Damn Climate Change

[Wild Cobra]

Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.

If you haven't read that yet, don't immediately discount it. I read the first part, and it looks sound to me so far.

[Wild Cobra]

Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....

My thought is that initial development of the earth simply had that much CO2. I never researched the concept, but some think that oxygen levels were far higher too. Otherwise it is difficult to have life forms as large as dinosaurs were. Think about it. Strength is affected by oxygen concentrations in the blood. You take any life form and scale it up, the result is not linear between weight and strength. That's why ants can carry 50 time or more their weight. Just doubling the size of something in three dimensions yields eight times the mass, but the two dimension cross section across muscles only yield four times the strength.

My personal untested belief is that we had far more land and much less ocean thise millions of years back. No huge ocean to absorb CO2 and Oxygen, nitrogen, is a wildcard. I hadn't considered it. Where did the ocean come from? Slowly over time, two thing happen, and contine to happen today. The orbit of the Earth crosses the path of comets that have left behind water from the sun's radiation. Also, we have Coronal Mass Ejections that add matter to the earth. Primarily hydrogen, which combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to make water. Who really knows how million of years of this has changed the earths properties.

Since we have no records from the past, we can really only make wild guesses. If we assume that temperature range from Sec24Row7's is accurate, then it should be noted that the earth has stayed within a specific range through volcanoes, and all other changes.

[Wild Cobra]

Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.

Well, yeah, but it's a well-respected guess...

If you haven't read that yet, don't immediately discount it. I read the first part, and it looks sound to me so far.

OK Yoni, I'm with you now. As I continues to read the numbers they apply to CO2 effects and addressed the obsolete 2001 IPCC report... Even the IPCC reports contradicts their own information from one year to the next.


Not that I disagree with the report just because it refers to the IPCC report, but the far reaching modeling of CO2 vs. temperature. This alone is reduced for projected effects in the later IPCC reports vs. the 2001 report.

Sorry Dan, not such a nice find after all. It read very good at the start, but started going into junk science

[Sec24Row7]

Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....

Actually Earth's initial atmosphere was more like that of Venus and Life has slowly been putting C02 away into CaCo3 (Calcite the main ingredient of Limestone) for a couple of billion years.

The main component of the earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen at about 78%...

This Nitrogen content used to be 2% back when the earth was first formed... and the amount of the Nitrogen in the atmosphere hasnt changed...

That's how much CO2 has been taken out since life began.

[spurster]

Antarctica is warming up, too.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...antarctic.html

The scientists estimate that atmospheric temperatures over Antarctica in the winter have risen by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius) in the last 30 years, and the change is due in large part to greenhouse gas emissions.

...

The study is detailed in the March 30 issue of Science.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cobra, you've brought up a number of discredited ideas used by "debunkers". I will point you towards the scientist's explanations tomorrow.

[Sec24Row7]

No one really ever wants to talk about my graph...

You can't deny that it has been warmer on average over the last few decades.

You can't deny it was getting cooler in the 40's.

There is just no pattern that follows CO2 levels.

Climate change is real.

To deny as much would be stupid. The graph shows as much.

Climate change just doesn't mean what scaremongers say it does.

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

I would bet against you.

[DarkReign]

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

Well, by 2 feet, I would certainly agree with you. But I was just reading Scientific American special edition on the concept of Time, and it said in an unrelated argument...

ONE YEAR
Earth makes one circuit around the sun and spins on its axis 365.26 times. The mean level of the oceans rises between one and 2.5 millimeters, and North America moves about three centimeters away from Europe. It takes 4.3 years for light from Proxima Centauri, the closest star, to reach Earth - approximately the same amount of time that ocean-surface currents take to cir navigate the globe.

[Sec24Row7]

Ocean levels have been rising since we have been warming out of the last ice age.

Go look at a map of what Florida looked like 15,000 years ago.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to recognize it.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/

There is a view of how much land mass Florida has lost due to rising sea levels about halfway down the page.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Re Wild Cobra:

Wild Cobra, you bring up many of the classic ‘debunker’ arguments found on junkscience.org and its ilk. Have you bothered to go to your local university and discuss them with the climatologists? Or to go to a site like Realclimate.org which is staffed by climatologists from universities across the world and offers excellent science communication explaining the phenomenon, and unmoderated discussion of articles if you have challenges or questions? I recommend you go here and do some reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2004/12/index/

The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.
Solar activity roughly correlated with changes in temperature between 1900 and 1950, no-one will argue that. In fact, why argue it? Most industrialization, and thus the significant increases in CO2 production, occurred post WW II, in fact from the early 1950s, so why don’t we look at what has happened 1950-today? Temperature has increased significantly while solar activity has remained static and certainly HAS NOT followed the recent temperature trend. Here’s a lovely graph illustrating all of that…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Here’s an article about solar forcing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...solar-forcing/


CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.
Here I refer you to realclimate. Read the explanation and tell me where they are wrong:
2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/
2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/


That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.
Need more detail for that one – what equilibrium, ocean-atmos exchange in CO2? Per degree of atmospheric or oceanic temp change? Never heard that one before.
Link to a primary source please.

The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures.
Classic Singer and Avery.
You mean the cycles that seem to appear in the last ice age but don’t appear in the current interglacial? Yeah, very relevant.
Here is a climatology department who focus on this question but say nothing about it debunking anthropo climate change theory:

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...ngeEvents.html


Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.
Never heard of that one. Are you saying that those isotopes are flung at the earth in cosmic rays and higher concentrations correspond with warming events? I call bull . Show me a paper.

The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.
So what are you bringing into question – the paleoclimatic record?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oncentrations/


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...ument-part-ii/


That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.
Please specifiy which IPCC report has falsified data and link me to it.

Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.
Ah, 0.6C GLOBAL AVERAGE warming is not “almost no increase”.


There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.
So, because the few ‘debunkers’ out there who make all the noise (Avery, Singer, and the like, men who defended tobacco companies against the link between smoking and cancer, the worst kind of hired guns), most of whom aren’t even climatologists, say things that agree with your frame, everyone else is an alarmist, including literally thousands of scientists in various fields across the planet? Um, okay…

As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?
Let’s compare motives, shall we. Scientists are often paid well below what they could earn if they were working in business at the same level, and world-wide, research grants amount to what, $50bil.
Fossil fuels are worth TRILLIONS of dollars a year, maybe even tens of trillions.
Who has the greater incentive again?

If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?

In the stuff I’ve read, yes, yes, yes and yes. I’m not sure what you’re reading.
(Here's where you get really stupid with that last question - yeah, scientists don't know about the global carbon cycle... )

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

They're liars and/or fools. Lying fools or foolish liars.

Yup, and you, Yonivore, with your multiple PhDs in climatology and paleoclimatology know so much more.

You are truly deluded.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No one really ever wants to talk about my graph...

You can't deny that it has been warmer on average over the last few decades.

You can't deny it was getting cooler in the 40's.

There is just no pattern that follows CO2 levels.

Climate change is real.

To deny as much would be stupid. The graph shows as much.

Climate change just doesn't mean what scaremongers say it does.

If you are looking for the Oceans to rise 2 feet in your lifetime, good luck.

I would bet against you.

That's because a graph like that is essentially meaningless - you have to look much closer at all sorts of detail to understand what was going on.

Everything from sulphate and other aerosol concentration to the albedo of the planet, concentrations of other GHGs, local climatic effects (remember that the continents haven't look like this very long, etc.) could all be playing a part in the observed cycles. I'd suggest you have to dig down into the literature a bit more and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations for your graph.

Paleoclimatology - why don't you take the graph and questions to your local university with a paleoclimatology department and ask them?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

If you really want to understand AGW from all sides, go to the realclimate.org index page and start reading. Anything you don't agree with you can argue with them in detail and it will appear below the article. Cobra, I challenge you to do exactly that and link me to their answers when you're done, although most of what you have listed on the last page has already been addressed by them many times over.

I link to realclimate because they are climatologists and paleoclimatologists from scattered ins utions across the world and willing to reply to any question. You could do the same by going to any uni with a climatology department and posing the professors some questions. They will answer you, and show you the primary paper/s on which the answer relies, which you can then read yourself.

I was pretty convinced by the junkscience arguments until I looked at the realsauce.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why we make such elaborate arguments to avoid changing our wasteful and damaging behaviour as societies is beyond me. Waste is inefficiency in economic terms, and lowering waste has been shown to increase productivity in many contexts. We have all been spoiled by the best living standards in history, at least in the developed economies (lucky us!).

We haven't even talked about resource depletion yet. If I were you guys, and I'm gonna guess that you have energy portfolios in your investments, and what a good move that is, much money to be made there (not being sarcastic - energy is a great investment because without it we have no civilisation), I wouldn't worry about the coal and oil that is left going unused. The world is on an upward and increasing fossil fuel teat, no sign of change there at all. In fact, I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT! If I didn't think human activity was driving climate change I would sleep a lot better at night, and waste more of everything and never worry about it. That's how I used to live until I started reading about global change issues 10 years ago.

So, a separate question is what happens when the coal and oil is gone? How are you going to replace all that fossil fuel-driven infrastructure we rely on with infrastructure that runs on other energy sources if we don't start doing it now? We're talking about a massive undertaking in terms of sheer volume of equipment and the resources (human, financial, natural) to construct it.

We really should be discussing global change, which encompasses climate, limited fresh water resources, deforestation, desertification, topsoil degredation, watertable salinity, disappearing oceanic fisheries, ecosystem collapses (due to any or all of the above), etc.

Ray stated the other day that:

[quote=xrayzebra]"We are but a pimple in time. You and people like you give us too much credit. We couldn't destroy earth if we set off every atomic weapon that exist this day and time. Mankind maybe but not earth. I am not even sure that we could kill off all of mankind. " [/xrayzebra]

I then went on to list all of the things we do that have changed and are constantly changing the planet, especially with 6.6bil people and climbing (in 1900 there were 1.5bil using a small fraction of the energy/water/other resources we use today per capita, 1800 less than 1 billion). GLOBAL CHANGE on all levels is the concern - how are all of these processes interacting with each other to jeopardise the special conditions that gave rise to the current spate of human civilisations (since about 4000BC)?

You simply cannot pump massive quan ies of energy through a system, which is what we humans have been doing in the post-industrial age, and not expect the system to change - it will, a basic understanding of equilibrium states tells you that.

Ray also completely misses the point - I am NOT afraid for the Earth. As long as we don't "set off every atomic weapon that exist this day and time", which surely would destroy the biosphere through radiation-induced mutation and the toxicity of plutonium (a few things might survive the radiation, like the roach, but not too much is going to outlast the double whammy of plutonium toxicity), I know the earth will continue to be here until the Sun explodes. No, I'm concerned about us, you and me and our descendants, and their descendants, OUR CIVILISATION. In so many ways I respect and admire what humans have created, but in overloading our environment, exceeding it's carrying capacity and pushing it's resilience thresholds*, we're dicing with our own downfall. The ultimate irony, with some small lifestyle changes and investment in sustainability, we could achieve a long-term sustainable economy on this planet. Right now we're spending the rent money in front of the landlord while poking him with a stick. Not a wise policy.

*in many complex global systems like climate, we're not sure where the tipping points lie, so rapidly and blindly altering things like atmospheric CO2 concentration is akin to running around next to a cliff in the dark.

[Sec24Row7]

That's because a graph like that is essentially meaningless - you have to look much closer at all sorts of detail to understand what was going on.

Everything from sulphate and other aerosol concentration to the albedo of the planet, concentrations of other GHGs, local climatic effects (remember that the continents haven't look like this very long, etc.) could all be playing a part in the observed cycles. I'd suggest you have to dig down into the literature a bit more and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations for your graph.

Paleoclimatology - why don't you take the graph and questions to your local university with a paleoclimatology department and ask them?

I spent 5 years in the halls of two universities talking to people that taught paleoclimatology.

I have a BS in Geology.

You know what answers they have for it? The ones that believe in man driven global warming bull have the same as the one you have. There MUST be a reason it was cold because the MODELS say CO2 causes warming.

The other ones, like me don't believe in this bull .

Look at the Graph again... it tells you more than just the world was in an ice age with 4500 PPM CO2.

It tells you that for 450 million years the earth's temperature has alternated within a few degrees of Colder and Warmer times to RELATIVELY THE SAME TEMPERATURE AFTER EACH ALTERNATION through ALL KINDS OF VARIATION OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. What causes the earth to go back to these relative base levels in temperature?

It certainly isn't changes in CO2. CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 450 million years has NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER TO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Just look at it.

[Wild Cobra]

Re Wild Cobra:

Wild Cobra, you bring up many of the classic ‘debunker’ arguments found on junkscience.org and its ilk. Have you bothered to go to your local university and discuss them with the climatologists? Or to go to a site like Realclimate.org which is staffed by climatologists from universities across the world and offers excellent science communication explaining the phenomenon, and unmoderated discussion of articles if you have challenges or questions? I recommend you go here and do some reading:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2004/12/index/

There is no junk in my remarks. I have heard discussions with several criminologists. Not all are in league with the alarmists.

The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.
Solar activity roughly correlated with changes in temperature between 1900 and 1950, no-one will argue that. In fact, why argue it? Most industrialization, and thus the significant increases in CO2 production, occurred post WW II, in fact from the early 1950s, so why don’t we look at what has happened 1950-today? Temperature has increased significantly while solar activity has remained static and certainly HAS NOT followed the recent temperature trend. Here’s a lovely graph illustrating all of that…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Coincidence between CO2 and warming. Like you tell others, you have to take all things into consideration. Real math shows a direct relationship between solar power hitting the earth and warming it. This is very sound theory, not modeled guesses. Why do you stoop so low as to bring CO2 into that part of the discussion, deflecting the impact of the sun with such nonsense?

Here’s an article about solar forcing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...solar-forcing/


CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.
Here I refer you to realclimate. Read the explanation and tell me where they are wrong:
2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/
2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

Believe it or not, I have read these Real Climate articles, and several others in the past. They blindly believing in CO2 causing warming. What they do not acknowledge is that 800 year average is determined by using a scatter plot of CO2 vs. temperature of all the data over the last several hundred thousand years. This creates a hysteresis curve. When time is adjusted by the 800 years, the hysteresis curve is the flattest. Not just from any one period that looks convenient to use, but for the entire history of the ice cores!

That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.
Need more detail for that one – what equilibrium, ocean-atmos exchange in CO2? Per degree of atmospheric or oceanic temp change? Never heard that one before.
Link to a primary source please.

I lost the link to that one. The change is 28 ppm of atmospheric concentration for ever degree C of ocean change. It's not linear, but close for short data points. 28 ppm can optimized linear with normal temperatures we see without being significantly off.

Think about the simple chemistry of it. As water gets colder, it can absorb more gasses. This equilibrium is near linear to temperature, concentration, and pressure. At current climate average ocean temperature and CO2 concentration, 28 ppm is a real number. Some research uses other numbers so I will be flexible on it. Any real scientist will agree that temperature has an effect of gas concentrations in water.

If I was only focusing on this response, I could probably find a link. However, this is a big posting to rebuttal.

Q) Think about this. Why does a cold beer of soda do fine when you open it, but foams when it is opened when warm?

A) The CO2 is near or beyond saturation when warm!

If you look up CO2 in Wiki, you will see that it has a solubility in water of 1.45 kg per meter cubed. At 373 ppm (0.0373%), that volume of water absorbs about 0.054 kg. Salt and other factors change this, but think about that. 54 grams of CO2 is a rather large amount of gas.

The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures.
Classic Singer and Avery.
You mean the cycles that seem to appear in the last ice age but don’t appear in the current interglacial? Yeah, very relevant.
Here is a climatology department who focus on this question but say nothing about it debunking anthropo climate change theory:

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...ngeEvents.html

No. Your link is a poor example. Why don't they show data from the 10,000 years to present? Could it show an inconvenient truth? Look at this graph:



Note the red temperature line going up and down several times during the last approximate 10,000 years that your graph doesn't show. Note also that once the CO2 reached about 240 ppm, the temperature is no longer climbing with it? If CO2 had a direct effect of temperature, shouldn't we be at least off the temperature scale at maybe +3 or +4 degrees?

I did not make claim to the cause of the cycle, just that it exists.

Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.
Never heard of that one. Are you saying that those isotopes are flung at the earth in cosmic rays and higher concentrations correspond with warming events? I call bull . Show me a paper.

I don't need a paper, my God, why do you? Don't you know these basic sciences? Don't you have a spool of toilet paper with you? Damn college educated assholes. Need everything in black and white.

Consider simple known physics. The radiation bombardment of the sun changes the nucleus of atoms. Nitrogen is changed to C14 by changing a proton to a neutron. Similar things naturally occur in nature with almost all molecules. Scientists know this as fact. Are you telling me your climatologist friends don't know about how these isotopes relate to global warming proxies? The greater the radiation, the greater numbers of molecules changing in a given volume. This is how solar intensities can be tracked over time that we have no other means to measure.

How about some simple wiki links:

Berylium 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 ac ulates 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.

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 al udes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 feet) and at high geomagnetic la udes, 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

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.

You claim to know so much, but apparently completely ignorant to this?

The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.
So what are you bringing into question – the paleoclimatic record?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oncentrations/

Yes and no. The general trend is correct. The accuracy starts coming into question with the depth of the ice core. CO2 for example at room temperature changed to a liquid at about 800 PSI I don't remember the exact pressure, that's what My CO2 tanks for kegs are at if my recall is correct.

What happens is that the CO2 is squeezed to a liquid form and the bubbles are no longer present as time and pressure reshapes the deep ice samples. They do what they can not to lose the samples accuracy, but some is lost. When the cores are brought to 1 ATM, the ice cracks and gas is lost. That goes for most the gasses in the samples. Methane is also affected this way and relied upon for historical dating. We can only guess how much is lost from the pressurized depths to the surface.

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...ument-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 climatoligists 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.

Like I said, insignificant.

That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.
Please specifiy which IPCC report has falsified data and link me to it.

I have it on my computer, but forget the filename and location. In the latest IPCC report, they have a similar error to wiki:

Wiki: Greenhouse Gasses

Here they show two 1998 CO2 at 365 ppm and a radiative forcing of 1.46 watts. They also show 2007 at 383 ppm and 1.532 watts. A perfect linear relationship, to three significant digits.

You and I agree it's not linear, right?

Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.
Ah, 0.6C GLOBAL AVERAGE warming is not “almost no increase”.

I don't recall the data, but it's no where near 0.6 C. Your 0.6 C is land based sites, right? The ones that the urban areas grew into?

There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.
So, because the few ‘debunkers’ out there who make all the noise (Avery, Singer, and the like, men who defended tobacco companies against the link between smoking and cancer, the worst kind of hired guns), most of whom aren’t even climatologists, say things that agree with your frame, everyone else is an alarmist, including literally thousands of scientists in various fields across the planet? Um, okay…

Your comparison makes you look ignorant. What is the correlation between the two? Are you saying the deniers are liars? I see the alarmists more like ancient sailors who with consensus, thought if they sailed to far, would fall of the edge of the earth. The few who denied that idea turned out to be right! Those who say consensus in science is fact, should loose their credentials.

Very few climatologist are willing to speak out against the fascism involved with the alarmists and the PC crowd supporting them. I say fascism because those who speak out often lose their positions! The PC crowd silences them with lies and loss of jobs. We used to have a climatologist in Oregon. The governor took his position away because he was a denier. Complete loss of wages is a pretty good incentive to keep your mouth shut.

As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?
Let’s compare motives, shall we. Scientists are often paid well below what they could earn if they were working in business at the same level, and world-wide, research grants amount to what, $50bil.
Fossil fuels are worth TRILLIONS of dollars a year, maybe even tens of trillions.
Who has the greater incentive again?

So you automatically take the money and corporate evil position. You know, statistics don't make facts. Facts are part of statistics however. Unless that statistic is 100%, then you are blowing it out your ass.

If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?

In the stuff I’ve read, yes, yes, yes and yes. I’m not sure what you’re reading.
(Here's where you get really stupid with that last question - yeah, scientists don't know about the global carbon cycle... )

That's right, put words in my mouth.

I didn't claim they didn't know. I claim they don't mention the inconvenient truth.

[Wild Cobra]

If you really want to understand AGW from all sides, go to the realclimate.org index page and start reading. Anything you don't agree with you can argue with them in detail and it will appear below the article. Cobra, I challenge you to do exactly that and link me to their answers when you're done, although most of what you have listed on the last page has already been addressed by them many times over.

I have already read most of the articles at that site in the past when I was learnig what I can about global warming.

Nothing new to me.

As for addressing the points I make...

They make excuses. No sound disputes.

[xrayzebra]

Now RNR understands that some folks can put the facts back
into his face. Thanks WC. RNR lacks one great feature. Common
sense. I have accused him of this fact several times and he
insist that mankind is the root of all the troubles of the earth.
Common sense tells me that you can ruin the immediate area for
short periods of time, but if those areas are left alone, Mother
Nature will reclaim the area in time. Like you know some of
the ancient cities of lost worlds. I believe this is what is
happening in Chernobyl at this time. Letting nature take it's
course. His only thought is that man wants to destroy. Wants
to have dirty water. Wants to have dirty water. Man doesn't
want these things. And they most certainly don't want to
destroy their chance of survival on this planet.
People like RNR have politicized this and demanded that man
will change their way of life or perish.

And RNR forgets one very important point. Science is not
infallible. Theories are changed as often as a pair of sox. The
only stable facts are those of physics, as far as I know. All
other facts spewed out are educated guesses. And the old
adage, garbage in garbage out is pertent term, in my opinion.

[Wild Cobra]

Now RNR understands that some folks can put the facts back
into his face. Thanks WC. RNR lacks one great feature. Common
sense.

You're welcome.

He definitely misunderestimates people. He took the approach I was repeating propaganda, when I really understand the science behind it. I lack much of the terminology, but I do understand physics, chemistry, etc. I don't think he understands it as well as I do, or at least not as many aspects of it.

[Wild Cobra]

I wish I could find the file that had the IPCC decrepencies. The material is huge, too much for me to filter in a short time and find it.

You can get the IPCC report here:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report

It takes up more than 200 megabytes. The supplement to chapter 8 is more than 40 MB by it self. Individual maps for chapter 10 are located here:

Individual model figures for multi-model means shown in Section 10.3

[Wild Cobra]

More on the atmospheric saturation of heat trapping.

Please note that in the Real Climate link describing the spectral data, 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:



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:



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

[xrayzebra]

Still waiting on RNR persuasive argument. By the way did
anyone, besides me, watch the History channel last night. They
had a program on about the possibility of an ice age. And talked
about the little ice age and their supposition on how history was
changed because of climate change. It was interesting. Sure
RNR would not have liked it, no graphs or peer review.

[Wild Cobra]

Still waiting on RNR persuasive argument. By the way did
anyone, besides me, watch the History channel last night. They
had a program on about the possibility of an ice age. And talked
about the little ice age and their supposition on how history was
changed because of climate change. It was interesting. Sure
RNR would not have liked it, no graphs or peer review.

I saw a brief part of it near the end, but moved on to a watching a movie. It did however prompt me to find the data on the link I started:

It’s the Sun Dammit

The suns intensity could decrease to it's lowest output in about 200 years. Maybe we'll be able to relive Washington traversing an icy Delaware river?

[xrayzebra]

I saw a brief part of it near the end, but moved on to a watching a movie. It did however prompt me to find the data on the link I started:

It’s the Sun Dammit

The suns intensity could decrease to it's lowest output in about 200 years. Maybe we'll be able to relive Washington traversing an icy Delaware river?

WC, I have to wonder. What if! The world is really
cooling? How are these folks going to portray that?
What kind of tax will they come up with to "offset"
the cooling. How did mankind cause it? How should
developing countries be helped? You got to wonder.
At least I do.

[xrayzebra]

One other aspect to the flooding in England. The lay blame on
global warming. See the following story.

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
'Early Show' Blames British Flooding on Global Warming
By Justin McCarthy
Created 2007-07-26 09:57

With any weather related disaster, the mainstream media typically blames it on "global warming." This was no exception on the July 26 edition of "The Early Show." Upon reporting on the flooding in Britain, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer concluded her report blaming the disaster on global warming and predicting more to come.

"But most people think that with climate change, flooding like this, or even worse, could become common place here in Britain."

As if floods did not occur before the industrial age. CBS followed NBC's "Today" as correspondent Keith Miller blamed [0] the disaster on "global warming."
Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-...global-warming

========================================


But then again, you have some responsible reporting. Like the
sky isn't falling and this isn't the only time this has happened.

Times Online



From The Times
July 23, 2007
Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country
Paul Simons

What on earth is going on with our weather? Three months’ worth of rain fell in a few places last week, Britain is drowning under floods of biblical proportions and nothing like it has been seen since Noah got his sea legs. In a wave of hysteria, the cry goes out for millions of sandbags, better drains and more flood defences. And fingers of blame are pointing at global warming.

But a simple fact has been overlooked: Britain is a wet country. Yes, it comes as a shock. Over the past few years we’ve become so used to years of scorching, Mediterranean-like summers, when hosepipe bans were the norm, vines were bursting with vintage grapes and water diviners were doing big business. But the truth is that our summers are supposed to be wet: it’s our climate.

The accoutrements of the British summer holiday were thick pullovers and waterproofs. You expected to shiver on wet promenades, “Rain stopped play” was the national mantra and sunblock cream was something for film stars and models. That is why the August Bank Holiday was shunted to the end of the month, because the beginning of August was so awful.

Of course, British summers weren’t always as wet as this year’s, but some were certainly worse. 1912 was the wettest and dullest summer on record, far ahead of this summer’s downpours. It pretty much rained all summer, reaching a peak in late August, when a seven-inch downpour in one day in Norfolk left Norwich completely marooned in a sea of mud and devastation. Even that deluge is overshadowed by the 11 inches of rain that fell in less than a day on Dorset in July 1955 – about half of London’s yearly average rainfall. The longest nonstop rainfall record in the UK was more than 58 hours in London during June 1903, in a summer when there was an epidemic of lung disease in farmworkers caused by mouldy hay and grain.

Farther back still were the sodden summers of 1845 to 1850, when jungle-like humidity and relentless rains triggered the potato blight outbreak that led to the great Irish potato famine, in which a million people died and another million emigrated from Ireland.

Rain is only the half of it. The abysmal summer of 1956 was an assault course of monsoonal rains, big floods, giant hail, houses set ablaze by lightning, howling gales and miserable cold. Just to rub it in, August was one of the coldest and wettest on record across Britain.

It is a very human tendency to blame someone for the vagaries of the weather. A run of bad summers in the 1950s was blamed on nuclear bomb tests, the rains during the First World War were blamed on artillery going off on the Western Front and two centuries ago it was the battles of the Napoleonic Wars that were blamed for upsetting nature. And now it’s global warming.

But climate change was supposed to be making our summers drier, not wetter. Leaving that aside, even if we accept that the recent downpours are a sign of global warming, then a single wet summer hardly adds up to any particular trend. No, it’s far more plausible to explain this latest wet spell as a natural blip in the climate.

If so, then which politician or minister is going to have the courage to propose spending billions of pounds on building new river walls, embankments, ditches and other flood defences? How will we feel about spending large sums of money on such big projects when next year may bring another drought – and the inevitable demands for more reservoirs, leak-proof pipes and desalination plants?

And let’s not forget that an even greater threat comes from the sea. A recent study reveals that London and the Thames Estuary is subsiding faster than anyone had estimated; and with sea levels rising relentlessly, the Thames Barrier is looking increasingly vulnerable. We need to fix that problem before London disappears under a storm surge like New Orleans.

The hysteria over this summer reveals more about our education. The daily forecasts and news reports are all facts and no explanation about why the weather is behaving the way it is. The explanation for the past few days of drama is that Britain lies in a part of the world that is finely balanced between wet and dry, warm and cold weather. The dividing line is the jet stream, a river of wind rushing overhead a few miles high. This summer the jet stream has been very sluggish and buckled into big loops, leaving Britain drenched on the wet side of one of those loops. However, on the other side of the jet stream large parts of Europe are roasting in a ferocious heatwave that has killed dozens of people and brought wildfires blazing across Greece.

This European split has happened before. In the summer of 2002, a large swath of Central Europe was battered by rains that set off huge floods along the Elbe and Danube, drowning more than 100 people.

But there is another story about this summer that has gone virtually unnoticed. Despite all the gloom and doom, temperatures are fairly normal for the time of year. In days gone by, a wet summer would invariably be cold, even with snow in July and frost in August.

The prize for the most diabolical summer of rain and cold should be awarded to that of 1816. Not for nothing was it called “the year without summer” – this time of great storms, massive rains and appalling cold led to the crops rotting, the price of bread soaring and food riots breaking out. Some 200,000 people died of famine across Europe, which was then followed by a typhus epidemic.

So, let’s look on the bright side. At least we haven’t got any hosepipe bans – and the reservoirs are full.

========================================

Now I know I haven't got any great graphs or learned,
peer reviewed reports RNR so loves. All I have a news report
from soneone who obviously did his homework. Wouldn't it
be nice if we had more folks like this reporter.

That's okay, you can thank me later....