Reply With Quote
Do you think the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is realistic? In other words, do you believe in so-called "tipping points"?
Here is a simple model I made that shows the relationship of CO2 and warming as maximum levels I can find justified. It allows for just over a 0.3 C rise in temperature by CO2 from the levels of 280 ppm to 380 ppm, but I forget for sure. I may have used the 278 to 387 level changes. The Excel file is on one of two different computers. Now that I have a large USB drive, I need to consolidate all my work. Anyway, the graph:
That is a very interesting graph. What is it based on? If there is truly a logrithmic relationship between C02 concentration and it's affect on temperature, then there is a point, beyond which, increased C02 concentration doesn't really increase temperature.
By the way, anyone hear that Hansen reused Russian temperature data from September to make this October appear to be one of the warmest? This group of enviro-scaremongers is losing credibility.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/1...ber-2008-data/
Do you think the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is realistic? In other words, do you believe in so-called "tipping points"?
I would prefer to keep this thread on course. Humor is a good thing, but can we at least add to the Solar debate in the process?
Does anyone disagree of my assessment from post #13 that there was about a 4-1/2 times greater change in delta temperature during the early 1900's than the normal 11 year solar cycle yields?
Wild Cobra-- Hey, I've seen a few of these threads where you and Random Guy debate global warming, and I'm just wondering where you stand on increased use of wind and solar energy, renewable resources, etc... I understand (but to be honest don't actually agree with) your skepticism regarding warming, but I'm not clear on your views concerning a focus on alternative energies... serious question-- not an attack, not sarcasm, ok?
Last edited by Tully365; 11-18-2008 at 03:45 PM.
I liken this thread to 3 people in a cave with a mildly sedated bear who may or may not be experiencing DT's from his most recent bout of binge-alcoholism based in no small part on the fact he just caught his soon-to-be-ex-wife ing Smokey the Bear "because he's a TV star!"
One guy is busy drawing on the walls, ceilings and yes, even the bear with various stats, line graphs and pie charts in an attempt to clearly show to everyone present that what the bear is experiencing is not "the DT's" but a natural cycle caused by the moon phases of Saturn and its gamma radiation quotient on thick-skinned mammals like our alcoholic friend over there...
One other guy is standing firm on his previous assertion that this bear is a sick, sick mammal who craves only mean drink and loose women. He is a self-destructive individual with aspirations of whiskey-inspired world destruction if left to his own devices and his proximity to dry counties only makes him more angry and alarmed!
The third guy, who is a Mob loan shark, picks up a stick and says " it, lets ask the bear".
A rabbi, a priest, and a bear walk into a cave...
This thread is like a pretty rose that smells... bad.
The bear's stomach starts to grumble, and he starts eying the other two hungrily.
The rabbi says to the priest:
What do you get when you cross a brown chicken with a brown cow?
(say it out loud quickly)
brown-chicken-brown-cow
Godammit, DarkReign, how did you get access to my college diaries??
From what I am given to understand there are tipping points that start self feeding cycles, so in that, I am reasonably confident they exist.
BUT
The Day after Tomorrow was a movie, and took some dramatic license with the idea, to say the least. So: No, I don't think the movie was realistic in the slightest.
Any real tipping points would start cycles, but those cycles would act a heckuva lot slower than the movie portrayed.
Not in particular.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy in slamming someone for making a "guess" and then turning around and doing the exact same damn thing.
I did do it in a very clever way though.
It's pretty hard to argue against tipping points as a general concept...
Those scientists would say you are wrong, and you say they are wrong.
We have to figure out a course of action with conflicting theories.
If you are right, and we spend money, we will have simply spent money uselessly.
If you are wrong, and we do nothing, we are royally ed.
We can't choose whether or not man-made global warming exists.
We can chose how we react to this.
Worst case scenario for taking action is slower economic growth.
Worst case scenario for not taking action is a civilization-threatening upheaval.
We can afford for you to be right, but we can't afford for you to be wrong.
Sofa King we Ed
Is it hot in here, or is it just global warming?
The priest says, "If I were you, I wouldn't poke that bear with a stick...especially in a dark cave."
C'mon man, that was weak.
Very.
C'mon man, that was weak.
Global warming we've done. A LOT.
Bears in a cave, we haven't.
"Wont someone think of the bears!"
Yes, the relationship is logarithmic. Something the believers of the liars just don't seem to understand.
It is based on the data I have gathered, and comparing it against other people's assessments. I like to use other people's work against them. Here is a chart Al Gore uses:
Here is one I flipped upside-down from RealClimate dot org:
This chart takes is a calculation (by the alarmists) that shows CO2 levels to trap about 33.5% (66.5% transmission) of the IR radiation it is capable of capturing at the current level being tested. It shows It shows about 36.3% at two times the CO2 and about 40.4% at 4X. I used this to show a doubling of CO2 cannot increase temperatures by 3 C. If Using the doubling equals 3 C increase theory, I would have to believe that 100% of the 32 C greenhouse effect is by carbon dioxide, and being done by CO2 trapping 33.5% of the heat it is capable of. The 36.3% would represent a 34.67 C greenhouse effect. Short of the 3 C, but hard to get accuracy reading a digitized chart. Even Al Gore shows a doubling of CO2 to be only 1 C. The original graph is found here:
Here is the first article that prompted me to be a "Denier:"
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Yep, then the truth is not on there side, they lie. Here is an interesting article I just found:
Watts Up With That?
Parts of the article:
So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’? The major driver is the sun. Warming depends on the sun. Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy. Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere. Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%. Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%), or almost all is the inert gas argon. Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. The main atmospheric ‘intermediary’ between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing. The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2. Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!! It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned). Much credence is given to the ‘hockey-stick effect’ of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing. The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input. This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions. Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as ‘gospel’ by many nations. In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001. Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60°C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature. Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050°C over the past decade! Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event. Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?
A man-made ‘greenhouse’ does not create new heat. A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket. Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous). It is a dampener! It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change. It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change. Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).
CARBON DIOXIDE CO2It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth. The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B. Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly. With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies. This process occurs with plankton too. But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility. As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).
Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record. If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe. In fact it is the opposite! Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase. Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases. There is no physical evidence to support that. In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2 as carbon (C)
Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere 750 Gt
Oceans – surface 1,000 Gt
Oceans – intermediate / deep 38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus) 2,200 Gt
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 10:05 PM.
I'm all for all the above including nuclear power, when the price makes various sources viable. I agree we need to significantly reduce our fossil fuel usage. I would like to see us at least reduce our usage to the point we are self sufficient.
I'm not a pro oil or pro coal guy. I just try to be reasonable about the issues. If you read my various, you see I am happy with our work since the 70's in cleaning up emissions. I am not happy about Mexico's and Asia's emissions. They are a large contributor of Black Carbon pollution, from not using clean burning technologies.
Some people for example advocate using hydrogen. Well, it takes 44,000 watt hours of power to make the equivalent of one gallon gas. OK, so we burn more coal so we can make a dangerous hydrogen power transportation system. Not very bright in my opinion. Most alternates offered have consequences of their own. Besides the danger of hydrogen in accidents, at 10 cents a kWatt, it cost $4.40 just for the power to make it. Add profits, labor, etc... How much would hydrogen cost?
Cool-- thanks for the answer. The funny thing is that you and Random Guy probably agree on as many things as you disagree on... though, admittedly, threads where everyone agrees aren't usually as interesting as those with the dramatic tension of disagreement.
It seems to me that the global warming debate has become something akin to the debate on Religion in our country... neither side will give in because the topic is too enormous for simple facts and figures and because no one really agrees on the true scale and scope of the issue.
My view is that we should focus on finding cleaner energy sources because 1) a less polluted world is appealing to everyone 2) If the US innovates these alternative energies, we can also profit from them, and 3) Most of us agree that being beholden to Saudi Arabia & others is not good from the standpoints of financial well-being, National Security, and, what the , I'll throw in the moral and esthetic angles too.
Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Gro...ticle13385.htm
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.
An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.
The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.
That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.
Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.
Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Ins ute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.
On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years.
The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E microwave radiometer, an instrument package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite. AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).
In a way, you are right. Global warming catastrophists are a kinda like religious zealots. If you don't run around saying that sea levels will rise by 200 feet (Meredith Viera said this on the kick off of NBC's "Green week"), then you are considered a "denier" or a heretic or whatever. Look, I'm all for being environmentally responsible, but I don't think it's a good idea to unnecessarily frighten people.
Here's a very good video on the MSM's role in GW hype.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
