
gas tank or try watering your lawn or your congressman votes to
protect some species that has existed for eons.
Yeah, we are doomed, but not by global warming. But by idiots
who buy into the wacko world. Or use it to gain power. Hello
AlGore.

[boutons_]

dubya's Repug/anti-science/pro-business/neo-cunt political goons have been censoring NASA climate science:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/nasa-we-marginalized-mischaracterized-climate-change-data-16611.html

[RandomGuy]

RG, I'm getting tired of your waste of cyberspace (in my opinion,) But I'll humor you.

Neither of those is dogmatic. The first can be said by seeing evidence not considered within the theory. Evidence that must be included for valid results.

The second is just that. Opinion.

Dogma comes in play when a result is based upon the faith of someone else's word. Someone's word that cannot be backed up.

Now you'll call my word dogma. Problem is, I can show why the alarmists are wrong, yet I have seen nothing to show many of my points they ignore shown otherwise. Call it dogma if you must. After all, there is a fine line between faith and science.

Your word is not the dogma, retard.

The dogma is in your inability to admit the possibility that you could be wrong about man-made global warming.

That makes your denial of the theory less science and more faith, hence the term "dogmatic belief".

The fact that you aren't intellectually honest or smart enough to recognize that, says volumes about how much stock anybody should put in the bullshit that springs forth from your keyboard.

[Wild Cobra]

The dogma is in your inability to admit the possibility that you could be wrong about man-made global warming.

But I'm not wrong. I acknowledge that anthropogenic warming can be as much as 1/3rd of what is claimed. The rest is Mother Nature.

I don't care that you don't understand the nuances in physics and chemistry on the subject. Enough of the math is simple and clear when applied to the data. Not just cherry picked data.



That makes your denial of the theory less science and more faith, hence the term "dogmatic belief".

That's what I meant by you saying my word would be dogma. So I stated it wrong. Problem is, the math doesn't lie.



The fact that you aren't intellectually honest or smart enough to recognize that, says volumes about how much stock anybody should put in the bullshit that springs forth from your keyboard.

Would you please stop talking to yourself in a mirror...

[boutons_]

WC loves dubya and his politics (dubya doesn't do policies), but not dubya's spending.

Well, dubya's WH has finally come out and said, weaseally, that greenhouse gases (what causes them?) are very likely the cause of global warming and way above levels of past 650K years.


http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/Scientific-AssessmentFINAL.pdf

When the WH quits running with the warming-deniers, what's a wrong-headed conservative to do?

[RandomGuy]

But I'm not wrong. I acknowledge that anthropogenic warming can be as much as 1/3rd of what is claimed. The rest is Mother Nature.

What if you are wrong?

I am sure you don't think you are wrong, but is there a possibility that you ARE wrong about this?

Dogmatic belief systems don't allow for the possibility that the belief system is wrong, and, so far, neither have you. I have fully acknowledged the possibility that anthropogenic warming might not exist or have much affect.

I have yet to see you say anything remotely similar, dogma-boy.

[RandomGuy]

I don't care that you don't understand the nuances in physics and chemistry on the subject. Enough of the math is simple and clear when applied to the data. Not just cherry picked data.

:rolleyes

You have little idea what I do and don't understand when it comes to physical sciences.

[Wild Cobra]

What if you are wrong?

That would be as possible as 2+2=5



I am sure you don't think you are wrong, but is there a possibility that you ARE wrong about this?

If I'm wrong, maybe I should play Power Ball. Those chances are better.



Dogmatic belief systems don't allow for the possibility that the belief system is wrong, and, so far, neither have you. I have fully acknowledged the possibility that anthropogenic warming might not exist or have much affect.

The facts are in favor of most the changes we see being solar intensity driven and that CO2 lags temperature. You say you acknowledge a lessened extent of anthropogenic warming. Fine. You also appear to favor hurting our economy because of the chances you see it to be true. Why don't we also build a super missile defense system also so we can shoot a comet up, so it doesn't strike the earth. The possibilities that the alarmists are right, is so remote, it's a waste of money to impose things like carbon emission limits. I have no problem reducing them as much as reasonably possible. I simple disagree with doing it to a point that is penalizing to the economy.



I have yet to see you say anything remotely similar, dogma-boy.

That's because of the level of certainty I hold on the subject. I say it's more likely the world will end 12/21/12. Yes, I could be wrong. Such a remote possibility however.



You have little idea what I do and don't understand when it comes to physical sciences.

If you understand the sciences then why do you take the positions you do? You have come to the point you seen to always disagree with me, but you show no evidence I'm wrong. Why should I believe you understand the sciences better than I do? I give reasonable explanations. Where are yours? I think it's just become a vendetta to you, but you don't have anything but words.

[PEP]

Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about GW (Global Warming boutons, dont freak out on me), anyways how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?

Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in?

[Wild Cobra]

Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about GW (Global Warming boutons, dont freak out on me), anyways how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?

Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in?

I think most of the greenie weenies are far less earth friendly than they believe. If they have enough money, they become a Prius owner. The carbon footprint and toxic materials used to make the car is far larger than what is saved while they own it. Some buy carbon credits, which become nothing more than a way to feel good about using energy. People then actually use more, feeling like they have the right to because they pay! I heard studies that say carbon credits and trading them has caused more usage of CO2 rather than curtailing it. How true? I don't know, but it makes sense. The companies that do go green make money selling their excess credits to other companies, then the other companies decide not to go green! Then you have the simple removal of any guilt some Hollywood activists have. Rather then reduce their usage, they buy credits. They are so rich, they don't care, then they expect poor people to either go without, or buy the credits... Give me a break.

Myself, I don't get overly concerned. I have bought several reusable bags I take with me when grocery shopping. Last time I moved, I took out all the bark dust, about 1000 square feet, and planted grass, roses, flowers, raspberries, and huckleberries. I also planted a dwarf Gala Apple tree and Dward Necurine tree. I cannot stand seeing properties with rock gardens, bark dust everywhere, etc. If someone wants to own property, then keep it green and growing dammit.

I have replaced all the lighting with fluorescent. I don't like the fact there is mercury and phosphorus in them, but I just take care not to ever break them.

I don't go overboard with conservation, but I don't disregard it either.

[Don Quixote]

I see Wild Python has gone green!

This is the green we believe in ...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3723653/2/istockphoto_3723653_stack_of_100_dollar_bills.jpg

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/image/s_dollar_bills.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/253474a~The-New-One-Hundred-Dollar-Bill-Posters.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I see Wild Python has gone green!

I've always loved nature. I just don't believe I have to buy a Prius or do some other dumb thing to make a false statement about it. I do what I can within the limitations I have. Rather than asking for "other peoples money" (tax dollars,) or unreasonable regulations to make a statement, I do things that count.

Why do you call me a constrictor?

[Don Quixote]

I dunno. I'm still looking for a cheeky corruption of your name. Haven't found one yet.

I love nature too -- and we conservatives can even support reasonable ventures that will protect the environment against real dangers. But this global warming business is hooey.

[RandomGuy]

If you understand the sciences then why do you take the positions you do? You have come to the point you seen to always disagree with me, but you show no evidence I'm wrong. Why should I believe you understand the sciences better than I do? I give reasonable explanations. Where are yours? I think it's just become a vendetta to you, but you don't have anything but words.

I have YOUR words, and that is enough for me to assign your opinion very little weight when it comes to making decisions aobut anything.

This thread is not about whether global warming is true or not, in case you missed the thread title.

It is about risk mitigation, and taking a truly conservative approach to future events.

You place your ideology over that true conservatism, and do it in a consistantly intellectualy dishonest way.

[Wild Cobra]

It is about risk mitigation, and taking a truly conservative approach to future events.

Like any thread here, we go off on tangents rather than make new threads rather often.

I don't recall for certain, but I probably did address the risk management. It goes like this in case I didn't:

You place a portion of risk control costs based on the probability of the risk. Insurance companies do it all the time. Low risk exposure, low cost insurance. High risk means more money. You alarmists believe we must pay out the ass for something that continues to show itself as having little to no risk. Why would any sane person agree with overpaying for insurance in the magnitudes you alarmists wish us too?

[RandomGuy]

Like any thread here, we go off on tangents rather than make new threads rather often.

I don't recall for certain, but I probably did address the risk management. It goes like this in case I didn't:

You place a portion of risk control costs based on the probability of the risk. Insurance companies do it all the time. Low risk exposure, low cost insurance. High risk means more money. You alarmists believe we must pay out the ass for something that continues to show itself as having little to no risk. Why would any sane person agree with overpaying for insurance in the magnitudes you alarmists wish us too?

As always, your bias has ended up making you say/think half-assed things in order for your dogmatic beliefs to be maintained.

Risk of loss has TWO dimensions, not one. The one you dishonestly DON'T talk about here, because it suits your case, is severity of loss.

You are an insurance company. You are asked to insure a loss risk. How do you price it?

If we only priced insurance based on what you talk about here, the only thing you should price it on here is the level of probability. This would lead us to ask the owner of a billion dollar oil platform with a 1 in million chance of loss to pay less than a guy insuring a hundred dollar stereo at a one in a thousand chance of loss.

You blather on about the worst case scenario for doing something about global warming when it doesn't exist, i.e. a massive, unneeded drain on the economy.

BUT

You fail to acknowledge the worst case scenario of what happens if you are wrong.

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

Maybe WC will take the time to give a brief answer.

Maybe he will even give an honest one.

I will not hold by breath waiting for the latter...

[Wild Cobra]

Bump.

Maybe WC will take the time to give a brief answer.

Maybe he will even give an honest one.

I will not hold by breath waiting for the latter...




As always, your bias has ended up making you say/think half-assed things in order for your dogmatic beliefs to be maintained.

That would be you. Remember me saying the data you presented on unwanted births was incorrect? Then I showed a chart that was still incomplete showing it was you who was wrong?

You are the "dogma boy!" You assume things unsaid and data not specified.



Risk of loss has TWO dimensions, not one. The one you dishonestly DON'T talk about here, because it suits your case, is severity of loss.

I wasn't trying to explain the full details of something I know little of.

See... Off tanget! Changing the subject to find something I am weak on so you can ind a win.

OK, You win on that point, but I never tried to argue it! From the start, my arguement, and all along, was a simple one you went off on tangents. Never acknowledging my points... Simple points:

THE ARTICLE WAS NOT ACCURATE!
IT HAD FACTUAL ERRORS!

Then you go on, wanting me to say the report was innacurate? That was never my point, but you tried and tried to get me to say the report was wrong, but it was you who was reading into it wrong. Specifically the same way you let you lemming mind believe the lies in the article. Specifically between NO and NO2, and oxone and smog. You treated them the same like the article did. I tried over and over to get you to distinguish between them, because that was my point.

The article was innacurate!



---snip---

BUT

You fail to acknowledge the worst case scenario of what happens if you are wrong.

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.

But it is too remote, and because of the low risk, the insurance premium would be low. Far lower than hurting our economy over. The risk does not justify over insuring.

I don't want an answer to this question, I probably wont respond. It is just something I ask you to ponder:

Why has the data for warming pretty much stopped at 2004? Could it be current data suggests warming isn't real, but a natural cycle?

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

BUT

You fail to acknowledge the worst case scenario of what happens if you are wrong.

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.





But it is too remote, and because of the low risk, the insurance premium would be low. Far lower than hurting our economy over. The risk does not justify over insuring.


In the worst case scenarios, hurting the economy a bit in the short run is less bad, than the environomental, political, and economic meltdown if you are wrong.

While you might be that confident in your half-assed analysis of the problem, I am not willing to accept such a liberal amount of risk, based on the opinion of someone who obviously isn't honest enough to answer straight questions.

I would prefer the more conservative approach of actually doing something about the worst case scenario of global warming.

[RandomGuy]

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.




But it is too remote...

:rolleyes

I rest my case.

[RandomGuy]

Here's another oldy but goody.

[Wild Cobra]

Another thread bumped by Random Propaganda proving he is a small minded vindictive troll.

[RandomGuy]

Another thread bumped by Random Propaganda proving he is a small minded vindictive troll.

Actually I haven't seen you in a while. You were remodeling your house or something.

[RandomGuy]

bumporoni and cheese.

[RandomGuy]

mF_anaVcCXg10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.[/URL]

I normally detest cheap youtube videos. But I may transcribe this at some point, because it makes the best arguments about the whole debate itself.

Whether or not you believe global warming is real, you should still watch this, because this guy has it nailed.

I am all about risk management.

[RandomGuy]

If you're interested in understanding some of the basic principles underlying warming driven by CO2 and other anthropogenic carbon emissions, references provided earlier in this thread will help you get started. At this point, you appear to be a victim of Internet mythology, listing articles you haven't read or don't understand as implying the existence of controversy surrounding the warming and its significance. In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.

It's for this reason that the science literature currently addresses global climate change on two fronts, neither of which poses a challenge to the existence of significant anthropogenic warming. The first involves specific details that remain unsettled - a prime example is the effect of continued CO2-driven warming on hurricane intensity. The second involves the optimal means of reducing CO2 emissions in time to avert the most catastrophic warming effects. If you begin to acquire a science background to the point where you can read the journals yourself rather than relying on descriptions provided by others, you'll get a sense of why science now sees some urgency in the need for CO2 mitigation.

Although you've made a number of misstatements, let me just mention two areas where a better grasp of underlying principles would help. Tropospheric warming is one, and part of the Internet mythology consists of the claim that there is an "anthropogenic signal" in the troposphere that is missing. Multiple sources, including TAR, AR4, and also basic geophysics make clear that such an anthropogenic-specific signal makes no sense, because tropospheric warming is mediated by any climate influence that warms the surface, whether solar or anthropogenic, simply as a result of convection, based primarily on latent heat transport. In essence, controversies regarding the putative signal are irrelevant to the existence of anthropogenic warming. Nevertheless, the signal, although not anthropogenic-specific, is in fact present, and if you read the recent literature - papers not only by Douglass and his UAH colleagues, but also Allen and Sherwood, Haimberger, Santer, etc., you'll understand that uncertainties regarding troposphere temperatures are those of methodology and not basic principles. The most recent data demonstrate that theory and observations coincide reasonably well after all, and it remains for further work on the methodology of troposphere temperature measurements to refine the details.

A second area you will need to learn more about relates to what you call "extinction"". The term itself is nonsensical, but it has been known for decades (and theorized since 1896 by Arrhenius) that the temperature response to CO2 increases is logarithmic. That is not an "extinction" in any meaningful sense of the word, but it does allow us to predict future temperature rises if CO2 emissions are not curtailed, and is one of the variables underlying the sense of scientific urgency in reducing those emissions sooner rather than later.

--Fred Wooten and Friends

[RandomGuy]

First, it's worth pointing out that all the authors cited by Matthew in his comments above acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and so I wonder whether he has actually read the papers in full that he cites, and if so, whether his scientific background was adequate for him to understand them.

Among points made in some of those papers are that natural climate variations affect temperature. This has never been in dispute, but the critical question for the warming of the past 100 years is quantitative - how much is natural and how much anthropogenic? The predominance of anthropogenic carbon emissions, mainly CO2, has been documented by hundreds of studies over the past several years, but one criticism is the extent to which that conclusion depends on specific climate models. It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions - Natural and Anthropogenic Influences.

Although the scientific "debate" may be over - the science literature universally recognizes the reality of anthropogenic warming - debate on how to reduce CO2 emissions to avert the worst consequences is only beginning. All nations endorse this goal, but specifics are vague. Both the UK Climate Bill and U.S elections are steps forward. Here, it would make sense for President Obama to involve Al Gore, not for science per se, but for his skill in conveying the scientific perspective to the public. Critics argue that his Inconvenient Truth movie contained inaccuracies, and while that is true, its main points are now established within science as accurate - a reality recognized by the Nobel Committee in 2007 in dividing the Peace Prize between him and the IPCC. (Anyone wondering why the Peace Prize was relevant is advised to read the statement of the Nobel Committee regarding "climate wars".)

--Fred Wooten and Friends.

[This guy is on myspace, and is one of the smartest guys I have ever seen on the internets. I feel sorry for the people he gets into arguments with.-RG]

[spurster]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Nathan P. Gillett, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.

[DarrinS]

Science based on computer models that are already wrong.


Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Well RG, I watched up to the point of the "action" "inaction"
on the white board.

I want to know where all the cat five hurricanes are that they
predicted? (1)

I also want to know, how come the sun cant cause things to
heat up here on Earth?

I also want to know how come it takes three or four or five
computers to track the weather daily, but the doomsayers
can use one computer program to tell us that people are
causing the earth to heat up. How come?

1) evidence shows that the intensity of hurricanes across the globe is increasing;

2) solar cycles do affect the earth's climate, no-one says they don't, but that doesn't change the fact that altering the atmosphere is also changing the earth's climate... you are probably referring to sunspot activity, which, while correlated with climate from the 50s-70s, hasn't correlated since;

3) I don't rely on computer modeling - I am an ecologist so I rely on empirical observations from across the globe re record ice and glacial melts, plant flowering patterns, species migrations, inundation of low-lying Pacific islands, changes to high-altitude ecosystems, changes to rainfall and temperature patterns occurring 10-100x faster than recorded anywhere in the temperature record, etc. The fact that modeling accords with these observations is further evidence.

Why don't you explain to me how you change the concentration of a gas in a closed system and don't change the equilibrium state of the system? Or how 7 billion people can have no affect on the planet's systems when the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is 2-5 billion (depending on lifestyle)?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about GW (Global Warming boutons, dont freak out on me), anyways how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?

Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in?

Actually, I have changed the way I live, and cut my ecological footprint by about 50% without much effort. I use 60% less electricity than two years ago (1/4 of Austn average), and 75% less petrol. Interestingly, none of the behaviour changes I've made has detrimentally affected my lifestyle - so much of what we consume every day is WASTED.

If everyone changed their behaviour to eliminate waste we'd have a great start on the changes needed to make our societies sustainable.

Note that EGW is not the only environmental crisis we face - don't forget non-renewable resource depletion (esp. oil), destruction of renewable resources (esp. fisheries, groundwater, soil, forests), toxic pollution, overpopulation, etc.

Focusing on EGW alone is foolish - it is the scale of harmful global change at all levels that we must address.

[Tully365]

Actually, I have changed the way I live, and cut my ecological footprint by about 50% without much effort. I use 60% less electricity than two years ago (1/4 of Austn average), and 75% less petrol. Interestingly, none of the behaviour changes I've made has detrimentally affected my lifestyle - so much of what we consume every day is WASTED.

If everyone changed their behaviour to eliminate waste we'd have a great start on the changes needed to make our societies sustainable.


This is very true. One of the interesting things is that many changes would actually be beneficial to almost all people, so there isn't even a "sacrifice" to make in many instances. Riding a bike is healthier than driving a car, living closer to work saves you money and gives you more leisure time to spend that money. The body, when faced with the task of keeping itself warmer or cooler, burns more calories and generally does more work and stays in better condition. It is far healthier to occasionally shiver from cold or sweat from heat than it is to constantly exist in a 72 degree environment that is constantly pumped with unnatural heating or cooling. If nothing else, I'd hope that people would want to avoid the drudgery of turning into some character from a stand up comic's routine about elderly mother-in-laws whose waking hours are spent absorbed in conversations about chills, drafts, and hot flashes... Life is short! We should mourn the deaths of friends and loved ones, we should fight injustices, we should strive for freedom, but geez, when it comes to the small stuff, I think people should take more things in stride and be more celebratory about everyday existence. The last thing any country needs is to turn into a nation of whiney wimps whose days and moods are ruined by Earl Grey tea that isn't quite hot enough, or a breeze that is just ever-so-slightly too robust.

[SnakeBoy]

Global Warming theory ( manmade CO2 increases temp) is just that...a theory. It is not proven beyond question and in fact the models used fail to predict recent temps when known historical data is plugged in. So the future predictions are unreliable. The models just aren't good enough yet.

Some things that aren't theories but facts...
- CO2 levels are rising due to mans activity.
- Elevated CO2 decreases the pH of seawater
- coral reefs are extremely sensitive to low ph. Low ph leads to decrease in spawning events, decreased larval survival, increased bleaching events, and ultimately death for corals in general.
- without healthy coral reefs much of the life in the ocean will cease to exist
- without the resources the oceans provide we are fucked

Long story short, we HAVE to decrease the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. No need to argue about temperature.

[Tully365]

The people who want "proof" on this debate will never be satisfied, especially when it comes to political opposition. The argument can always be raised about century-long weather cycles, sunspots, etc... It reminds me of the smoking debate that raged for many years, with one side claiming that the constant inhalation of the smoke of a cigarette-- a thing that is literally on fire-- is bad for you, while the other side argued that those claims were as yet scientifically unfounded. There is a reason why some people commit suicide by closing up their garage and leaving the car running... it's because breathing in automotive exhaust fumes is fundamentally not healthy. People die of smoke inhalation, but a fireman who visits the countryside on the weekend will never die of excess clean air. Of course, the degree to which humans can withstand pollution and still live a quality life is hugely debatable-- I myself prefer cities to rural areas-- but I don't think that there are too many people out there who would really say that the pollutants put into the air by millions of cars, buses, trains, furnaces, motorcycles, factories, etc., are good rather than bad. So I think the argument boils down to the claim that a future planet earth with less pollution is preferable to a future earth with more pollution. Even if it could be proven that there is no human-influenced climate change whatsoever-- which would be as impossible to "prove" for the same reasons-- it would still make sense to try to limit pollution as much as humanly possible.

[RandomGuy]

Science based on computer models that are already wrong.


Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.

That is a simplification.

It is based on simple correlation of a lot of data.

The balance of scientific evidence and the balance of opinion of people who study this is strongly in favor of the theory that we are causing an increase in global temperatures.

To think that releasing MILLIONS OF TONS of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year without any effect seems to be a very unreasonable position to me.

We have more than enough reason to consider this a very real possibility, and the potential consequences are extremely dire.

Have you actually watched the whole video from the OP? (probaby asked this already)

[RandomGuy]

Science based on computer models that are already wrong.


Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.

In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.

It's for this reason that the science literature currently addresses global climate change on two fronts, neither of which poses a challenge to the existence of significant anthropogenic warming. The first involves specific details that remain unsettled - a prime example is the effect of continued CO2-driven warming on hurricane intensity. The second involves the optimal means of reducing CO2 emissions in time to avert the most catastrophic warming effects. If you begin to acquire a science background to the point where you can read the journals yourself rather than relying on descriptions provided by others, you'll get a sense of why science now sees some urgency in the need for CO2 mitigation.

--Fred Wooten and friends.

[TheMadHatter]

Thank God idiot conservatives are no longer running this country.

Obama gets global warming and he's going to do something about it.

[RandomGuy]

Thank God idiot conservatives are no longer running this country.

Obama gets global warming and he's going to do something about it.

That is one of the other things about the Obama presidency:

The war on science will stop.

Thank God. ;)

[Wild Cobra]

Science based on computer models that are already wrong.


Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.

What is ironic is that the computer models were made by mans assumption of cause and event, and leaving out the changing influence of Sol.

[Wild Cobra]

Some things that aren't theories but facts...
- CO2 levels are rising due to mans activity.

Yes, but how much would they rise without us?



- Elevated CO2 decreases the pH of seawater

True, but if you do the math, you find it is so small, it makes no difference.



- coral reefs are extremely sensitive to low ph. Low ph leads to decrease in spawning events, decreased larval survival, increased bleaching events, and ultimately death for corals in general.

If we could change the CO2 content enough, I would agree. Like I said. Do the math.



- without healthy coral reefs much of the life in the ocean will cease to exist

Maybe. Are they in that much danger? Could the damage as easily be the changing intensity and spectr of the sun?



- without the resources the oceans provide we are fucked

Absolutely, but we really don't know the cause, and it's not CO2.



Long story short, we HAVE to decrease the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. No need to argue about temperature.

Again, show me the math. I have dabbled with the math. It takes a factor of ten change to change the PH by 1 for the H to OH balance. Because of the way the carbon cycle works, it takes even more to change the acidity because the carbonic acid changes to other forms in the cycle. A doubling of CO2 can change the PH of the ocean by 0.3 PH if you are able to ignore the other factors. We have changed the atmosphere from a natural 280 ppm to about 380 ppm. Only a 0.13 PH change at best. Reports have the change at the caral reefs causing damage at a 0.6 PH change if I recall correctly. To increase the PH by that degree, we would have to exceed 1100 ppm.

Please stop listening to the bullshit about global warming/climate change until you fact check.

[LnGrrrR]

Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about GW (Global Warming boutons, dont freak out on me), anyways how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?

Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in?

My wife and I have only one car, because she can walk to work. Although part of that is the economy too. Also, we downgraded from my Charger R/T to a Pontiac G6 (which sucks slightly less). I would've preferred a Toyota Camry, but it was the wife's decision. :)

Of course, those were also economic reasons. Extra energy = more money spent.

[DarrinS]

In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.



What would you say to scientists who co-authored IPCC reports that disagree with this assertion?

Following is from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.


The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.

While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead
The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.

Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.

But, it may go further.

Unsound bites

At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.
Follow the herd

As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals.

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).


You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."
Slim models

To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

Here is how this can work.

Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.


The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.

Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.

You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).

In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.
The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.

Complex world

Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this.

Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations.

In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.

Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).

Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

Explosive view

How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.

Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.

I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.


These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.

At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear.

I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.

I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway.

Wise teachings

Don't misunderstand me.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.

However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.


John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007

[SnakeBoy]

Reports have the change at the caral reefs causing damage at a 0.6 PH change if I recall correctly. To increase the PH by that degree, we would have to exceed 1100 ppm.


Let's pretend for a moment that you're right that it takes a .6 change to have a negative affect on stony corals. (as someone who propagates stony corals I can tell you that's not true). And let's pretend that 1100 ppm is the magic number as you say.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png/280px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Do you notice any trend going on in that graph? How total deniers like you can supposedly look at all the data and come to the conclusion that there is no need to change the way we do things is beyond me.


Again, show me the math.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/3019415947_e00d393865_o.gif

pH = -log [H+]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3020265126_8640f96f63_o.gif
The theoretical relationship between carbonate alkalinity and pH for seawater in equilibrium for preindustrial air (green; 278 ppm carbon dioxide), current air (blue; 350 ppm carbon dioxide) and possible future air (red; 700 ppm carbon dioxide) using the equations.

[RandomGuy]

[the possibility of any warming being attributed to man-made causes is so remote as to not warrant consideration. it's on par with that of Leprachaun's causing global warming]



Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

--John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007


Seems like WC is more certain than any of the experts, even the ones held up as doubters.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's pretend for a moment that you're right that it takes a .6 change to have a negative affect on stony corals. (as someone who propagates stony corals I can tell you that's not true). And let's pretend that 1100 ppm is the magic number as you say.

I'm only recounting a number that was listed in an article some time back.. The number may be in error, but I remember noted then, that CO2 could not cause what they said the change in PH was. I'm pretty certain they said 0.6 PH and that it was starting to cause problems. My claim is that it would take 1100 PPM to make that 0.6 PH change, and that would also assume the ocean could absorb that much more CO2 in those areas. Warmer water expels CO2 and the cooler water absorbs it. Now maybe there was a 0.6 PH change in that part of the ocean and the starting PH was high enough that it took that much of a drop to cause problems. My point is that that much change was not from CO2. Like your formula below shows, there are other factors. Those constant factors may not be so constant. Is it safe for me to assume they are nominal regional value? Is it possible the slow moving thermohaline circulation is changing other values? If the small amount of change we have caused is causing problems anywhere, then they were already endangered. Some nautural change would cause them problems, and maybe actually have.

Something I explain in my past posts on CO2 and temperature. Few people acknowledge sciences behind it. It is another thing the alarmists will not acknowledge. You will find that CO2 lags temperature. Before we started burning fossil fuels, the paleoclimatology records clearly show that temperature changes cause the CO2 level changes in the atmosphere. It is in the hundreds of years. As the average sea temperature changes, the CO2 levels changes by about 28 ppm per C, but it is not a linear formula. Modern increases of CO2 do not increase the temperature by any notable levels. The extra levels expelled by man do not follow what the plotted temperatures trend should be if CO2 was the reason for warming and cooling.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png/280px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Do you notice any trend going on in that graph? How total deniers like you can supposedly look at all the data and come to the conclusion that there is no need to change the way we do things is beyond me.

Please do note that it supports the temperature theory for CO2 levels as there is a clear annual change associated with temperature. Also note that levels at a Hawaii station are not indicative of a global view. Alarmists like to use the data there because CO2 levels are higher from the ocean expelling CO2.
I never said we don’t need to change things. I simply do not see problems with CO2 the way the alarmists claim. I will agree that the oceans are what is most likely to be affected, but I dispute that we are close at all for that to happen yet.

I have seen the above graph on several occasions. Please note that the annual insert clearly shows CO2 level changes up and down, with the season, as ocean temperatures change.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/3019415947_e00d393865_o.gif

pH = -log [H+]

How does that math dispute what I said? I have seen arguments before. Maybe I’m wrong at assuming you were going after the 0.6 PH change. I guess the question becomes, at what PH change does the coral population start being in distress.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3020265126_8640f96f63_o.gif
The theoretical relationship between carbonate alkalinity and pH for seawater in equilibrium for preindustrial air (green; 278 ppm carbon dioxide), current air (blue; 350 ppm carbon dioxide) and possible future air (red; 700 ppm carbon dioxide) using the equations.

The PH changes by the graph show a 0.09 PH change with a change from 278 ppm to 350 ppm. That is in line with my claim of no more than 0.13 PH for 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Please also note that the doubling of CO2 only shows a 0.25 PH to 0.29 PH change dependant upon AT. So according to the graph, if another doubling works the same, it would increase by 0.5 PH to 0.58 PH with my starting claim of 280 ppm to 1120 ppm. Still within what I claimed. I said it would take more than 1100 ppm to make a 0.6 PH change referenced from 280 ppm.

Something that must be noted. I used a phrase ”if you are able to ignore the other factors.” That is because the ocean equilibrium of CO2 is dependant on so many factors. You cannot simply use the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now something else. I haven’t a clue what the different constants are in your math. Also, is there a reason to use AC rather than AT? Are the carbonate and bicarbonate anions somehow the only alkalinity to be figured for alkalinity?

Since you say you “propagates stony corals,” can you tell us what PH changes do put them in distress?

[Wild Cobra]

I looked around the web a bit and searched prior threads. Rather than 0.6 PH, the claim was 1/3rd of a PH unit (1/3 = 0.33 PH.) Here is that link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm). We discussed this in a prior thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96974). I found where the 0.6 PH is from. That is the normal delta PH of the ocean. All natural!

[RandomGuy]

I looked around the web a bit and searched prior threads. Rather than 0.6 PH, the claim was 1/3rd of a PH unit (1/3 = 0.33 PH.) Here is that link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm). We discussed this in a prior thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96974). I found where the 0.6 PH is from. That is the normal delta PH of the ocean. All natural!

Of course, coral is simply part of the ocean food chain. The other part is the plankton that make up the base of that food chain, and that is definitely addressed in this thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38237).


Researchers from California State University-San Marcos and the University of South Florida towed nets behind the vessel to catch plankton, which they then subjected to acidic conditions on par with what might be experienced in the future.

"They're seeing that the shells of these organisms start to dissolve even while the organism is still living," said Sabine, an oceanographer with NOAA's Seattle lab.

Some of the creatures tested are little snails that are "a major food source for salmon and whales and these larger things and they make a shell that is very susceptible to a decrease in pH," he said.

Other experiments show that microscopic plants at the base of the food chain that build protective plates out of calcium carbonate don't grow properly in the acidic water.

"We don't expect to go out and find living organisms with dissolving shells," Sabine said. "We expect to find perhaps a change in where these organisms are thriving or perhaps fewer of them over time."

The ocean scientists expressed an urgency over reducing carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible.

"Anything we can do to slow that rate of change will slow the rate of response in the oceans as well," said Kleypas. "It buys us some time."

Original source article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Of course, coral is simply part of the ocean food chain. The other part is the plankton that make up the base of that food chain, and that is definitely addressed in this thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38237).



Original source article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html)

You know, I might consider such articles if it addressed all the other possible causes for the acification. It is pure propaganda, because:

CO2 is increasing.

Acification is increasing.

Cause and effect, with no scrutiuny!

Fuck that. Especially since the same article soes say the ocean is warming! Warmer water reduced the balance of CO2 in the water. How does the warmth affect the acification? So many other factor. What about the ocean currents, changing the conditions? What about the stronger sunlight during the peried a few years earlier? So many other factors that are simply ignored.

For CO2 to increase the acification, give me all ofther identical factors. Especially when tht article crys about a 0.25 PH change when the natural range is 0.6 PH!

Fucking alarmist journalists.

[RandomGuy]

You know, I might consider such articles if it addressed all the other possible causes for the acification. It is pure propaganda, because:

CO2 is increasing.

Acification is increasing.

Cause and effect, with no scrutiuny!

Fuck that. Especially since the same article soes say the ocean is warming! Warmer water reduced the balance of CO2 in the water. How does the warmth affect the acification? So many other factor. What about the ocean currents, changing the conditions? What about the stronger sunlight during the peried a few years earlier? So many other factors that are simply ignored.

For CO2 to increase the acification, give me all ofther identical factors. Especially when tht article crys about a 0.25 PH change when the natural range is 0.6 PH!

Fucking alarmist journalists.

Because it is so implausible that if you massively increase CO2 in the atmosphere, none of that will be absorbed by the oceans. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Because it is so implausible that if you massively increase CO2 in the atmosphere, none of that will be absorbed by the oceans. :rolleyes

Why do you ignore relevant facts that you don't like?

The article said the oceans were warming, right?

The CO2 was measured at a -0.25 delta PH.

Fact is, warmer water absorbs less CO2, the balance change likely has less CO2 in the water than more, even with higher CO2 in the air!

Direct factors are also atmospheric pollutions like sulfur, mercury, soot, etc. from factories that are 'rained out' to the oceans. Add these to the ones I mentioned before.

Tell me that the sulfur, soot and trace mercury doesn't not have an effect. These are pollutants that run rampant because Asia is not using clean burning technologies.

Again, there are so many possible causes. When anyone tells me "It's the CO2." "It cannot be something else." I'm sorry; I shake my head at how much a fool that person is.

Give me real evidence. Not assumed cause and effect without eliminating other things. Don't tell me it's the CO2 when the math just doesn't pan out for it.

If you want to be a champion of the environment, take a stand at the real problems. Things like coal powered electric generation plants with little or no pollution controls. Something you learn as a technician, is you tackle either the easy or the biggest problems first. You prioritize your problems and resources. Since they tend to mask the smaller problems, or assumed problems that are hard to fix, you do the simple and blatant problems first, then see if more work is required. All that reducing CO2 generation in the USA is going to do is cost us big bucks, and yield almost nothing in return as long as the rest of the world doesn't take action too.

[RandomGuy]

What is ironic is that the computer models were made by mans assumption of cause and event, and leaving out the changing influence of Sol.

You say that as if you were there helping them write the models.

Source of this statement?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you ignore relevant facts that you don't like?

Me? You have no room to point fingers in that regard.

I am fully 100% open to the possibility that there is no such thing as man-made climate change, as does this guy:

mF_anaVcCXg

Whereas you have flat out stated that there is virtually no possibility that you are wrong about your assertion that we have contributed virtually nothing to the warming, if the warming even really exists.

You constantly post all sorts of threads, along with the rest of the Ostrich Brigade when new bits that seem to disprove the AGM theory. Great for you.

Quite frankly I have grown to assign your "evidence" little weight, simply because you are all far too eager to drink your own cool-aid. You claim *I* ignore data, yet none of you ever have the intellectual honesty to admit or present honest evidence that contradicts your precious theory.

As I have said before, the particulars are beyond my expertise to truly evaluate, and I really don't want to spend my limited time to acquire that familiarity, because ultimately, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

[xrayzebra]

Run across this article this morning on Fox News.

FOXNews.com
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'

Tuesday , December 16, 2008

FC1
ADVERTISEMENT

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.

"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.

In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating."

Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist.

"He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," Deming told FOXNews.com.

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.

"Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,"Deming said. "What he's doing here is he's writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that's not right. It's not reporting. It's propaganda.

"This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It's not fair and balanced."

A spokesman for the Associated Press said that the news agency stands by its story. "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others," spokesman Paul Colford told FOXNews.com in an e-mail.

Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story's approach to the issue.

"There's very little that's right about it," Fox said. "And it's really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.

"One guy like him can be very destructive and alarming. Yeah it's freedom of speech, but its dishonest."

Like Deming, Fox said global warming is not accelerating. "These kinds of temperatures cycle up and down and have been doing so for millions of years," he said.

He said there is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. "It's silly to lay it all on man-made carbon dioxide," Fox said. "It was El Nino in 1998 that caused the big spike in global warming and little to do with carbon dioxide."

Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes, he said.

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.

"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming."

He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.

"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.

"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."

He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."

O'Brien said he doesn't discount the potential effects man is having on the environment, but he cautioned that government should not make hasty decisions.

"There is no question that the Obama administration is green and I'm green, and there's no question that they're going to really take a careful look at what we need to do and attack problems, and I applaud that," O'Brien said.

"But I'm really concerned that they're going to spend all the money on implementation of mitigation, rather than supporting the science."


Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships At Fox News (Summer Application Deadline is March 15, 2007)
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

[RandomGuy]

Run across this article this morning on Fox News.

FOXNews.com
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'

Tuesday , December 16, 2008

FC1
ADVERTISEMENT

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

That is what those critical scientists have to say about anything they don't agree with, and that makes them a lot like WC.

Should it surprise anybody that someone might read an article that they disagree with and find it to be "horrifically bad"?

Again, "Global Warming" or not doesn't really matter. What matters is what we do in response to the potential threat it poses.

If AGW is real, as there is a good chunk of evidence to suggest, the costs of doing nothing go up.

We have credible evidence on both sides and have to make a call, sooner rather than later.

The conservative, less risky option, is to do something, because slightly limiting economic growth is a less bad outcome than global upheavals.

If one wants to truly accept a liberal amount of risk, then by all means, do nothing.

[DarrinS]

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."



Holy crap, GW is a ticking time bomb. :rolleyes

[DarrinS]

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."



John Stossel speaks to scientists on the MSM's treatment of GW and other "hysterics"


W9XyEjV-1cQ

[RandomGuy]

Holy crap, GW is a ticking time bomb. :rolleyes

What are the two dimensions of risk?

[Rohirrim]

John Stossel speaks to scientists on the MSM's treatment of GW and other "hysterics"


W9XyEjV-1cQ

I enjoyed that video, thanks for posting.

[doobs]

I heard aliens probably exist, and if so, they may try to invade us sometime in the next century. We should blow up the moon and replace it with a Death Star.

[RandomGuy]

I heard aliens probably exist, and if so, they may try to invade us sometime in the next century. We should blow up the moon and replace it with a Death Star.

That would be very silly.

[Wild Cobra]

That would be very silly.

So is your notion of spending trillions to combat global warming when we have no control over nature. I would guess that the threat of being harmed by an alien attack is greater than global warming causijng us harm.

I'm all for the Stratigic Defence Initiative. At least it can be modified to fight alien vessels!

[Yonivore]

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Be sure and watch the video at that link. One of the men on the video claims we were 7 degrees warmer, than we are right now, during the 13th century...a time when the world was prosperous. If true, doesn't that give all you alarmists pause?

At all?

[RandomGuy]

So is your notion of spending trillions to combat global warming when we have no control over nature. I would guess that the threat of being harmed by an alien attack is greater than global warming causijng us harm.

I'm all for the Stratigic Defence Initiative. At least it can be modified to fight alien vessels!

1) "my notion" of doing things to combat global warming won't quite cost trillions.

2) For someone who accuses the scientists advocating the AGW theory of starting a religion, that was an awfully dogmatic statement.

3) If you turn out to be wrong (yet again), spending trillions now to avoid a series of civilization threatening catastrophes would seem like a bargain.

There are two dimensions of risk, and you always seem to ignore that fact.

As a civilization we literally can't afford your confirmation bias.

[Wild Cobra]

There are two dimensions of risk, and you always seem to ignore that fact.

I understand that. What you don't understand is that I see the element of risk associated with Anthropogenic Global Warming to be at such a low percentage, that it does not merit targeting funds towards it.

You play that with my as if it's your ace in the hole, and that's so idiotic.

Like Yoni has pointed out, we have been warmer in the past. Paleoclimotology records show we have been warmer several times in the last 10,000 or so years. This is just a natural cycle. I see throwing any money at Global Warming as asinine as trying to run a fire hose to the sun!

Please stop trying to prove to us that the world is flat.

[The Reckoning]

meh. as long as american ingenuity is increased, i'm for it.

[RandomGuy]

You play that with my as if it's your ace in the hole, and that's so idiotic.

You just don't like it because it shows how unreasonable and biased you really are about this topic.

You have a very distinct bias, and that prevents you from logically and reasonably analyzing the data and evidence that exists, despite having some expertise in that regard.

You aren't as bad about this as say, Galileo is about 9-11, but whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, it is obvious to the rest of us.

[RandomGuy]

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

This quote from earlier in the thread is from one of the IPCC's skeptics, and from a guy whose job it is to study the data.

Darrin used several of his quotes to imply that the AGW theory is indeed flawed.

My problem with your certainty, WC, is that actual scientists, internet denier mythology aside, are generally fairly certain that our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures markedly.

Even the ones who are righfully and scientifically skeptical, such as the one that Darrin quoted, aren't certain to the degree.

Your certainty here does not strike me as the hallmark of reasoned, scientific thinking. I have NEVER seen you demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to instill confidence in me that your opinion is based on logic and reasonable assumptions over your own bias.

[RandomGuy]

In 2001, the United States National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Bush administration to assess the current understanding of global climate change. Its report, published in June 2001, stated:
“The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.”


In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC.

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

The denier websites and adherents sound to me just like the asshats who back the controlled demolition theory.

They too have their sciency-sounding proponents who can spout off reasonable sounding loaded "questions", but in the end, the real work on the subject by objective and logical scientists points to another conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

The political motives of those who advocate AGM theory is pretty much ascribed by the deniers as one of "they are just saying it to get more funding", but the same scrutiny or motives are entirely absent from the scientists whose studies are funded by the very industries that have the most to lose in a "low carbon" world, i.e. oil and coal.

That has the ring to me of the scientific studies done on the health effects of smoking funded by the tobacco companies of the 50's and 60's.

[Wild Cobra]

You just don't like it because it shows how unreasonable and biased you really are about this topic.

No, it just shows me how foolish it can be to bring sense into the debate. It is you that’s locked onto a mindset that we have to do something about CO2.



You have a very distinct bias, and that prevents you from logically and reasonably analyzing the data and evidence that exists, despite having some expertise in that regard.

I have done just that. Looked at the data and applied it to known sciences. I am versed in the sciences far more than most people. I see the scare as an utter joke.



You aren't as bad about this as say, Galileo is about 9-11, but whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, it is obvious to the rest of us.

Yep, I’m a fool to the old world by claiming the world is round when you all believe it’s flat.

OK. I can live with that.



Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.
This quote from earlier in the thread is from one of the IPCC's skeptics, and from a guy whose job it is to study the data.

So? I agree when I apply it to my interpretations. You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming. CO2 is only about 4% of the greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas at about 95%. No matter what we do about CO2, water vapor will fluctuate and still be the primary greenhouse gas with all it’s positive and negative feedbacks, keeping the earth within certain norms based on the solar radiation that changes primarily with the Milankovitch cycles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png

Water tends to regulate the temperature. As the oceans warm, we see more vapor in the air, which only slightly increases the greenhouse effect. Only slightly because it is already saturated except at the ends of it’s influence. Negative feedback however is far greater. As clouds form from the vapor, it reflects sunlight, cooling the earth.

For more than 10,000 years, the earth has stayed within a 4 C range. With all this so called CO2 warming, we are only slightly higher than the middle of this range.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/BondEvents.jpg



Darrin used several of his quotes to imply that the AGW theory is indeed flawed.

If you follow news reports of the real sciences, not from pundits, you will find increasing evidence the IPCC if extremely wrong in their assessments.



My problem with your certainty, WC, is that actual scientists, internet denier mythology aside, are generally fairly certain that our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures markedly.

They are simply wrong.

Be careful what you read. I noticed you did this allow with the ozone/smog issue, confusing the two. Are they often interchanging CO2 and carbon, or carbon footprint? They are not the same! Like a square and a rectangle, CO2 is part of the carbon footprint, but carbon footprint is not CO2!



Even the ones who are righfully and scientifically skeptical, such as the one that Darrin quoted, aren't certain to the degree.

To what certainty do you want? Absolute? Within 10%? Within 200%?

Certainty is a relative term. What absolute range do you want?



Your certainty here does not strike me as the hallmark of reasoned, scientific thinking. I have NEVER seen you demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to instill confidence in me that your opinion is based on logic and reasonable assumptions over your own bias.

Your loss.



http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

The denier websites and adherents sound to me just like the asshats who back the controlled demolition theory.

They too have their sciency-sounding proponents who can spout off reasonable sounding loaded "questions", but in the end, the real work on the subject by objective and logical scientists points to another conclusion.

The real work by objective and logical scientists shows the alarmists to be wrong. Period.

The IPCC takes models that relied on assumptions. The assumptions were simply wrong. They admit that soot is something like three times more a warming factor than previously thought. I don’t remember reading anywhere the known 0.1% to 0.2% or more known solar radiation increase. I don’t remember reading them acknowledge this lag, where long term solar warming ended about 1950. This 50 year increase has decades of lag, but it was masked by the smog we created reflecting sunlight, actually inducing some cooling. After the EPA was formed, and we started cleaning up our act, we started warming to now what those not taking in such factors blame on increased CO2.



The political motives of those who advocate AGM theory is pretty much ascribed by the deniers as one of "they are just saying it to get more funding", but the same scrutiny or motives are entirely absent from the scientists whose studies are funded by the very industries that have the most to lose in a "low carbon" world, i.e. oil and coal.

This is an ambiguous argument to me. Who funds who and why. Does it matter? It generates competing ideas, and at some point, the true arguments will win out. The deniers have been winning these last couple years. Can you deny that?



That has the ring to me of the scientific studies done on the health effects of smoking funded by the tobacco companies of the 50's and 60's.

That better applies to the IPCC than the truth of warming.

[Wild Cobra]

Consider the following Excel graph:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarradiation1600to2100.jpg

It is data from NOAA (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt) from 1610 to 2000. I placed two rolling averages on the data. An eight year average, and a seventy-five year average. I also took the 1990 to 2000 data (eleven years) and repeated it until the year 2100, which would incorrectly assume the sun would remain steady until then. We already know solar radiation is likely to decrease as the sun has still been calm when it past schedule on sunspot activity.

Please notice there is a clear 0.18% increase on the 75 year average. I extended it to show the warming from the sun isn't over. I have no clear data to suggest that 75 years is the right number, but there is a long term lag. You can recalculate the data if you like, but keep in mind, lag is real.

That 0.18% paleoclimotology data increase on an assumed 220 K of solar heat effect means an increase of .4 C from preindustrialization, until today. Simply by the solar effect.

[RandomGuy]

You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming.

Yet you go out and do that in every post on the subject.

Hypocritical much?

[RandomGuy]

The real work by objective and logical scientists shows the alarmists to be wrong. Period.

Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.

[RandomGuy]

Be careful what you read. I noticed you did this allow with the ozone/smog issue, confusing the two.

The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.

Again, you completely missed the point of the article and jumped up and down saying "oh lookee here, how silly these environmentalists are, they made a semantic mistake."

You hyper-focus on irrelevant shit like that at the expense of common sense, just like this debate.

So let's go back to a question you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer:

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

Consider the following Excel graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/solarradiation1600to2100.jpg

It is data from NOAA (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt) from 1610 to 2000. I placed two rolling averages on the data. An eight year average, and a seventy-five year average. I also took the 1990 to 2000 data (eleven years) and repeated it until the year 2100, which would incorrectly assume the sun would remain steady until then. We already know solar radiation is likely to decrease as the sun has still been calm when it past schedule on sunspot activity.

Please notice there is a clear 0.18% increase on the 75 year average. I extended it to show the warming from the sun isn't over. I have no clear data to suggest that 75 years is the right number, but there is a long term lag. You can recalculate the data if you like, but keep in mind, lag is real.

That 0.18% paleoclimotology data increase on an assumed 220 K of solar heat effect means an increase of .4 C from preindustrialization, until today. Simply by the solar effect.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

[Wild Cobra]

Here’s more data from NOAA (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt) from 843 to 1961. I graphed it and added various rolling averages for the lag. Please notice that historical Roman records show taxes collected from wine grapes in England. England has not been able to grow grapes for some time because they are too cold. The solar intensities were greater then than now.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/solarradiation823to1961.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming. Yet you go out and do that in every post on the subject.

Hypocritical much?
I’m not being hypocritical. I asked what certainty you would like. Can’t you respond to such a simple question? I am certain within certain bounds. I simply cannot place absolute certainty on the subject!


Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.
Since when does the size of a group matter? Again, you are a flat earth believer.


The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.

No Shit Sherlock…

You finally agree with me.

It was you that was interchanging ozone with smog. Not the article.



Again, you completely missed the point of the article and jumped up and down saying "oh lookee here, how silly these environmentalists are, they made a semantic mistake."

That’s how you justify confusing the two?



You hyper-focus on irrelevant shit like that at the expense of common sense, just like this debate.

So let's go back to a question you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer:

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?

Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.

Worse case…

We get more precipitation than normal.

If it gets extreme, we can cause damage to sea life. By extreme, I mean nearing 1% in the atmosphere.

It is impossible for CO2 to cause more warming than we have already seen in history.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

This is exactly how the models were started that the alarmists use. They looked at temperature changes vs. CO2 changes and ignored everything else. At least with solar data, you can directly apply algebra and say that a given amount of heat is due to the sun. These facts prove the levels the alarmists claim to be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

The denier websites and adherents sound to me just like the asshats who back the controlled demolition theory.

They too have their sciency-sounding proponents who can spout off reasonable sounding loaded "questions", but in the end, the real work on the subject by objective and logical scientists points to another conclusion.
I finally ready the link.

It's a joke. They give lip service and no math. They also change the terminology to suit ther needs.

[Wild Cobra]

Now isn't it also funny how well historical solar irradiation and historical temperatures line up:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/solarradiation823to1961sm.jpg

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/WeatherData190.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

So let's go back to a question you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer:

Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?


Well RandomGuy, let's see what kind of intellectual honesty you have. What happens if global warming theory is entirely correct, the dire predictions are entirely correct, and we do exactly what the global warming alarmist's propose? That is, switch to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and other so called friendly "green" energy sources.

[Wild Cobra]

Well RandomGuy, let's see what kind of intellectual honesty you have. What happens if global warming theory is entirely correct, the dire predictions are entirely correct, and we do exactly what the global warming alarmist's propose? That is, switch to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and other so called friendly "green" energy sources.
I wonder how much more greenhouse gasses the making of ethanol brings? Sure, the burned part has slightly less CO2 than the fossile fuels, but what about the rest of the bio matter that likely rots and makes methane? Not all places capture it you know!

[possessed]

I find it rather amusing that conservatives have taken up "no global warming" as some kind of cause celebre with the only aim being to discredit the green movement.

As the video in the OP points out, I do not have to be an expert on such things to figure out a course of action.

You have made up your mind, Cobra, and that is good, but don't pretend you have "conclusive" proof anymore than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.

For me, it is not my area of interest/expertise. Until we have some greater scientific consensus, I will act on the probability that those thousands of scientists aren't lying and have some decent reason to believe they are correct.

If you want an argument about the specifics, you will not get it from me.

Thousands of scientists aren't lying? Good here's some consensus for you.

http://www.iceagenow.com/31000_scientists_dispute_global_warming_claims.htm

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

[dav4463]

What happened to the new ice age that we worried about in the 70's? When will people realize that the earth will warm up and cool off in cycles and there is nothing we can do about it? Global warming is a farce. It is only a way for some people to make money by scaring everyone else.

[possessed]

What happened to the new ice age that we worried about in the 70's? When will people realize that the earth will warm up and cool off in cycles and there is nothing we can do about it? Global warming is a farce. It is only a way for some people to make money by scaring everyone else.

http://www.iceagenow.com/IceAgeEnding.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

It is only a way for some people to make money by scaring everyone else.
And in the gaming world, we call these people "Lawful Evil" or some other evil aliognment.

Why don't people see them for the evil they are in real life?

Alignments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_evil#Lawful_Evil):


Lawful Evil:

Lawful evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits: while they typically obey their superiors and keep their word (trustworthy), they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, honorable but undiscriminating mercenary types, and soldiers who follow the chain of command but enjoy killing for its own sake.

Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are examples of lawful evil characters. The lawful evil outsiders are known as Baatezu.


Neutral Evil:

Neutral evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. An example would be an assassin, who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either lawful or chaotic evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

Complete Scoundrel cites X-Men's Mystique, Sawyer of Lost as neutral evil characters. Yugoloths are the multiversal representatives of neutral evil.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.


Since when does the size of a group matter?


Since you are implying that there is not a consensus of scientists who study the phenomenon that favors AGW theory.

If you cannot name a large group of scientists that disagrees with the conclusions put forth by the IPCC, then you cannot reasonably claim there is not a consensus.

It also begs the question:

"Are all of these scientists really that irrational/illogical/unethical, and you out of the thousands of people who have looked at the data aren't?"

[RandomGuy]

And in the gaming world, we call these people "Lawful Evil" or some other evil aliognment.

Alignments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_evil#Lawful_Evil):

.. and in the gaming world, you are the kind of character who throws a 17 or 18 for intelligence, and a 7 for wisdom. HA! :p:

[xrayzebra]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.




Since you are implying that there is not a consensus of scientists who study the phenomenon that favors AGW theory.

If you cannot name a large group of scientists that disagrees with the conclusions put forth by the IPCC, then you cannot reasonably claim there is not a consensus.

It also begs the question:

"Are all of these scientists really that irrational/illogical/unethical, and you out of the thousands of people who have looked at the data aren't?"

Hey RG, wasn't there a consensus of scientists that thought the earth
was flat at one time? And that Earth was the center of the universe?
And there was only one guy who disagreed with the later, Galileo, and
he was tried by the Catholics for hearsay.

Seems I also read that during the last "global warming" where
temps were 4-5 degrees higher than now, the earth and mankind
thrived. But I could be wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Well RandomGuy, let's see what kind of intellectual honesty you have. What happens if global warming theory is entirely correct, the dire predictions are entirely correct, and we do exactly what the global warming alarmist's propose? That is, switch to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and other so called friendly "green" energy sources.

We mitigate the risk of the worst case scenario.

Further, to be 100% intellectually honest, to show WC how it's done:

We don't eliminate that risk. We could spend all the money switching over, and still face the worst effects of that warming.

The conservative approach would be to mitigate the worst risk as much as is prudent to do so, taking into account the severity of the risk.

To accept such a liberal amount of risk, as WC and the denier camp wants us to do is accepting a much greater degree of risk than I am comfortable with.

[RandomGuy]

Hey RG, wasn't there a consensus of scientists that thought the earth
was flat at one time? And that Earth was the center of the universe?
And there was only one guy who disagreed with the later, Galileo, and
he was tried by the Catholics for hearsay.

Seems I also read that during the last "global warming" where
temps were 4-5 degrees higher than now, the earth and mankind
thrived. But I could be wrong.

Indeed there were Ray. The good thing about science is that the scientific empirical approach will weed out bad theories when new evidence is presented that contradicts those bad theories. The theory that best fits available evidence is generally the most accepted one.

If AGW turns out to truly be a bad theory, then there will be more and more evidence over time that it is a bad theory.

So far, the scientific consensus is that it is the theory that best fits available evidence. We are having a marked positive effect on global average temperatures.

Since no large group of scientists has come forward to challenge that consensus with peer-reviewed scientific papers to my knowledge, I find it prudent to assume that theory is probably correct.

The scientists that say they disagree with the the AGW theory are a rather small minority, who spread their theories not through scientific papers, but through denier websites, much like the 9-11 pseudoscience conspiracy theories do.

[RandomGuy]

If you follow news reports of the real sciences, not from pundits, you will find increasing evidence the IPCC if extremely wrong in their assessments.

Please name a few then.

Surely there is some peer-reviewed science out there that supports your assertions.

[xrayzebra]

If AGW turns out to truly be a bad theory, then there will be more and more evidence over time that it is a bad theory.

So far, the scientific consensus is that it is the theory that best fits available evidence. We are having a marked positive effect on global average temperatures.



What about the evidence to the contrary? Like global cooling for the
past 9 years. And some who say the global warming crowd are using
a flawed computer program. That they cannot reverse the program
and go back to conditions of the past.

What evidence is there that we have warming? Seriously. They
talk of polar bears dying off, yet their population is increasing. The
speak of ice melting and coastal areas flooding, but I have seen none
of that on the gulf coast, have you? Ice is increasing on one pole.
But then they say, well, ice melted faster than ever. Well duh, what
does that mean?

From everything I have seen or read the climate of earth has and will
always change, not by our actions, I just don't think it is possible. Not
when we have mother nature capable of wiping us out in almost one
felled swoop. Like another earthquake in the central part of the U.S.,
which occurred in our historical times, caused the old Mississippi to run
backwards, think we could do that, don't think so. And they say we
are in line for another of the same magnitude.

When they do away with carbon credits, carbon taxes and quit fussing
about carbon is the ruination of the world, oil and coal, which got us to
where we are, then I may take them seriously. But the environmentalist
have a lot of PR work to do with me before I take them seriously.
Somehow I just don't take beetles and spiders as seriously as they
do.

Kinda like smoking will kill you. Well it might, but it doesn't kill
everybody. And if it so bad for people, first and second hand smoke,
why don't we just ban it and solve the problem. Whooops, forgot
about taxes it brings in.....:lol

[RandomGuy]

What about the evidence to the contrary? Like global cooling for the
past 9 years. And some who say the global warming crowd are using
a flawed computer program.

The evidence to the contrary will be evaluated and debated, as it always is.

As I have stated before, this is not my area of expertise, and I do not have the time to spend gaining enough expertise to make a call about what theory is more reasonable.

Since it is possible to make a decision based on incomplete evidence, and there is a pretty fair possibility that we are seriously f***ing things up, it seems reasonable to take some steps to mitigate the worst of the risks we face.

WC is absolutely convinced that the possbility of the risk is so remote that it isn't worth doing anything about, much like the designer of the Titanic was convinced that it wouldn't sink so it didn't need as many lifeboats as it had berths.

I would not buy a ticket for a cruise ship that didn't have enough lifeboats, no matter how convinced the designer was that it wouldn't sink, would you?

[xrayzebra]

I would not buy a ticket for a cruise ship that didn't have enough lifeboats, no matter how convinced the designer was that it wouldn't sink, would you?


Hmmm, I thought you voted for Obama? But I could be wrong.:lol

[RandomGuy]

I would not buy a ticket for a cruise ship that didn't have enough lifeboats, no matter how convinced the designer was that it wouldn't sink, would you?


Hmmm, I thought you voted for Obama? But I could be wrong.:lol

:lol Thanks, Ray. I don't agree, but I do see the humor.

Take care, and I have to get back to my bookkeeping client.

[RandomGuy]

Now isn't it also funny how well historical solar irradiation and historical temperatures line up:

One would expect as much. No one who advocates the AGW theory says that global temperatures wasn't affected to a great deal by the sun in the past and even now. We would expect that pre-industrial revolution temperatures were primarily driven by solar output.

This is something of a red herring on your part. AGW theory says that a very significant portion of CURRENT warming trends is due to output of greenhouse gasses from the industrial revolution and onwards.

This in no way contradicts AGW theory about current warming trends does it?

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy


The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.



No Shit Sherlock…

You finally agree with me.

It was you that was interchanging ozone with smog. Not the article.

:rolleyes

Keep your story straight.


Again, the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92708

Damn. I re-read that thread. I was not very nice to you in that thread. I also didn't give you enough time to address specific points before moving on to others. Hmm.

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.

Since you are implying that there is not a consensus of scientists who study the phenomenon that favors AGW theory.

If you cannot name a large group of scientists that disagrees with the conclusions put forth by the IPCC, then you cannot reasonably claim there is not a consensus.

Here’s a few:

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html)

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html)

The Heidelberg Appeal (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/theheidelberg.htm)

Open Kyoto to debate; Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)



It also begs the question:

"Are all of these scientists really that irrational/illogical/unethical, and you out of the thousands of people who have looked at the data aren't?"

They have been bought and paid for by politicians, or jobs in jeopardy if they don’t play along.



We mitigate the risk of the worst case scenario.

So, worse case scenario. God is real, so you worship him every day. After all, have to be on the safe side, right? Who wants to go to hell?



Further, to be 100% intellectually honest, to show WC how it's done:

We don't eliminate that risk. We could spend all the money switching over, and still face the worst effects of that warming.

And how bad do we screw up the economy by being fearful lemmings?



The conservative approach would be to mitigate the worst risk as much as is prudent to do so, taking into account the severity of the risk.

Correct. You tackle the biggest problem first, then assess the rest. Why haven’t we mitigated Asia’s output of coal burning pollution yet? Recently, scientists have concurred that the melting of the ice cap is from soot. Not CO2.



To accept such a liberal amount of risk, as WC and the denier camp wants us to do is accepting a much greater degree of risk than I am comfortable with.

You prefer to be blind of the truth. CO2 is not the problem. Observations of cause and effect are all the proof the alarmists have. This observation ignores the true factors that can be easily proven to have a significant degree, yet you IGNORE the FACTS!



Indeed there were Ray. The good thing about science is that the scientific empirical approach will weed out bad theories when new evidence is presented that contradicts those bad theories. The theory that best fits available evidence is generally the most accepted one.

Please show me the empirical proof that shows anthropogenic warming is caused by CO2.



If AGW turns out to truly be a bad theory, then there will be more and more evidence over time that it is a bad theory.

The hypothesis’ within the theory are wrong. They over estimate CO2 and under estimate solar and soot. There is plenty of evidence the primary warming we see is from the sun and soot.



So far, the scientific consensus is that it is the theory that best fits available evidence. We are having a marked positive effect on global average temperatures.

Bullshit. The consensus you have are of those scientists bought and paid for. There are more who disagree.

The IPCC consensus took the research of hundreds of scientist, then put a political spin on it with just a handful of willing accomplices of the scientist.



Since no large group of scientists has come forward to challenge that consensus with peer-reviewed scientific papers to my knowledge, I find it prudent to assume that theory is probably correct.

That is a wrong assumed fact.



The scientists that say they disagree with the the AGW theory are a rather small minority, who spread their theories not through scientific papers, but through denier websites, much like the 9-11 pseudoscience conspiracy theories do.

more than 31,000 who signed the Oregon Petition? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) Go ahead. Throw some names out. There are still thousands of respected scientists that know the material who disagree.



The evidence to the contrary will be evaluated and debated, as it always is.

The evidence to the contrary is silenced. The media doesn’t carry their words and several who have spoken out have been removed from their jobs as unqualified, because they don’t believe.



As I have stated before, this is not my area of expertise, and I do not have the time to spend gaining enough expertise to make a call about what theory is more reasonable.

Such simple evidence as I laid out?



Since it is possible to make a decision based on incomplete evidence, and there is a pretty fair possibility that we are seriously f***ing things up, it seems reasonable to take some steps to mitigate the worst of the risks we face.

You mean like our economy when we devote resources to carbon credits and cause energy production to double or more in price?



WC is absolutely convinced that the possbility of the risk is so remote that it isn't worth doing anything about, much like the designer of the Titanic was convinced that it wouldn't sink so it didn't need as many lifeboats as it had berths.

Only the risk of blaming and trying to control CO2 as the problem. PLEASE STOP IGNORING MY WORDS. I have claimed man’s largest effect if SOOT!



I would not buy a ticket for a cruise ship that didn't have enough lifeboats, no matter how convinced the designer was that it wouldn't sink, would you?

We agree there. Non-sequitur.



One would expect as much. No one who advocates the AGW theory says that global temperatures wasn't affected to a great deal by the sun in the past and even now. We would expect that pre-industrial revolution temperatures were primarily driven by solar output.

If warming can be said to be caused by the sun in the past, why not now?



This is something of a red herring on your part. AGW theory says that a very significant portion of CURRENT warming trends is due to output of greenhouse gasses from the industrial revolution and onwards.

Can you show me the empirical evidence, or do you just have coincidental cause and effect graphs?



This in no way contradicts AGW theory about current warming trends does it?

The problem is that we can apply simple algebra to solar radiation. More solar energy means more heat. There can be no reasonable debate to the contrary. Only the lag effects and feedbacks to it. The amplitudes of the graphs are not in alignment, but the timeframes are of general warming and cooling. There can be no reasonable debate on CO2 warming until the alarmists realistically assess the effects of solar changes and soot. Until then, they are simple fools who refuse to believe anything that threatens their ideas.

Keep one thing in mind that we should all be able to agree on. The sun is the primary source of heat. Gravitational forces are a very small part. All other factors are feedbacks to the system.

If we go back to Al Gore’s chart:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/ppmCO2.jpg

Then apply a mathematical interpretation to known mathematics:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/goreschart.jpg

The applied math to his chart showing a 6 C CO2 warming effect at 280 ppm then a 7 C warming effect at 560 ppm tops out at 7.2 C when the atmosphere is at warming saturation of CO2. This same chart shows about a 0.6 C (6.6 C CO2 warming) increase from the increased CO2 levels.

How much damage has the 0.6 C increase done? Assuming Al Gore and the IPCC are correct, how much damage will the 1.2 C increase do if we pass 1000 ppm? It's still not as warm as when England grew Grape crops for wine, or when Greenland had farms and mines.

[RandomGuy]

Here’s a few:

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

mmm sounds sciency enough. Also sounds eerily reminiscent of the petition signed by the adherents of the 9-11 controlled demolition theory.

I wonder if we can get something truly objective from people who are so obviously anti-UN.

But hey the science seems reasonable enough at first glance.

Riddle me this:

How persistent is CO2 released from burning fossil fuels?

Once released into the atmosphere, how long will it stick around?

[Wild Cobra]

Riddle me this:

How persistent is CO2 released from burning fossil fuels?

Once released into the atmosphere, how long will it stick around?

I don't remember the estimate. It does mix with the natural CO2 and sink along with it. It just becomes part of the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg/502px-Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg.png

[RandomGuy]

I don't remember the estimate. It does mix with the natural CO2 and sink along with it. It just becomes part of the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle).



It seems to be to be a pretty pertinent bit.

The same graphs you show in support shows the amount of fossil fuels burned in the last 20-50 years is greater than the entire 150 before it.

By your own admission, using one of your links here:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Slide02.png

Shows that we are burning roughly 4 times the amount of carbon now that we were in 1950.


If carbon remains in the atmosphere for 100+ years that means that we will put, if current levels simply remain the same, more carbon into the atmosphere in the next 10 years than in the entire period 1850-1950. A good chunk of this is CO2, which you have acknowledged as having caused around 10% of recent warming trends.

If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?

[RandomGuy]

CO2 by itself won't do a heckuva lot, but if we warm up large areas of the planet just enough, we have the potential for massive methane releases.



Methane clathrates and climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate)
Main article: Clathrate Gun Hypothesis
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC, 1996; Berner and Berner, 1996; vanLoon and Duffy, 2000). The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Climate scientists such as James Hansen expect that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.

Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released[23][24][25][26][27] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal[28][29].


If we, though our CO2 emissions warm the globe just a bit more than natural, and trigger massive methane releases, then what happens WC?

[RandomGuy]

The IPCC consensus took the research of hundreds of scientist, then put a political spin on it with just a handful of willing accomplices of the scientist.

Sounds an awful lot like the Global Warming Petition Project doesn't it?

Ever look up where that "peer reviewed" science was orginally published?

Go down to the bottom of their "peer reviewed" article:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html

Look at the first couple of places it was published.

"Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"

Sound pretty science-y doesn't it?

The Journal changed its name a few years back. It used to be called the Medical Sentinel. Here is the archive:

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/issues.html

Again, "Medical Sentinel" almost sounds like a science journal.

Let's take a look at some other articles that were featured in the same magazine about the time (1998) that the orginal "peer reviewed" article came out.

Statism Clears the Field by Vernon L. Goltry, MD
Voter Requirements by Curtis W. Caine, MD
There's Only One Way to End IRS Abuses by Harry Browne
GOP Wins One for the Gipper!

Can I trust this publication to give me objective, non-politicized science WC?

What did the "peer review" consist of for this article?

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

This is something of a red herring on your part. AGW theory says that a very significant portion of CURRENT warming trends is due to output of greenhouse gasses from the industrial revolution and onwards. This in no way contradicts AGW theory about current warming trends does it?


Can you show me the empirical evidence, or do you just have coincidental cause and effect graphs?

Do I need empiracal evidence to re-state what a theory says?

My statement simply pointed out that showing how warming/cooling trends in the pre-industrial era are overwhelmingly due to solar radiation is missing the point of AGM theory entirely, if not actively misleading.

No scientist who advocates AGM theory, to my knowledge, says that 100% of current warming trends is due solely to greenhouse gas emissions. If you can find a link to a scientific paper that contradicts this, feel free to post it.

Showing that, in the past, warming trends have been due to solar radiation, doesn't contradict the theory that we are causing warming due to greenhouse gasses does it?

Tell me why, WC. Show me your intellectual honesty.

[Wild Cobra]

It seems to be to be a pretty pertinent bit.

The same graphs you show in support shows the amount of fossil fuels burned in the last 20-50 years is greater than the entire 150 before it.

By your own admission, using one of your links here:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Slide02.png

Shows that we are burning roughly 4 times the amount of carbon now that we were in 1950.


If carbon remains in the atmosphere for 100+ years that means that we will put, if current levels simply remain the same, more carbon into the atmosphere in the next 10 years than in the entire period 1850-1950. A good chunk of this is CO2, which you have acknowledged as having caused around 10% of recent warming trends.

If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?You are thinking in a linear fashion. It's not. The greater the imbalance from where the equilibrium should be between the atmosphere and sinks, the greater the transfer. I assume it's an exponential form, like a capacitor discharge. All I know about science tells me it is expoential, but I may be wrong. I do know absolutely that it's far from linear. Here is an example of a pure exponential decay where 100 years leaves 0.67% of the amount:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/expoentialdecay.png

Please note that at 5 years 22.2% is removed. Almost 40% at 10 years and less than 25% remains between 25 to 30 years.

I incorrectly called the warming of CO2 logarithmic. In reality, the transmission through the atmosphere is exponential. The warming is from what is not transmitted to space. The true graph is the shape of the exponential decay flipped upside-down.

I was waiting for someone to catch me on that mistake… Oh well…

[Wild Cobra]

CO2 by itself won't do a heckuva lot, but if we warm up large areas of the planet just enough, we have the potential for massive methane releases.

---

If we, though our CO2 emissions warm the globe just a bit more than natural, and trigger massive methane releases, then what happens WC?
This is true to a point, except accepted chemistry and physics tells us we are warming more by other means than CO2. There are those who claim the increase of 0.6 C to 0.8 C (depending on who you believe) is only about 5% due to increases in CO2. That means about 0.03 C to 0.04 C if they are correct. I believe CO2 is more than that, but no where near the alarmists claim. Anyone who actually studies the evidence of solar, soot, and CO2 will tell you that CO2 is minor compared to the other two. Solar changes, no doubt, account for more than half of what we believe we have warmed in since the 1700’s.

Many of us believe we have seen massive methane releases. Methane trapped under the sea floor, then as the tides are just right and the weight of the ocean subsides a bit, trillions or billions of square meters are released from under the sea floor as temperature and pressure allows liquefied methane to become a gas form. This explains the sudden loss of ships and planes in the Bermuda Triangle. Such an underwater event was actually recorded at least once. It's very dramatic! Such a thing could be caused by CO2 increases if CO2 contributed more to warming than it does. However, the majority of these instances in the Bermuda Triangle coincide with known solar warming trends.

I can easikly claim any methane released from the arctic melt is from soot coming from Asia rather than melting from COP2 heat!

The proof is in! Soot is melting the Arctic!

[Wild Cobra]

Can I trust this publication to give me objective, non-politicized science WC?

What did the "peer review" consist of for this article?

Why not? Just because it originates from non Climatological professions doesn't mean the people starting it don't understand the sciences involve. The medical profession understand fluid-gas relationships rather well, as they are always present in our blood.

Peer Review? Overly abused these days. If you don't understand what you read yourself, don't trust the material. Too many agendas out there.

[Wild Cobra]

Do I need empiracal evidence to re-state what a theory says?

Considering its an untested theory, it would be nice.



My statement simply pointed out that showing how warming/cooling trends in the pre-industrial era are overwhelmingly due to solar radiation is missing the point of AGM theory entirely, if not actively misleading.

Past warming by the sun has been far more than today. What's to say the current warming isn't from the sun?



No scientist who advocates AGM theory, to my knowledge, says that 100% of current warming trends is due solely to greenhouse gas emissions. If you can find a link to a scientific paper that contradicts this, feel free to post it.

According to the IPCC, depending on how you interpret their data, all is caused by increased CO2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png

Everything else cancels out!



Showing that, in the past, warming trends have been due to solar radiation, doesn't contradict the theory that we are causing warming due to greenhouse gasses does it?

No, but when you remove the easily understood warming by solar and soot, little remains that can be claimed to be by CO2. Far less than what they claim!



Tell me why, WC. Show me your intellectual honesty.

I have. I'm sorry you don't understand all I have explained.

[RandomGuy]

more than 31,000 who signed the Oregon Petition? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) Go ahead. Throw some names out. There are still thousands of respected scientists that know the material who disagree.


The evidence to the contrary is silenced. The media doesn’t carry their words and several who have spoken out have been removed from their jobs as unqualified, because they don’t believe.


WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=%22this+is+an+orange%22&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!


The only thing more underreported than Tim Duncan, is Ron Paul and WTC 7.

Wake Up!!!


some can't handle the truth. That even includes many of the Truthers who don't look at both sides of the evidence.

Debating 9/11 is worse than arguing politics. Its more like arguing religion. Most are irrational or ignorant, or both.

Most of the info provided by 9/11 Truthers is non-conclusive filler. There is only a small amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job.


Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.

:pctoss


The Architects and Engneers for 9/11 Truth have already determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proved it. They proved WTC 7 did not fall from fire or flying debris.

Since you are neither an architect or engineer, you are not qualified on this topic. I will take the rational road and defer to the findings of 300 experts.

I am also an expert. I am Galileo Galilei, the founder of science, and I have determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as well. You should listen to experts and keep your crazy (and dangerous) ideas to yourself.


Blah, as with any psy-op there is a lot of mis - and disinformation that gets reported in the press, and then you get loonies like infowars.com and Alex Jones that make the whole truth movement look crazy...but you can't keep the truth down forever...or can you?......Nah..someday someone will dig up John Connelly and expose the JFK assassination too...


Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

Of course, one can browse through the lists of the self-reported qualifications of those 31,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition that WC linked.

Among them:

IV) Food Science (74)


:lmao

Does this logically imply that the denier claims of valid science supporting their side of the debate? No.

Does this mean that a good majority of the people who have "signed" the petition don't have relevant qualifications? No. The a good chunk of them tend to be either chemists or something similar.

[Energy jobs]

The attraction to Morgan is thusly - a lot of the language from the Obama campaign, with regards to NASA, has been about education. Mrs. Morgan is a former teacher, and also an astronaut - thus, in essence, she is, to a degree, the quick and easy pick. I don't know of any administrative experience she has had, and so therefore would worry about the direction of NASA, but from that point of view (education background, astronaut) she seems a plausible pick.s for Hansen - again, from a plausible perspective - whether you, or Rand, agree that global warming is an issue or not, doesn't matter - Senator Obama does, and for a lot of liberals, when the comments about global warming were removed from NASA's charter, and add to the fact that Hansen has become something of an icon in the minds of a lot of people who are concerned about Global Warming - again, the attraction would be there.m

[RandomGuy]

more than 31,000 who signed the Oregon Petition? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) Go ahead. Throw some names out. There are still thousands of respected scientists that know the material who disagree.


The evidence to the contrary is silenced. The media doesn’t carry their words and several who have spoken out have been removed from their jobs as unqualified, because they don’t believe.


WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=%22this+is+an+orange%22&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!


The only thing more underreported than Tim Duncan, is Ron Paul and WTC 7.

Wake Up!!!


the debunkers resemble a religion in their fanatical opposition to the idea that a powerful person in the government might order someone killed for political gain.

Unless someone is convicted of murder, it didn't happen.


Ah yes, the Global Warming Petition Project.
A list of signers shows the components of that 31,000
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Like…

IV) Food Science (74)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)

Because Food Science and Electrical Engineering are disciplines intimately involved in evaluating climate data, right?

The requirements to get on this list of petitioners?
A printer, a stamped envelope, and legible handwriting.
Sounds to me to be eerily similar to the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

They have a petition too.

[RandomGuy]

That was a tad unfair. I would give the Global Warming Petition project a bit more credibility than the twoofers any day.

But, it does not show me an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Nor does it provide a large, formal organization that disbelieves the AGW theory.

[RandomGuy]

If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?


You are thinking in a linear fashion. It's not. The greater the imbalance from where the equilibrium should be between the atmosphere and sinks, the greater the transfer. I assume it's an exponential form, like a capacitor discharge. All I know about science tells me it is expoential, but I may be wrong.

That isn't a yes or no answer.

Either it is plausible or not.

If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?

You have answered this question "yes" from what I understand, so let's go from there, I won't belabor the point.

If we dump a lot more CO2 into the air at a rate far faster than it is absorbed, exponential abasorption or not, will that mean a greater impact on temperatures?

I expect you to dodge this question with either a non-answer, or another question. That would not be intellectually honest. Yes or no please, it is a fair question.

[RandomGuy]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/expoentialdecay.png

Please note that at 5 years 22.2% is removed. Almost 40% at 10 years and less than 25% remains between 25 to 30 years.

I incorrectly called the warming of CO2 logarithmic. In reality, the transmission through the atmosphere is exponential. The warming is from what is not transmitted to space. The true graph is the shape of the exponential decay flipped upside-down.

I was waiting for someone to catch me on that mistake… Oh well…

By the by, the term for this is "half life", in that it is very similar to radioactive decay. That is the term that the climate scientists use to describe the persistance of greenhouse gasses.

I also noticed that, for all your reading on the subject, you couldn't answer the question of how persistant CO2 is.

Your graph implies that the half-life of CO2 is (to my eye) about 10 years. The research I have read says it is more like a hundred or so, if not much longer.

Since this is your baliwhack, you find something about this on a website you trust and get back to me with a more firm answer as to the "half-life" of atmospheric CO2. Surely there is something in your denier peer-reviewed science about this.

[rascal]

RRG, some are saying we will be in a cooling period in
less than a decade. Do we cover that risk factor also. How
bout we let old Mother Nature take it's course and realize
mankind is just that mankind. We can change little and
only on a temporary basis.
Wrong man can clearly destroy his environment which can effect weather changes.

[RandomGuy]

According to the IPCC, depending on how you interpret their data, all is caused by increased CO2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png

Everything else cancels out!




Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}


The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4
in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000
years.

They say most, not all.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Slide13.png

Here is a good example of how to make a case with graphs.

Let's look at the "solar irradiance" line and pair that with the "average global temperatures line".

They both go up at about the same slope, and it seems a reasonable conclusion to say, "hey it's all about the sunlight".

Take a closer look at the scale of the "solar irradiance" measurements.

They vary from 1368 Watts per square meter, to 1372 Watts per square meter.

Over the last 50 years it has varied from 1370 to 1371. A total difference of 0.073%

7 hundredths of one percent variation.

Surely this causes some of the increased temperatures, and no one, not even the IPCC disputes this, as their bar graph shows.

WC and the deniers assert that the majority of temperature increases observed in this period of time is from swings of solar irradiance of less than 7 hundredths of one percent.

The IPCC says it is likely that the majority of that increase is from human activity, namely greenhouse gas emissions.

Also look at the level of emissions line. That is the level of emissions, NOT the accumulated change in CO2 concentrations, which would seem to be a tad more relevant.

Interesting what they omitted and the way the presented their data, isn't it?

[DarrinS]

Ah yes, the Global Warming Petition Project.
A list of signers shows the components of that 31,000
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Like…

IV) Food Science (74)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)

Because Food Science and Electrical Engineering are disciplines intimately involved in evaluating climate data, right?

The requirements to get on this list of petitioners?
A printer, a stamped envelope, and legible handwriting.
Sounds to me to be eerily similar to the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

They have a petition too.



And you are an accountant, correct? And yet, you have an opinion.

[RandomGuy]

Since this is your baliwhack, you find something about this on a website you trust and get back to me with a more firm answer as to the "half-life" of atmospheric CO2. Surely there is something in your denier peer-reviewed science about this.

Well here we go.

I went back and read this bit and got what the deniers think:


Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992.

Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more.


The Revelle and Seuss article quoted was from 1957, by the way.

Why do they stop their estimates at 1992? Because the summary they quoted was from a 1998 study of those estimates from 1957 to 1992.

Here also, by the way, is the graph from the denier website:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Slide17.png

This shows a 22% jump in concentrations since 1950, for what that is worth.

[RandomGuy]

And you are an accountant, correct? And yet, you have an opinion.

My opinion is about whose argument should carry more weight, not about how much CO2 causes warming.

Small difference.

[RandomGuy]

Also along the lines of how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, when the denier "peer reviewed" science article says there "There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more."

73. Archer, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.

Let's see how the deniers are cherry picking, shall we?

Here is what that same "Archer, D." is saying in 2008, and not rely on the denier article to tell me what he says/thinks.



"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."

David Archer


Instead of pinning an absolute value on the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the 2007 report describes its gradual dissipation over time, saying, "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." But if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could be higher than this, models suggest.

Carbon is forever (http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html) (article at nature.com)

Mr. Archer does think that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is 300+ years, but is quite possibly much longer than earlier research suggests.

Oopsies.

[SnakeBoy]

Further, to be 100% intellectually honest, to show WC how it's done:

We don't eliminate that risk. We could spend all the money switching over, and still face the worst effects of that warming.


Pretty good I must say. I've asked that question several times of "believers" and you're the first to give a pretty honest answer. I'll give you an A- on intellectual honesty.

I have to take a few points off for understatement though. If the catastrophic global warming predictions are correct it simply isn't possible to "switch over" fast enough to avoid the doomsday scenario. In which case the only cure for global warming will be global warming.

Unless the global warming movement suddenly embraces nuclear energy which is very unlikely.

[SnakeBoy]

When is this all suppose occur. Not in my lifetime or yours
or your kids lifetime.

2050 according to the more conservative alarmists.

Couple of decades according to others. Some have been saying as little as two decades for a decade now. They don't seem to understand subtraction very well.


Global Warming
The World in 2050
by Robin McKie and Priscilla Morris

It is the year 2050, and April blizzards have gripped southern England for the third successive year while violent storms batter the North Sea coast. The Gulf Stream, whose warming waters once heated our shores, has long since disappeared, destroyed by a deluge pouring south from the melting Arctic ice cap.
In the United States, much of Alaska has turned into a quagmire as permafrost and glaciers disintegrate. In Colorado, chair lift pylons stand rusting in the warm drizzle, reminders that the nation once supported a billion-dollar ski industry, while the remnants of Florida are declared America's second island state.

Africa is faring badly. Its coastline from Cairo to Lagos is completely flooded and many of the major cities have been abandoned. Tens of millions of people have been forced to flee and are struggling to survive in a parched, waterless interior.

In Asia there is a similar, terrifying picture. Bangladesh is almost totally inundated and the East Indies have been reduced to a few scrappy islands. Tens of millions stand on the brink of death.

It is a startling scenario worthy of a science fiction disaster film. And it would be easy to dismiss, were it not for the uncomfortable fact that these visions are the result of rigorous scientific analysis by some of the world's most distinguished climatologists.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points out in its recent Climate Change 2001 report, global warming is likely to trigger a cascade of unpleasant effects: elderly people will suffer and die in smoggy, polluted cities; crops will fail; and wildlife and livestock will perish on a scorched and miserable planet. That report was the combined work of several thousand of the world's leading meteorological experts, scientists whose views George Bush has now dismissed as 'questionable' and whose work in creating the Kyoto protocol has been utterly undone.

The US decision to pull out of the international accord on climate change has caused predictable international alarm, though it is important to note it will have no direct effect on levels of carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere. Kyoto merely pledged developed countries to restrict their industrial output. 'It was an excellent first step towards reversing climate change,' according to Southampton University's Professor Nigel Arnell. Kyoto was, in effect, a statement of intent. The industrial nations which had, after all, initiated the problem of global warming, would show their commitment by making the first crucial, self-sacrificing moves. Then the Third World could be drawn in, and the first decreases in carbon-dioxide emissions agreed over the next few years. 'Bush has now made the attainment of these next crucial steps much more difficult,' says Arnell. In fact, most experts believe he has made them impossible. If the West won't act, why should the rest of the world? If no action is taken, the consequences are likely to be calamitous. Before the industrial revolution, the atmosphere was made up of 250 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Now that figure has reached 366 and is already producing meteorological effects: a steady increase in devastating storms across Britain, rising sea levels, and dwindling glaciers and ice-caps. And that is just the start. Carbon dioxide levels will inevitably reach 450, even if governments closed every factory tomorrow. 'Plants absorb carbon dioxide and when they die they release that gas,' says Dr David Griggs of the IPCC's science working group. 'Similarly, the oceans absorb and release carbon dioxide.' These carbon dioxide stores mean that we could not stop atmospheric levels rising for future decades, no matter what we did. 'The climate is changing and will continue to change, regardless of what George Bush says,' comments Dr Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Norwich.

In any case, closing down factories is not on the cards. With the nation responsible for a quarter of all global carbon dioxide emissions refusing to limit its output by the merest fraction, levels will inevitably reach 550 parts per million - double their pre-industrial revolution figure - by about 2050. By then the world's temperature will have increased by 1.4 degrees Centigrade, triggering the mayhem outlined in the IPCC report. 'It is very difficult to make hard predictions,' adds Griggs. 'All we can say is that the future is going to be very uncertain, highly variable.' Britain provides an excellent example of the problem. We may swelter - or, if icy Arctic waters divert the Gulf Stream, we may shiver. Either way, the consequences will mean millions of homes will be refused insurance, native wildlife will perish and great chunks of coastline will be inundated.

And, say meteorologists, it now looks as if there is nothing we can do about it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0401-01.htm

[RandomGuy]

If the catastrophic global warming predictions are correct it simply isn't possible to "switch over" fast enough to avoid the doomsday scenario.

That is still not quite certain. What is more certain is that the longer we wait the less likely we will be able to do something about it, and the more expensive it will be.


Unless the global warming movement suddenly embraces nuclear energy which is very unlikely.

Please don't tell me you are one of the "nuclear is the only answer to fossil fuels" crowd.

Nuclear has its share of drawbacks that outweigh it benefits enough to the point where it isn't really an economically viable option.

[RandomGuy]

2050 according to the more conservative alarmists.

Couple of decades according to others. Some have been saying as little as two decades for a decade now. They don't seem to understand subtraction very well.

That is one of the big problems in predicting exactly what will happen.

The scenario you described in the quoted article is one in which the ocean currents that currently conduct and circulate heat suddenly break down as they have in the past, such as what is speculated to have occurred before the changes that made the Earth into an iceball about 600-800 million years ago.

The ultimate, long-term effects are unknown, but the more we disrupt the equilibrium, the more varied the possible end results will be.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty good I must say. I've asked that question several times of "believers" and you're the first to give a pretty honest answer. I'll give you an A- on intellectual honesty.

I have to take a few points off for understatement though. If the catastrophic global warming predictions are correct it simply isn't possible to "switch over" fast enough to avoid the doomsday scenario. In which case the only cure for global warming will be global warming.

Unless the global warming movement suddenly embraces nuclear energy which is very unlikely.

By the way, feel free to test WC's intellectual honesty. Perhaps he will respond to you.

I have had no luck in getting straight, honest answers from him.

[Sec24Row7]

That is one of the big problems in predicting exactly what will happen.

The scenario you described in the quoted article is one in which the ocean currents that currently conduct and circulate heat suddenly break down as they have in the past, such as what is speculated to have occurred before the changes that made the Earth into an iceball about 600-800 million years ago.

The ultimate, long-term effects are unknown, but the more we disrupt the equilibrium, the more varied the possible end results will be.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[RandomGuy]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao