Reply With Quote
It must suck having spent all that time studying, coming to a conclusion, then dedicating your life's work to a premise that turned out to be bull .
You are such a pathetic, cheerleading little . Do you bend over for Cobra after the game too? You don't even know what the we are talking about, so off back to your gimp box. At least Cobra has a clue and asks good questions, even if the he misreads the evidence.
And no, I'm not going to bother with rebuttal because it's Monday morning, this will go on forever to absolutely no purpose, and I actually have a life to lead.
Go on believing what you like. Nothing in the political or economic world is changing significantly anyway, so the theory will be proven without doubt over the next century as we slowly cook the earth and destroy our ability to maintain these wonderful societies we have built, and it will be your kids and grandkids that suffer. Celebrate that.
wits like you seem to think this is a big game of right vs left or blue vs red, but it couldn't be less the case. I would love the scientific community to be wrong about EGW because it would mean that we could go on abusing the planet however we like without repercussions, but from my reading of it the science is overwhelmingly and depressingly spot on, and this century we are going to pay the piper.
But no, you go on with your cheerleading ignorance, and leave other, smarter people to debate things you couldn't understand if you tried.
Cobra - I'd like to rebut a number of your points but I don't have time. I am going to look at the black body radiation numbers again (although I don't know why you think you can simply discount the upper atmosphere, which makes no sense), and the isotope studies again (although what exactly are you arguing there? that the increased CO2 concentration is coming from natural sources? it's clearly not, since humans put about 8Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere each year right now (not 5.5Gt as in your diagram), 321Gt since 1750, and about 160Gt of that since 1970 according to the CDIAC), with a critical eye and see if I can poke any holes in them, but I doubt they are there because I have been over and over this stuff time and again.
It must suck having spent all that time studying, coming to a conclusion, then dedicating your life's work to a premise that turned out to be bull .
Why do you think that? I can rebut all of his points because they have already been addressed in peer-reviewed science, I just don't have time to do it right now. You seem to think he's a genius coming up with stuff no-one has ever considered before - actually, it's already been addressed long ago.
Perfect example, for Cobra:
"The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) The most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Please, read the whole article. So, America's peak body for physicists are wrong about CO2 saturation and you are right, Cobra? You dismiss realclimate's take, but it is based on what the American Ins ute of Physics says. Are they also part of the grand conspiracy?
I think I'll trust the physicists on this one.
Hey come on, Cap and trade will fix it!
I mean, alot of businesses will go out of business and the economy will get even worse,
but hey, what the ! Were doing drastic things all over something that some scientists believe in.
Global Warming is NOT a damn scientific FACT.
There's a few dissenters in the camp that says HIV doesn't cause AIDS (led by Peter Duesberg) even though there's overwhelming evidence it does, but is that going to make you throw all your rubbers away?
There is no such thing as scientific FACT, or fact of any kind - there is only levels of confidence that something is true, and the theory of enhanced global warming is at least as strong as the link for smoking causing cancer (actually, there's far more evidence to support EGW, which is saying something).
There is no doubt that the climate is changing and changing rapidly - that is clearly observable from ground level and satellite temperature measurements, shifting rainfall patterns, ice melting rates, poleward species migrations, earlier plant flowering cycles, oceanic warming, upward treeline movement on mountains, significantly more big (category 4 and 5) hurricanes than before (not more hurricanes in total though - that has not been proven... just a higher proportion of BIG ones), unprecedented firestorms, increased incidence of drought and flooding, etc. There is no other way to interpret what we are observing all around us than that the climate system is changing, and doing so very rapidly (unlike anything in the fossil record - 10-100x faster).
Cobra is not disputing that the earth is warming, he has admitted that it is (given that it is clearly observable, a good move), no, he is disputing the source of the warming - he is suggesting that the quan y of CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect the temperature of the planet, and instead that increased solar output is the culprit, and I will address his last post when I have time (it is based in old conundra that have been cleared up).
As for capping and trading, I am skeptical that that is the whole answer, as it is being touted. I'd rather see massive investment in sustainable energy and water infrastructure, massive investment in education about the impacts of consumption, and a societal shift towards services as the driving economic force rather than throughput of goods. Climate change is only one problem we are facing this century - just as serious are problems like resource depletion (particularly water, soils, oil and phosphorus), toxic pollution (from both industrial production and waste disposal), overpopulation (there were 1bil people in 1890, now there are 6.8bil and there will be 9-10bil by 2050), the collapse in biodiversity (we are all part of the food web, and if it collapses so do we), etc.
The environmental crisis facing humanity is very much akin to the financial crisis - we have all been living far beyond our means for too long, and sooner or later the ecosystem services we rely on for survival will collapse if we keep pushing them far beyond their natural equilibria.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 03-23-2009 at 02:18 AM.
Ooops... My bad on the name.
Still, a climatologist is only a course requirement above a meteorologist for the BS degree. We all know how accurate weathermen are...
Climatology is just one of several of the geosciences that one must understand to see all the aspects of global warming.
And yes. Real Climate is a propaganda site run by a guy with an agenda.
I would say they both have agendas. I look at the data myself and come to my own conclusions. I don't care what others say. I listen and look for their data.
How many alarmists provide complete data?
Actually, I think we cannot upset nature as much as you seem to. The ocean as a sink should be able to sink nearly all the CO2 we add because of equilibrium. Just think about the simple chemistry of temperature vs. the quan y of CO2 dissolved in water, and apply it to the volume of the ocean. The ocean contains about 50 times the carbon in various states in equilibrium. Man's annual output of CO2 is about 1% of the quan y in the atmosphere, and only about .02% of what the ocean contains. Because of the way equilibrium works, IF other factors were static, and the equilibrium tells us the ocean should absorb 98% of anthropogenic CO2, how does 2% of 7.5 or 8 GtC annual amount to anything? It should take over 1200 years to change the atmospheric content from 560 GtC to 750 GtC at that rate.
Temperature is the key. As the oceans warm, they expel CO2. The equilibrium is changed. Temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.
I discount the upper atmosphere because it is so cold, it has little blackbody radiation to warm any greenhouse gasses. At the surface, the air is about 270 Kelvin or warmer in most places. The average global temperature is about 288 Kelvin. The temperature rapidly drops to under 220 Kelvin by the time you get to 10 km. At 90 km, it is about 175 Kelvin.
Do you know what that means for black body radiation?
016.9 watts at 175 Kelvin
042.3 watts at 220 Kelvin
095.9 watts at 270 Kelvin
124.2 watts at 288 Kelvin
Notice that at 10 km the blackbody radiation is only 34% of that at the global average surface. Only about 17% when you get to 90 km. The 4 to 4.5 micron band is almost gone. The 13 to 17.5 micron band is still prevalent.
Now, the power that CO2 can absorb at complete saturation using the two above mentioned ranges:
02.9 watts at 175 Kelvin 17.2% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
09.0 watts at 220 Kelvin 21.2% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
20.5 watts at 270 Kelvin 21.4% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
26.0 watts at 288 Kelvin 20.9% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
Percentage of the 288 global averages are now 11.2% at 90 km and 34.5% at 10 km.
I am arguing that the subject has so many variables, that no accurate assessments can be made from it.
Actually, yes. Back to the sinking ability of the oceans under static conditions. If there were no changes to the oceans temperature and PH, they would absorb nearly all the anthropogenic CO2 into equilibrium.
I don't dispute the numbers you give. I have seen a wide variety of Carbon Cycle models that include even higher numbers. I'll go with any because I'm arguing equilibrium chemistry. The magnitude is less important the the carbon cycle function. Now consider the 50:1 equilibrium of carbon content between the atmosphere and oceans. That 321 GtC since 1650 would add 314.7 GtC to the ocean sink and 6.3 GtC to the atmosphere when you consider how the equilibrium of the carbon cycle works. It's actually more to the ocean and less to the atmosphere when you consider the other carbon equilibrium factors. Remember now, temperature has a dramatic effect on how much CO2 the ocean can absorb. If temperature reduced the oceans sinking ability by 1%, then we have over 38000 GtC time 1%, or 380 GtC added to the atmosphere. It doesn't take much warming of the ocean to reduce CO2 solubility by that range. A 1% change in solubility only takes about a 0.3 degree change in average ocean temperature if I remember right. Study up on Henry's Law. and other gas solubility equations. With the norther cap melting, and the water warming, how much less CO2 do you think it can retain?
Close. I do accept that CO2 has a minor role in increasing the temperature. My dispute is that I disagree with how much others are saying. I say that solar changes have played the largest role in temperature changes, followed by the black carbon on ice, indirectly adding heat to the increased area of the uncovered Arctic Ocean. CO2 changes are likely in third place for driving temperature places.
I am not claiming that the direct temperature absorption of soot is increasing the temperature, rather the havoc it has on the Northern ice. More sea water is exposed collecting solar radiation, warming the oceans, and expelling CO2. More precipitation, and energy changes there as well.
Think about it. If we accept a 33 degree greenhouse effect, a dead earth would average about -18 C, or about 255 kelvin. If we attribute about 10 kelvin of warming to tidal forces, that means 245 kelvin is due to solar radiation. For ever 0.1% change in solar radiation, there is a 0.245 degree change, by those numbers.
Do you agree with the IPCC? How about this...
Page 108 of the IPCC (WG1 AR4) report:
Now if you think about it, I am rather conservative on my assessments. I use a 200 degree range rather than what is likely a 245 degree range for the 100% solar range of heat. I use 0.2% rather than the IPCC’s above assessment of 0.24% to 0.3%. Now consider if I want to be as extreme as alarmists are. I would claim the 0.3% increase and a 245 degree range for the global warming cause by increased solar irradiation to be 0.735 degrees!These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).
Lets assume my conservative 200 degree range and the lower value of 0.24. That would imply that 0.48 degrees of warming are directly solar related. I now have with rather high confidence, a range of 0.48 to 0.73 degrees of warming due to the sun.
How much is the warming claim? Around 0.7 degrees give or take a little. Right? 0.7 – 0.48 = 0.22 degrees left over for soot and CO2.
Here's something I found with a quick search related to solubility of CO2 in Sea Water:
The global ocean as a carbon sink - The effect of a warming climate
Here is a nice chart within the article:
Now notice it has values of carbonic acid in sea water related to temperature and salinity. Most of the ocean is at the colder range of freezing to 5 C. There is more that a 25% change in CO2 absorption over that 6 degrees. We can safely say 4% per degree, or about 1% per 1/4 degree. If we want to consider warmer ocean temperatures, fine. There is still an 18.8% increase in absorption from 10 C to 5 C, or about 1% per 1/3 degree minimum. I just want you to consider the magnitude of minor temperature changes in the ocean. How it relates to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle.
Really, just how should that equilibrium change atmospheric CO2 levels.
Again. Temperature drives CO2 changes. CO2 does not drive temperature.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 09:03 PM.
Wild Cobra FTW!
R&R...
Where are you?
Cant find anything to dispute me?
Wild Cobra is doing pretty well. The NASA hottest-year rebuttal is particularly concerning for someone that teaches the subject.
http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.co...on-record.html
- The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
- The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
- Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
- Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century.
The world should just forget about climate change, it is now purely political and everyone has an agenda, even supposed non-biased researchers and scientists. The wheels are in motion and nothing can be changed anyways.
Even if global warming was proven beyond a doubt, you think countries like China/India and places like the middle east and Africa are going to stop burning coal?They will use up every last ounce because of the economics of it. Nothing is going to change until the market makes scarce fossil fuels more expensive than renewables. And government intervention or socialism or whatever isn't going to change that. 3rd world countries don't have the money or the talent to build expensive nuclear reactors and solar farms. The people are too poor to tax and subsidize the energy.
What's the solution? Country to country welfare?
Funny. There were no reports of Al Gore being anywhere near the North Pole that day. The source of this blizzard, then, is a complete mystery to me.
Good post. Agree 100%. The agenda driving global-warming legislation is borne far more from political realities than from a concern about environmental, social, or quality-of-life issues. We'd be far better off letting markets handle the energy situation and focusing our attention on the real environmental issues (e.g., dirty air, dirty water, hunting & fishing).Wild Cobra is doing pretty well. The NASA hottest-year rebuttal is particularly concerning for someone that teaches the subject.
http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.co...on-record.html
- The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
- The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
- Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
- Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century.
The world should just forget about climate change, it is now purely political and everyone has an agenda, even supposed non-biased researchers and scientists. The wheels are in motion and nothing can be changed anyways.
Even if global warming was proven beyond a doubt, you think countries like China/India and places like the middle east and Africa are going to stop burning coal?
What's the solution? Country to country welfare?
I think he went back to school...
Well, here he was the expert on the subject, or so he said...
I want to know what's wrong with the solubility of CO2 in sea water and rates of ac ulation. Why is it that CO2 drives temperature rather than temperature driving CO2.
Does 1200 years sound about right to you for the preindustrialized levels of about 280 ppm to today's levels of just over 380, assuming ocean temperatures were static?
I know, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Yep, like I said earlier, those who know, do, those who don't, teach...I know, that's exactly what I was thinking.
I don't know about you, but I'm rather pissed at this dumbing down of America.
R&R...
Where are you?
Cant find anything to dispute me?
R&R...
Where are you?
Basically. This guy feels the same way. Climate change is a rich man's concern. Or the left's "War on Terror". In any event, it's amusing watching left wing nuts get all fundamentalist about it.Wild Cobra is doing pretty well. The NASA hottest-year rebuttal is particularly concerning for someone that teaches the subject.
http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.co...on-record.html
- The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
- The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
- Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
- Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century.
The world should just forget about climate change, it is now purely political and everyone has an agenda, even supposed non-biased researchers and scientists. The wheels are in motion and nothing can be changed anyways.
Even if global warming was proven beyond a doubt, you think countries like China/India and places like the middle east and Africa are going to stop burning coal?
What's the solution? Country to country welfare?
Maybe you'd be curious to out this thread:
Yes, Back to Global Warming
Some interesting articles I just read. Quotes are only part of the linked material:
American Meteorological Society Insults Members
19 Mar 09 - Professor emeritus William Gray is appalled at the American Meteorological Society's decision to honor James Hansen with its highest award - the Rossby Research Medal.
"I am appalled at this decision," says Gray, because of Hansen’s "long record of faulty global climate predictions" and "irresponsible alarmist rhetoric." "This award is an insult to the large number of AMS members who do not believe human activities are causing a significant amount of the global temperature increase."It’s the Sun, stupid!“Having little experience in practical meteorology, Hansen apparently does not realize the extraordinarily complex nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system cannot be accurately reproduced by numerical climate model predictions. Thus Hansen’s modeling efforts are badly flawed."
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist
5 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) "The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years."Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until, between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years."In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.
"The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole cir -Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
"There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
"I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.The Enemy within:"It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
"Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Controlling Carbon a Bureaucrat’s Dream
By Dr. Tim Ball
9 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) “In the battle for proper climate science free from politics there are two levels at which bureaucracy is a modern form of despotism. In most countries it is in departments of meteorology, weather, climate or environment. At the global level it is in the United Nations. Regardless of location it is essentially unaccountable and represents the enemy within.
“Instead of working for the people by being apolitical and identifying all sides of an issue so people and politicians can make informed decisions, they have pushed an unproven hypothesis and defended it in the face of contradictory evidence. As a result governments everywhere are introducing or entertaining completely wrong policies. …A perfect example of the pervasiveness of climate-based policy across all parts of a society is cap and trade in the Obama stimulus package and budget.
“Most of the 2500 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are bureaucrats appointed by their governments to push a political agenda. As MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, “It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.”Japanese Refute IPCC: Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life
25 Feb 09 – “Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been subs uted for truth,” says an article published today on Newsmax.
“Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.”Scientist forces Al Gore to back downThe global warming that occurred up until 2001 and the subsequent “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity,” the report concludes.
Congress told that Increase in CO2 will beThe slide has since disappeared from the show, reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
Good for Mankind
27 Feb 09 - Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer told a congressional committee hearing on Wednesday that global warming fears are "mistaken" and that the earth is currently in a "CO2 famine now" when you look at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through geological time.'Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period'"The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide."
"The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?"
says Dr. Jim Buckee, PhD Astrophysics
10 Feb 09 - Excerpts: "Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.
"During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a SkepticIn the lecture, Dr Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar activity is responsible for changes to the climate. He will say the climate of the past few hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age 10,000 years ago. During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity."
Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"
Another prominent scientist ridicules global warming theory28 Jan 09 - NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon explained.
All these and more links are found here:12 Jan 09 - Princeton University physics professor William Happer, director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, has put himself on the record dissenting on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories. He has asked to be added to a list of over 650 global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report.
Dr. Happer was fired from his government post by Al Gore, reportedly over his refusal to support Warmist doctrine. The Daily Princetonian reports some of the good professor's caustic comments:
Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Climatologists Who Disagree
R&R...
Where are you?
Does the truth scare you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
