Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts.. And yet the first paragraph of his reference reads.. And yet the reference shows a definite lack of consensus among some scientists, i'e,' conjecture about the suns influence? You proved my point that there is no real consensus in the scientific community.

Define real consensus.
At any rate, the second article I cited talks about a paper published 2 years later which is rather more conclusive.
Note though, it is by no means absolute and I don't claim otherwise but this is what the data tell us and that's all we can conclude for now.

Quote by: xyzer And you didn't show whether the suns influence was used in the IPCC data and resultant report?

I knew you had no idea what the IPCC report was about. The IPCC is about reviewing all the studies carried out around the world by climatologists, therefore, the scientific papers are cited will have been taken into account.

Quote by: xyzer I asked you to point it out as a factor in the models you so implicitly trust. Talk about substance? Where is it? As usual you are sidestepping the issue?

You made the accusation, you must prove it first. Seems like you can't debate properly at all.

Quote by: xyzer Facts about incoming solar/cosmic particles.. 14% absorbed by earths atmosphere 7% reflected by earths atmosphere 24% reflected by clouds 4% reflected by oceans and land 51% absorbed by earths surface. Heat is a climate maker! Content of earths atmosphere: 78% Nitrogen 21% Oxygen 0.93% Argon less than .07% C02. Human caused contribution less than that. Some smaller part of that .07% Is it logical to say that by us changing our consumption of fossil fuels by some small amount that we will in effect place less of a block on the reflection of the suns heat back into space? And cause the earth to become warmer? Even the IPCC people stated that even if we could change CO2 levels it would take a couple of centuries to see any effects?

You're assuming that because CO2 is in relatively low concentrations, it is insignificant in terms of thermal absorbance. Or rather, you want to play this meaningless numbers game. If it were that simple to model climate then we wouldn't be having this debate.
Furthermore, if you're willing to accept what the IPCC says about continued warming, then surely you should agree that we need to be more proactive about reducing emissions and find ways to remove it from the atmosphere?

[xyzer]

You're assuming that because CO2 is in relatively low concentrations, it is insignificant in terms of thermal absorbance.

I would posit that as a logical assumption. When I consider the economic impacts of such efforts to reduce emissions which contribute some small fraction of less than 1% of the earths atmosphere, I shudder at the unreal logic involved.

I've repeatedly asked for, and I'm waiting for answers confirming certainty in your doomsday scenario posts.. You continually place implicit trust in studies that admittedly did not include all the factors in climate change and have used skewed and flawed facts upon which to draw uncertain conclusions. Conclusions using the words, "could, may, if".. IMO.pretty uncertain reasons to expend resources and reduce standards of living trying to conjure up improbable scientifically challenged actions?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I would posit that as a logical assumption. When I consider the economic impacts of such efforts to reduce emissions which contribute some small fraction of less than 1% of the earths atmosphere, I shudder at the unreal logic involved.

That doesn't mean much, it's a complete misconception that just because it's at relatively small concentrations that will it have negligible effect thermal absorption.

Quote by: xyzer I've repeatedly asked for, and I'm waiting for answers confirming certainty in your doomsday scenario posts.. You continually place implicit trust in studies that admittedly did not include all the factors in climate change and have used skewed and flawed facts upon which to draw uncertain conclusions.

No, it is you who have cited arguments that use flawed and skewed data. Time and time again I have rebutted your pathetic attempts at trying to attacking the IPCC reports using old myths.

Quote by: xyzer Conclusions using the words, "could, may, if".. IMO.pretty uncertain reasons to expend resources and reduce standards of living trying to conjure up improbable scientifically challenged actions?

I have repeated many times, stop playing the semantics game. You wonder why I question your credentials? Because you seem to have trouble understanding scientific language. I've explained to you before, over and over but it's never quite got through that thick skull has it? I'll repeat myself, again; All scientific reports are given in terms of probabilities of certainties and always with cautious language. Nothing, short of the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute in science so please, try again.

[xyzer]

All scientific reports are given in terms of probabilities of certainties and always with cautious language. Nothing, short of the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute in science so please, try again.

Again you make my point! Is it prudent to curtail economic activity and our current standard of living by trying to change something that we are not certain needs changing? Not even certain we can change?
No Pooey, I think you are a proponent of tilting with windmills?

I'm still wondering, if increased CO2 levels will trap heat radiating out(the global warming theory) , wont they also trap heat coming in? If so it might get cooler as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere?

[deepk]

Well Carbon trading as it s is called is not going to reduce the CO2 effect on the pollution induced global warming. It is a technique where the polluters are being made to pay something extra for their deeds to the non-polluting. How thats going to reduce global warming? Can some one explain this to me.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Again you make my point! Is it prudent to curtail economic activity and our current standard of living by trying to change something that we are not certain needs changing? Not even certain we can change?

How does it make your point? If what you're saying is true then we can NEVER make economic decisions based on science due to the inherent falsifiable system (as in, it is always testable) it is built on. It's absurd and you know that yet you insist on pushing this point.

Quote by: xyzer No Pooey, I think you are a proponent of tilting with windmills? I'm still wondering, if increased CO2 levels will trap heat radiating out(the global warming theory) , wont they also trap heat coming in? If so it might get cooler as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere?

Xyzer, your last sentence has just put you into the realm of madness. Although, if you can show me a scientific paper that says otherwise, I might be less inclined to think that you've got complete bonkers.

[Sugar]

Quote by: xyzer I'm still wondering, if increased CO2 levels will trap heat radiating out(the global warming theory) , wont they also trap heat coming in? If so it might get cooler as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere?

What makes you wonder so much without any scientific reasonings. Can you further explain your thoughts?
:eek:

[xyzer]

What makes you wonder so much without any scientific reasonings. Can you further explain your thoughts?

What is scientific reasoning Sugar? Does it include certainty? Do scientific hypotheses include all influencing factors or just those selected as possibly relating to the hypothesis? Were all the factors influencing climate included in the hypothesis that CO2 might influence global temperatures? Are scientific conclusions stated in certainty? Or do they contain qualifiers like, "if, could, might"?
More importantly should we exclude logic in our appraisal of so called scientific conclusions derived from computer iterations which admittedly do not contain all pertinent factors?
I dunno? I don't, but feel free to brelieve what you want.

Notice when I queried pooey about the possible reverse effect of CO2..i'e' if it works to block heat radiating back into space will it also block cosmic heat rays entering our atmosphere? A logical question which pooey avoids? His reply...

your last sentence has just put you into the realm of madness

This shows a real respect for logical analysis does it not. Blind belief in uncertainty is nonsense!

[nmspl]

Carbon trading is yet another method adopted by the rich to make fools out of the poor. Instead of reducing their carbon related emission they aim to continue with the emission just be paying the nonpolluting poor asking to keep their mouths shut.

[xyzer]

Carbon trading is yet another method adopted by the rich to make fools out of the poor. Instead of reducing their carbon related emission they aim to continue with the emission just be paying the nonpolluting poor asking to keep their mouths shut.

Yay Verily! nmspi.

It's another 'feel good' scam to excuse the heavy carbon use by charlatans like Gore, and of course a hyocritical attempt to cover ones tracks by citing carbon offsets as comparable to heavy use of energy? ergo, plant 25 trees on your estate and that(AT SOME TIME IN THE FURURE WILL BALANCE YOUR RECKLESS USE OF ENERGY OVER THE INTERVENING YEARS?) Some logic isn't it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Notice when I queried pooey about the possible reverse effect of CO2..i'e' if it works to block heat radiating back into space will it also block cosmic heat rays entering our atmosphere? A logical question which pooey avoids? His reply... This shows a real respect for logical analysis does it not. Blind belief in uncertainty is nonsense!

Hey, if you have the data to support your conjectures, I'd be more than happy to look at it.

[Boetie]

I've noticed the global warming. According to global warming winter will arrive later in the season and stay later than usual.

In my region winter used to start right at the beginning of November. Our local television, radio stations, and businessess used to have guess the first snowfall contest in November when I was a kid.

Today it's like fall all the way until January. Nobody is kidding anyone one here. Having fall weather up until January is just to plain weird. It's not normal. And this started happening just two years ago. We had record breaking warm weather in November and December.

Global Warming is the only explanation for this.

[xyzer]

Global Warming is the only explanation for this.

Surely you jest? How about climate change?:It includes historic evidence of climate change over the eons.
e.g.,There was a colder cycle in the 1960s/70s that resulted in forecasts of global cooling...but it changed as the weather does and of course the climate changed too.
The Vikings(Norwegians settled and farmed Greenland a thousand years ago. Any farming settlements there today? Must be cooler now than it was then...and there is more of that man made warming CO2 around today than there was when sails were the main propulsion and factories non existent.
Boetie..you have to take the wild claims of the IPCC and other agenda driven(even financial profit driven) sources with a grain of salt!. It is overblown crap that discounts reality and past climate changes .
There is lots of evidence and expert opinion that overrides their nonsense. And there is lots of actual evidence(not just hypothetical assertions cloaked a scientific fact) that the climate has changed by natural rather than human interference.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Surely you jest? How about climate change?:It includes historic evidence of climate change over the eons. e.g.,There was a colder cycle in the 1960s/70s that resulted in forecasts of global cooling...but it changed as the weather does and of course the climate changed too. The Vikings(Norwegians settled and farmed Greenland a thousand years ago. Any farming settlements there today? Must be cooler now than it was then...and there is more of that man made warming CO2 around today than there was when sails were the main propulsion and factories non existent. Boetie..you have to take the wild claims of the IPCC and other agenda driven(even financial profit driven) sources with a grain of salt!. It is overblown crap that discounts reality and past climate changes . There is lots of evidence and expert opinion that overrides their nonsense. And there is lots of actual evidence(not just hypothetical assertions cloaked a scientific fact) that the climate has changed by natural rather than human interference.

I've already debunked those myths in this exact thread.
Myth number 1, Global cooling
Myth number 2, Medieval warm period

Bring a shovel next time you post on this thread.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

We have the technology to tackle global warming, scientists say

We have the technology to tackle global warming, scientists say-News-World-TimesOnline

The nuclear industry will undoubtedly have a wonderful upsurge. now watch those bastard NIMBY's come out of the woodwork

[5010]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel The nuclear industry will undoubtedly have a wonderful upsurge. now watch those bastard NIMBY's come out of the woodwork

Nor in the backyards of nations that harbor terrorists

[Sugar]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel We have the technology to tackle global warming, scientists say-News-World-TimesOnline The nuclear industry will undoubtedly have a wonderful upsurge. now watch those bastard NIMBY's come out of the woodwork

Global warming may be reduced by use of Nuclear power but the hazards of nuclear power are more than the benefits which can be derived out it.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Sugar Global warming may be reduced by use of Nuclear power but the hazards of nuclear power are more than the benefits which can be derived out it.

Oh really? Explain to me how. People only seem to dwell on the unfortunate meltdown accidents (Chernobyl for example), but the technology today is as safe as it gets. I'm a firm believer that Nuclear fission should be used to tide us over till Fusion is available to take over.

[xyzer]

Agree pooey! If we want to reduce pollution nuclear power is a safe efficient and cleaner way to produce energy. There are other alternatives that should be considered. Clean burning coal technology used to consume the vast amount of coal available in this country. Hydrogen technologyy should be developed. All it adds to the environment is water.

But thats to reduce pollution and I'm not convinced that CO2 is the prime agent in global warming? Even the two alleged myths you posted refute your claims of certainty about the reason for the latest warming.
.
From your sources..

Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between.

Hmm? There are periodic changes.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

In the long term our progeny face cooling?

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now

Does this suggest that there is not any scientific certainty and as stated even so there was a clear consensus that future climate change could niot be predicted?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Agree pooey! If we want to reduce pollution nuclear power is a safe efficient and cleaner way to produce energy. There are other alternatives that should be considered. Clean burning coal technology used to consume the vast amount of coal available in this country. Hydrogen technologyy should be developed. All it adds to the environment is water. But thats to reduce pollution and I'm not convinced that CO2 is the prime agent in global warming? Even the two alleged myths you posted refute your claims of certainty about the reason for the latest warming. From your sources.. Hmm? There are periodic changes. In the long term our progeny face cooling? Does this suggest that there is not any scientific certainty and as stated even so there was a clear consensus that future climate change could niot be predicted?

The so called Global cooling was one idea that was entertained but by no means embraced by the scientific community like Global warming. Further more, the computational modelling and satellite data collection that is available NOW puts us in a much, much better position to make predictions.
But that isn't the point of my articles, they're there to point out of your repeated myths.