Global Warming

[Will_00]

Why doesn't it count? It seems like a pretty da**** good reason to me.

Because your statements that you use, referencing "facts," are obviously not so.

I really can't be any more direct about it. I still have no idea why you wanted me to read that link in the first place, since it's irrelevant to what we were discussing earlier. Monckton's little exposition doesn't refute a single point I or anyone else in this thread have made to you.

Of course it does. Look at your "evidence."

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Will_00 Because your statements that you use, referencing "facts," are obviously not so.

Umm... ok.

Of course it does. Look at your "evidence."

The only "evidence" I've presented to you was in response to your stating that the historic lag between temperature and carbon dioxide levels indicated that carbon dioxide does not act as a greenhouse gas, to which I responded that it indicated no such thing. How does the Monckton essay relate in any way to that? (Aside from Monckton making the same faulty argument as you.)

[Will_00]

How does the Monckton essay relate in any way to that? (Aside from Monckton making the same faulty argument as you.)

Yet again, how is it faulty?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Will_00 Yet again, how is it faulty?

Here's how it's faulty:

Historically CO2 levels did lag temperatures by an 800 year period. This doesn't negate the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In fact, the reason for the lag is quite obvious (to anyone but a GW denialist, that is): an enhanced greenhouse effect wasn't the initial cause of the warming (the reason CO2 levels eventually rose is because CO2 is less soluble in warm water, and as the oceans warmed, they released some of their vast stores of CO2). This is a completely different scenario than what we have today because CO2 *did* rise before temperatures this time (and thus this warming bears all the signs of an enhanced greenhouse effect). Radiative physics dictates that carbon dioxide act as a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere necessarily increases the planet's temperature. You can quibble about the details all you want, but the fact that human activities are having some effect on the climate is indisputable.

Nothing said in Monckton's essay refutes this.

[xyzer]

Parrot... talk about quibbling about the details? Check out this one..National Business Review (NBR) - Business, News, Arts, Media, Share Market & More

You sullied proponents of the the threat of anthropogenic causes of warming are seeing your dogma challenged. The IPCC and others overlooked some simple evidence that the doomsday climate models didn;t have. Actual measurement by the latest(Aqua) satellite showed this! A few snippets from an article you proponets should read and then restructure your thinking?

In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared.

If you noticed the press and the scientific community have grown largely silent about this latest revelation? Wonder why? Why didn't the March Meeting in New York produce screaming headlines? Could it be that these alarmist bozos are embarrassed?

Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact.

Read this article and let us know what you think? Does it answer my repeated question..why if CO2 is so influentual(and increasing) do satellite measurments show it is cooling?

The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

[EnragedParrot]

"Quote: In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared." If you noticed the press and the scientific community have grown largely silent about this latest revelation? Wonder why? Why didn't the March Meeting in New York produce screaming headlines? Could it be that these alarmist bozos are embarrassed?

It could be that. It could also be that the paper is mostly wrong. And it could be that the March meeting in New York was nothing but a PR event hosted by an ultra-conservative think tank.

I haven't read Monckton's paper, but based on reading his previous work I'm highly skeptical of it.

"Quote: Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact." Read this article and let us know what you think? Does it answer my repeated question..why if CO2 is so influentual(and increasing) do satellite measurments show it is cooling?

Not at all. The above analogy would be fine if the atmosphere acted like a single pane of glass. But it doesn't. Here's a better analogy. Take several sheets of glass and paint random patterns of small dots on them (because adding CO2 isn't like making a large brush stroke across the radiative "window" of the atmosphere). Stack two on top of each other and you should still be able to see through them just fine. Stack five or six on top of each other and your view through them should be somewhat obscured, but you'll still be able to see through them just fine. Now imagine that in order to completely block your view through the planes of glass, you had to stack hundreds of millions of layers on top of each other. That's far closer to how the actual atmosphere behaves.

Yes, it's technically possible to "saturate" the effect of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, but we aren't anywhere close to doing it. Not by a long shot.

[Sonart]

.


Why do we have two competing threads on the same topic?




.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . Why do we have two competing threads on the same topic? .

I don't know. I plug in on a thread that seems to have people with at least some kind of clue of what supports their opinion and then stick with it. So I generally remain blissfully unware of any other threads re the same topic.

[Will_00]

In response to your previous thread, even if you continue to believe Global Warming is completely man-made, it will hurt our society and economy if we go to such extremes that many people state as necessary.

[xyzer]

I don't know sonart. I thought this thread was the first about global warming so usually check it first.I've dueled with Pooey and Parrot on this thread for several years now?

Come on parrot! why do you hook on to just one issue and ignore the facts?

Not at all. The above analogy would be fine if the atmosphere acted like a single pane of glass. But it doesn't. Here's a better analogy. Take several sheets of glass and paint random patterns of small dots on them (because adding CO2 isn't like making a large brush stroke across the radiative "window" of the atmosphere). Stack two on top of each other and you should still be able to see through them just fine. Stack five or six on top of each other and your view through them should be somewhat obscured, but you'll still be able to see through them just fine. Now imagine that in order to completely block your view through the planes of glass, you had to stack hundreds of millions of layers on top of each other. That's far closer to how the actual atmosphere behaves.

The Aqua Satellite showed that predicted warming did not occur? And that water vapors cooling effects had been discounted.ergo, the predictive models were flawed? The effects of diminshing returns on the forcing effect are a minor factor even though they are scientifically sound.!

Answer the question? CO2 is being increased by humans,, how come it is getting globally cooler in the past few years by actual measurement? Logic tells me that there must be some other culprit involved in climate change? Something more dominant than CO2? There is heck of a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere that there is CO2 and almost three quarters of the planet is liquid?

We agree tha climate varies and has varied over the eons, we are discussing the cause of these cycles. I'm doubting that CO2 is the cause of the current warming cycle and it looks like my skepticm is being verified.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Will In response to your previous thread, even if you continue to believe Global Warming is completely man-made, it will hurt our society and economy if we go to such extremes that many people state as necessary.

Number one, it will hurt our society far more if we allow Global Warming to proceed unchecked, eventually threatening life on Earth as we know it.

Number two, you don't know that... in fact, change can be a hugely beneficial thing. Folks could make fortunes off of new innovations for energy, the U.S. could once again take the lead in technology, with the world clamoring at our door for new innovations, rather than, as it appears, clamoring at Asia and Europe's doors. We'd rid ourselves of our trade deficit, which is comprised mostly of imported oil, we'd rid ourselves on dependence of oil producing nations that hate us and are inherently unstable, and of dependence on oil resources that, by every estimate, are about to run out anyway!!!

What happens then, Will?

Or are you still upset about all the buggy whip makers, saddle makers, livery stable owners, horse wranglers, blacksmiths, buggy makers, horse poop sweepers and cavalry officers that were thrown out of work when, in ust a few decades, the steam age was replaced by the automobile age?

Quote by: Xyzer Answer the question? CO2 is being increased by humans,, how come it is getting globally cooler in the past few years by actual measurement?

That question has been answered SEVERAL TIMES, Xyzer.

From the link...

"Here we can see cooling trends from 1880 to 1910, about 30 years, a dramatic rise for about 30 years (1910 to 1940) another cooling - more like a leveling off - from 1940 to 1975 (35 years) and another dramatic rise from 1975 to now, about 30 years."



Even within the latest dramatic rise has been regular fluctuations... up dramatically from 1975 to 1980, leveling down from 1980 to 1985, up dramatically from 1985 to 1990, leveling down from 1990 to 1995, up dramatically from 1995 to 2000, leveling down from 2000 to 2005.



Here, does this V work for you??? It's a chart of the sunspot cycle, which seems to line up very nicely with the small, regular spikes in global temperature. Hmmm, looking at the page, I think we can expect a dramatic temperature raise over the next five years. Here's my hundred bucks... who's in?



Get it? So knock it off.

.

[Will_00]

Number one, it will hurt our society far more if we allow Global Warming to proceed unchecked, eventually threatening life on Earth as we know it.

How so if we know that these predictions of natural disasters that could possibly happen are fake?

What happens then, Will?

Actually, it will require people to add all of these unnecessary items to their houses, require companies to lower emission - which will not help -, etc.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: xyzer jamesbdunn's article is promising but it hypothesizes that humans can control climate by using other energy sources? Good idea but will the use of other energy sources do any more that lessen anthropogenic CO2 which I don't agree will be a deciding factor in climate change?

Naturally occuring greenhouse gas production will occur regardless of human actions; like volcano emissions, peet methane release,....

However, we can control the temperature distributions over the Earth by shading various percentages of the Earth; which allows us to actively control the weather.

Additionally, by providing abundant clean energy to power our interests, we can help to control the volume of greenhouse gases that is due to human activities.

What I'm proposing is that we actively control the environment, regardless of natural and human emissions. But to do so in such a way that provides a stable environment so that if any portion of the system fails (meteor shower), that the Earth won't fall off into an unstable condition.

I propose we nudge our weather conditions by mostly depriving the Earth of solar energy (reflecting energy before it hits our atmosphere over specific locations; glaciers, hurricanes, ...). Only contributing to heating of the Earth in select locations and times to prevent extreme conditions that would have destructive consequences (tornados, monsoons, emergency relief, ...).

The following is a compelling argument that makes siting around and doing nothing, unthinkable:

YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Will How so if we know that these predictions of natural disasters that could possibly happen are fake?

Beg pardon? Who knows what predictions are fake?

Quote by: Will Actually, it will require people to add all of these unnecessary items to their houses, require companies to lower emission - which will not help -, etc.

So why not do that now, and get a head start on new and improved sources of energy, so the rest of the world comes to us, instead of us going begging to them?

And maybe even save the world in the process.

.

[Will_00]

Beg pardon? Who knows what predictions are fake?

Allow me to revise. How will it hurt our society?

So why not do that now, and get a head start on new and improved sources of energy, so the rest of the world comes to us, instead of us going begging to them? And maybe even save the world in the process.

Because it is unnecessary.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Will Allow me to revise. How will it hurt our society?

Unbelievable... Will, what's the point of having this conversation if you simply ignore everything folks post. The consequences of global warming have been explained in depth on this board... it's been explained in the news... it's been explained on TV. Everyone on the globe seems to have at least some idea of how it will hurt humanity, except you.

You and Xyzer are like a pair of 4 yr-olds. Why? Why? Why? Why? Round and round. Showing you scientific data is like painting lips on a donkey. I swear, I give up.

Quote by: Will Because it is unnecessary.

.

[Will_00]

I swear, I give up.

That is fine.

[xyzer]

You and Xyzer are like a pair of 4 yr-olds. Why? Why? Why? Why? Round and round. Showing you scientific data is like painting lips on a donkey. I swear, I give up.

If the graphs you posted are supposed to be meaningful to even a 4 year old we are in trouble. They are meaningless to an adult!
The first thing I would like to know is who established the mean(0.0) and then upon what was it based? We didn't have satellites or proper(accurate) ways of measuring GLOBAL temps back past the last quarter of the last century? You make me giggle like a 4 year old by relying on such unrelated and inaccurate data! We are looking at an estimated less tha 1% increase in average temps over a century?
Are you and Gore suggesting that is an accurate estimate? Are you using it to predict an ever increasing warmth in the future , a prediction that features an increase in human energy use? Surely you jest?

The real answer is we just don't know yet which of the variable influences will drive climate at any one time. There is still honest scientificdifference between recent studies Here is one example..
AccuWeather.com - Weather Blogs - Weather News
Which conclusions do you beleive in?

Does it make sense to spend resources and possibly create hardship and expense for energy dependent countries by depending on a forecast that says the sun isn't the change culprit and anthropogenic CO2 is? I don't think so!

It makes more sense to us, post 4 year olds, to study the problem further before we jump off the cliff. I have indicated that I agree with cleaning up our use of carbon fuels or increasingly replacing them with nuclear or cleaner sources. However I don't think it makes sense to try a change tactic that is uncertain and would be based on humans changing their fractional CO2 input to a gas which constitutes less than 1% of the earths atmospheric gases? Just obtaining the cooperation of the biggest energy consuming nations would be a problem.
Will gets the problem? We are currently guessing at what will help, some even assuming that its human energy use that is the major climate driver others that it is the sun, others cosmic particles, others, the oceans currents , etc? Is it wise to invest your resources in an unproven cause?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer The first thing I would like to know is who established the mean(0.0)

See what I mean? of course the information I presented isn't good enough. Now it's "Who established the mean?" And if I answer that, it'll lead to another question, until it's so esoteric that I simply can't find the answers.

Why?

Why?

Why?

You have all the answers you need, Xyzer.

.

[xyzer]

It looks like Wills assessment is right?
Global warming rage lets global hunger grow - Telegraph

Our over reaction and guesses that the way to counter global warming is to produce synthetic fuels made from food crops? Look what happens. The price and availability of corn goes up and many starve?

The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.

"The world food situation is very serious: we have seen riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso," said Mr Diouf. "There is a risk that this unrest will spread in countries where 50pc to 60pc of income goes to food," he said.

And guess what, anthropogenic causes of warming are not a scientific certainty? And guess what there are a lot of cheap of carbon based fuel sources still in the ground plus other clean fuels such as nuclear with enormous potential?