Global Warming

[xyzer]

Here is another expert concurrence with my so called myths.
http://http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2...may/may07.html

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list? A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide

Pooey you dismissed, offhand, my logic in a post sometime back..that if something blocks cosmic heat coming into our atmosphere then that same something would block heat radiating back from the earth. Since CO2 absorbs Eight hundredths of one percent? Need I say more?

Note also this experts discarding 'proxies' about Greenlands warmth a thousand years back? There is written evidence that it was warmer which is more reliable than proxies. Thus my suggestion that the studies the IPCC has depended on contain invented data derived from 'proxies. Is this a reliable way to declare certainty? Is this a prudent way to suggest anthropogenic causes are the culprit?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another expert concurrence with my so called myths. http://http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Oh, I do love your sources. Always full of anecdotes, it warms my heart to read them.

Quote by: xyzer Pooey you dismissed, offhand, my logic in a post sometime back..that if something blocks cosmic heat coming into our atmosphere then that same something would block heat radiating back from the earth. Since CO2 absorbs Eight hundredths of one percent? Need I say more?

Yes, I dismissed it because it made little sense. Allow me to recap, you said and I quote

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?

This paragraph doesn't make much sense. If CO2 was trapping heat coming in, then how do you expect it to cool the atmosphere? You've contradicted yourself there and now you're making it out like it was a logical suggestion?
Just wanted to add, water vapour is not neglected as you often seem to claim.

Quote by: xyzer Note also this experts discarding 'proxies' about Greenlands warmth a thousand years back? There is written evidence that it was warmer which is more reliable than proxies. Thus my suggestion that the studies the IPCC has depended on contain invented data derived from 'proxies. Is this a reliable way to declare certainty? Is this a prudent way to suggest anthropogenic causes are the culprit?

The so called proxies are certified scientific methods we use to obtain extrapolated data (only way to reconstruct past temperature unless you happen to have a time machine?).
Your assessment of the IPCC is folly because the Panel itself doesn't do much research, it collates the hundreds and thousands of independent studies carried out worldwide and amalgamates it into a single report. Read it yourself

Quote by: IPCC The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

Now, are you telling me that all the climatologists involved into these temperature reconstructions and modelling have got it wrong, merely because you say so? On what basis do you void their methods and techniques? I eagerly await your critical review.

[xyzer]

Hmm? I guess we have a problem? The usual problem with logical analysis? You comment...

This paragraph doesn't make much sense. If CO2 was trapping heat coming in, then how do you expect it to cool the atmosphere? You've contradicted yourself there and now you're making it out like it was a logical suggestion?

Lets start with the IPCC theory of anthropogenic CO2 blocking the heat radiating away from earth. The theory is that CO2 is blocking radiating heat and thereby causing global warming.

If CO2 is dense enough(which it obviously isn't!) to trap/bock some of the heat radiating from the earth and cause warming, is it not logical to ask why wouldn't it trap and block the suns heat coming in? Does that make more sense to you? Or is it your addled theory that somehow it only blocks radiating heat from one direction and not the other?
If it blocked incoming heat the earth would get much cooler, would it not? Thus one could logically conclude that human generated CO2 doesn't have much effect, nor does naturally generated CO2 generated by the oceans temps , etc,(constituting a fraction of 1 % of the atmosphere)
have much effect?

Logical conclusion! Natural causes cause climate change and CO2 has a minimal effect. Sensible course...wait and see? Conduct more studies? Throw Gore out on his ear!

[Mr.Vicchio]

xyzer, it's settled by committee science, only fools and paid goons of the oil industry doubt in anyway the fact of Man Made Global Warming, and unless we change how we live drastically in the next few years the earth is doomed.


100parts per million change in C02 is just the tip of the iceberg headed to end all life.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Hmm? I guess we have a problem? The usual problem with logical analysis? You comment...

No, the problem is that you have poor explanatory skills.

Quote by: xyzer Lets start with the IPCC theory of anthropogenic CO2 blocking the heat radiating away from earth. The theory is that CO2 is blocking radiating heat and thereby causing global warming.

The IPCC does not actually produce scientific literature per se, so they don't actually have a theory, they review what's written out there.

Quote by: xyzer If CO2 is dense enough(which it obviously isn't!) to trap/bock some of the heat radiating from the earth and cause warming, is it not logical to ask why wouldn't it trap and block the suns heat coming in?

It is absolutely logical but let explain why it doesn't further down.

Quote by: xyzer Does that make more sense to you? Or is it your addled theory that somehow it only blocks radiating heat from one direction and not the other?

Yes, it does. It is quite simple and the fact that you have to ask this makes me want to cry. The reason is that when the photons are reflected off the Earth to be bounced back into space, they're at a longer wavelength, closer to infra-red spectra that CO2 is very good at absorbing. This is how the greenhouse effect works, it is why the Earth has such relatively nice temperature worldwide. Wiki will educate you.
But don't take their word for it, go and open your nearest High School textbook that talks about Environmental Chemistry.

Quote by: xyzer If it blocked incoming heat the earth would get much cooler, would it not?

Here's a question for you, why haven't you learnt High school Chemistry?

Quote by: xyzer Thus one could logically conclude that human generated CO2 doesn't have much effect, nor does naturally generated CO2 generated by the oceans temps , etc,(constituting a fraction of 1 % of the atmosphere) have much effect?

In correct, as I have cited earlier, CO2 play significant portion in thermal absorption that you keep ignoring AND you keep bringing up the fact that its only 380PPM which is a completely misleading as all the different gases absorb at different spectra.

Quote by: xyzer Logical conclusion! Natural causes cause climate change and CO2 has a minimal effect. Sensible course...wait and see? Conduct more studies? Throw Gore out on his ear!

In conclusion, Xyzer, you have completely lost it. You have failed to understand the basic concepts of environmental science, and initially I thought you were actually able bodied scientific minded person who could actually debate against me. Oh, this is joyous day.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio xyzer, it's settled by committee science, only fools and paid goons of the oil industry doubt in anyway the fact of Man Made Global Warming, and unless we change how we live drastically in the next few years the earth is doomed. 100parts per million change in C02 is just the tip of the iceberg headed to end all life.

Are you tired of being wrong yet?
Doesn't it feel a little embarrassing?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I'm not the one that believes science is settled by "consensus" and that to challenge it is evil.

That's you. I'm not wrong, and I'm not embarrassed to fight the evangelical environmentalist like yourself, trying to force people to believe your cause.

Climate change happens, been doing so for billions of years, it's happening right now...

GASP! amazing isn't it.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I'm not the one that believes science is settled by "consensus" and that to challenge it is evil.

I don't believe that it is evil to challenge science, besides it's an abstract concept in a empirical system so I don't see how it can be given a good/evil status.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's you.

I welcome all new research that's of journal standards, anecdotes on the other hand...

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I'm not wrong, and I'm not embarrassed to fight the evangelical environmentalist like yourself, trying to force people to believe your cause.

Have I preached anything? As far as I can see here, I've just shoot down ignoramus anecdotes.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Climate change happens, been doing so for billions of years, it's happening right now... GASP! amazing isn't it.

We've already been through this a dozen of times and each time you've forgotten at our next encounter so I won't even bother.

[Mr.Vicchio]

We HAVE been over it, and each time you argue YOU are right, anything anyone brings up that argues against your anthropamorphic global warming is wrong, and that's that.

But hey, what have you done to stop global warming? Given up your bike? Changed out all your light bulbs? Cut back on electricity? I know, you bought some Algore approved "Carbon Credits!"

And to what end? To stop the natural order of CLIMATE!

Oh yeah, you think 100 extra particles of carbon per 1,000,000 is going to shake the very foundation of the climates system.

My bad.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio We HAVE been over it, and each time you argue YOU are right, anything anyone brings up that argues against your anthropamorphic global warming is wrong, and that's that.

The materials brought up are often outdated and often just misconstrued, how exactly do you expect me to accept it?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio But hey, what have you done to stop global warming? Given up your bike? Changed out all your light bulbs? Cut back on electricity?

Again, I will point you to the fact that these are completely affordable. Yes, I have changed all the light bulbs to energy saving ones, I do try to cut back on electrical use, I walk into town/city etc etc. If everyone makes these little changes then we can help to stabilise CO2 emissions but it won't be the economical back breaker that you're making it out to be. If anything, you're the doom and gloom preacher...

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I know, you bought some Al Gore approved "Carbon Credits!"

Why do you keep bringing him up? I've never seen him as any more than a politician cashing in on an Environmental issue.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio And to what end? To stop the natural order of CLIMATE!

Who said we're trying to stop natural climate change? Apart you that is.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Oh yeah, you think 100 extra particles of carbon per 1,000,000 is going to shake the very foundation of the climates system. My bad.

Simplistic thinking for simple minds. If it were that easy to model climate based on just the empirical concentrations of the gas molecules we wouldn't be having such debates.

[WindWip]

Quote by: xyzer Hmm? I guess we have a problem? The usual problem with logical analysis? You comment... Lets start with the IPCC theory of anthropogenic CO2 blocking the heat radiating away from earth. The theory is that CO2 is blocking radiating heat and thereby causing global warming. If CO2 is dense enough(which it obviously isn't!) to trap/bock some of the heat radiating from the earth and cause warming, is it not logical to ask why wouldn't it trap and block the suns heat coming in? Does that make more sense to you? Or is it your addled theory that somehow it only blocks radiating heat from one direction and not the other?

The solar radiation (very short wavelength) is not absorbed by the atmosphere, when it hits the earth it is reflected back as thermal radiation which has a much longer wavelength. CO2 absorbs these higher wavelength rays much more readily than the short length ones.

Logical conclusion! Natural causes cause climate change and CO2 has a minimal effect. Sensible course...wait and see? Conduct more studies? Throw Gore out on his ear!

Take a look at this. It is a very simplistic walk-through of the process.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Oh yeah, you think 100 extra particles of carbon per 1,000,000 is going to shake the very foundation of the climates system. My bad.

100 PPMV when the current levels should only be 275 PPMV is a 36 percent increase. Considering that CO2 accounts for between 9 and 26 percent of the greenhouse effect (link) that would mean a 6.3 percent increase in the greenhouse effect. For comparison, a 6.3 percent rise in temperature from current levels would mean an increase of 18 degrees F (You must use the Kelvin scale for this).

[Mr.Vicchio]

That's making the false assumption that that atmosphere is a closed loop system where X change = Y result with no other factors involved, no other dynamics in play.

And THAT'S where all the anthropomorphic climate change formulas fail miserably. We don't KNOW how it all works together, on a global scale. Sure, if X change happens, we THINK Y will happen, but then there is the Z effect we cannot account for.

This is precisely why global climate model runs fail when using a start date of 1900 and the KNOWN conditions and run to today with all the variables we know put in. The models always over estimate the temperature, always.

[Mr.Vicchio]

How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.

Global Warming: Not the End of the World as We Know It - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

I think all of you should read this, veeery interesting.

[medi]

Here we are talking about reducing global warming by adopting of all and sundry means, an idiod comes up on friction .tv and speaks about increasing global warming and how is it going to help the nations economy.

Increase Global Warming

What a joker?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: medi Here we are talking about reducing global warming by adopting of all and sundry means, an idiod comes up on friction .tv and speaks about increasing global warming and how is it going to help the nations economy. Increase Global Warming What a joker?

Did you read the article I posted from spiegel?

[WindWip]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's making the false assumption that that atmosphere is a closed loop system where X change = Y result with no other factors involved, no other dynamics in play. And THAT'S where all the anthropomorphic climate change formulas fail miserably. We don't KNOW how it all works together, on a global scale. Sure, if X change happens, we THINK Y will happen, but then there is the Z effect we cannot account for.

How about this. We KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We KNOW it is increasing. And we KNOW that higher levels of greenhouse gases will trap more heat than if we did not have those greenhouse gases. You don't need to have a model to figure that much out.

Sure, we don't know exactly how much change 1 PPMV of CO2 will have on temperature, but that is absolutely not an excuse to do nothing when we have a good idea of what will happen.

This is precisely why global climate model runs fail when using a start date of 1900 and the KNOWN conditions and run to today with all the variables we know put in. The models always over estimate the temperature, always.

Have you looked at one of these climate models? Can you provide a link? I am interested in looking at the one's you are talking about.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Global Warming: Not the End of the World as We Know It - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News I think all of you should read this, veeery interesting.

Issues I have with the article:

1. It states that it is impossible to prevent climate change. This is not true. CO2 is recycled into solid form constantly, all we need to do is reduce our output of CO2 to below the rate that it is recycled into solid form.

2."Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. "A warmer climate helps promote species diversity," says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf."

There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of animals, plants and bacteria that are very, very sensitive to changes in their environment. Most notably lizards and almost all marcoinvertebrates in rivers.

3."On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches)."

Do I even have to rip this retarded statement apart?


It was not interesting, it was a load of crap. It was 4 pages with a huge number of claims and statements and virtually no facts or evidence to back them up. It didn't even cite a single source for the figures they spewed. Look at number 3, the article claimed that sea levels would be reduced yet there was no reference to the supposed model they used. All they said is 'current climate models'. It looks as if you are searching for articles to support your stance rather than finding facts.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Windwip, I'd LOVE to show you the model runs, but good luck finding them.

You won't find successes because THEY DO NOT EXIST, and they really don't like publishing the failures, makes them look rather... bad.

For the record, I was an AerographersMate 2nd Class, USN. I do know about the weather, climate, and the computer models, it was my JOB.

Now, I'm just googleing for results here so don't hit me on the sources.

The Case for Research The predictions of severe warming over the coming century are based on developing models of climate that have so far failed to accurately simulate history, let alone predict the future. The satellite record of lower atmosphere temperatures since 1979 shows nearly no warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere, where models predicted the fastest warming. The models also utterly fail to accurately simulate the transition into and out of the Ice Ages for the past few hundred thousand years.

A Climate Change Primer: Computer Models and the Need for More Research - by Jay Lehr and Richard S. Bennett - The Heartland Institute

The difficulty in calculating the climate response is reflected by the fact that current climate simulations fail to meet the criterion of validation. Only further research promises to allow the computer simulations to compare accurately human and natural causes of climate change.

The Marshall Institute - A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

[Pooeypants]

Mr Vicchio, are you aware that your second source is 10 years old? Now, we are talking about computers aren't we? The internet barely existed back then...