Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Sonart This will be about the 4th or 5th time I've answered this question for Xyzer. If he asks it again, would you kindly do your job as moderator, inform him that his question has been answered, and that... if he intends to debate in good faith ...to move on.

There's no actual rule against his repeated questions, though he does tread into the trolling territory. You just have to accept Xyzer for what he is; he doesn't care if we can refute his argument, he doesn't actually care for the science but just his misconceived views and selective amnesia (hence he asks the same questions over, and over, and over...).

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey.. If you question my contention.."By the way, can you show me how Al Gore is earning from his film?" Its up to you to prove he didn't get paid for his participation in this travesty of truth? I don't have to do it! Prove I'm wrong. Just remember not much in the entertainment/media is done without some sort of recompense..If President Clinton receives 6 figure payouts for short speeches and appearances I think you might find Gore is getting similar payoffs. Any way prove I'm wrong...You haved the internet at your disposal if you know how to use it.

Xyler, you annoy me but I'm going to try to talk sense into you anyway.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Politician Gore appears at Cannes

To quote the article,

Mr Gore, who is donating his proceeds from the film towards a new environmental charity, said there were "some powerful polluting interests that have way too much influence in the American political system".

About his Peace Prize money,

Al Gore Donates Peace Prize Money

“My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100% of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance For Climate Protection,” said Gore in an email. “I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Happy?

[Sonart]

.

You kidding, Thanatos? You call that proof? Show us the legal documents and money transferals!!!




.

[xyzer]

Thanatos, your post is a laugher! Have you looked up the controlling executives in the Alliance Al Gore's fund closes after attracting $5 billion - BloggingStocksfor Climate Protection which put out an IPO for $5Billion dollars?
So Al Gores donating the procedes of his movie goes to whose control? Al Gores? He is the CEO of that 5 Billion dollar enterprise?
From the article...

But the inconvenient truth for many of Gore's admirers is he's doing really well by not being in politics, making it unlikely that he will ever run for elected office again.

Read this reference also...Board of Directors | The Alliance for Climate Protection

Sonart from what I read Gores financial records are murky, disguised in investmednts and allainces with others plus his undisclosed salaries and undisclosed payment for his public appearances. The above is at least partial proof

[i]f you fully research Gores finances he is doing just as well or better than his former partners of the 90s? His income is in the many millions what with his speeches and various investments. And you evidently believe he is doing this for our benefit?

[xyzer]

Pooey posts...You just have to accept Xyzer for what he is; he doesn't care if we can refute his argument, he doesn't actually care for the science but just his misconceived views and selective amnesia (hence he asks the same questions over, and over, and over...).

Well then Pooey you answer the question I ask and Sonart avoids answering directly. He is fond of referencing articles that do not specifically answer my questions. Then not answering directly and claiming he has refuted my contentions?? Lets have your specific recfutations(answers). This is supposed to be a discussion forum for conflicting opinions and ideas. I enjoy the riposte. If you have the answers post them..Post your opinions too but I reserve the right to counter themif I don't agree.

All I want to learn from you pseudo climate experts is ...How come the IPCC climate models and pronouncements of a direct and dire correlation of warming with CO2 increases did not pan out in the middle of the last century and the begining of this one? It cooled then and NASA reoports is cooling again now as anthropogenic energy consumption increases.IWe are now much better able to measure global temps than we ever haved been?
Measurements that went into the predictive climate models late in the 90s were flawed, and taken from surface rather than satellite measurements at differnt altitudes.

A follow on question is If humans contribution to the !% CO2 in our atmosphere is some fraction of that 1% how can we control climate by cutting our energy consumption? I'll remind you that the IPCC indicated it would take centuries for any effects to be felt even if we could?

Your suggestion I don't care for the science is nonsense. I do but I also temper my conclusions with logic and the reality involved. If you ignore the real paradox of cooling when its predicted to warm then you along with Sonart don't realize how little we really know about all the influences on global climate? I know climate varies but we are listening to so called experts say we humans can and do cause that variance? Nonsense!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos, your post is a laugher! Have you looked up the controlling executives in the Alliance Al Gore's fund closes after attracting $5 billion - BloggingStocksfor Climate Protection which put out an IPO for $5Billion dollars? So Al Gores donating the procedes of his movie goes to whose control? Al Gores? He is the CEO of that 5 Billion dollar enterprise? From the article... Read this reference also...Board of Directors | The Alliance for Climate Protection Sonart from what I read Gores financial records are murky, disguised in investmednts and allainces with others plus his undisclosed salaries and undisclosed payment for his public appearances. The above is at least partial proof [i]f you fully research Gores finances he is doing just as well or better than his former partners of the 90s? His income is in the many millions what with his speeches and various investments. And you evidently believe he is doing this for our benefit?

This is getting annoying. Why not tab over to a list of their current projects to check to see how the money is being used?

If you think things are "murky" why not pull his SEC records? Go see which stocks GIM is investing in to support itself. Its a bunch of very low-risk bluechip investments propping up some green and scientific corporations. A company that makes biopolymers, an advanced water filter manufacturer, a high end biotech research firm, a company that installs water infrastructure systems, a cancer research institute...and no oil companies. GE is also pretty clean these days.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...11/gen4q07.txt

Oh, and the Alliance for Climate Protection is a nonprofit with no investments to pull up. Its also doing useful things if you scan their website.

Lastly get it through your head that CO2 concentrations have doubled since the industrial revolution. Its not some small percent, its 50%. The climate is also changing; on average the glaciers are going backwards. You're living in your own little world.

[xyzer]

Thanatos..surely you aren't serious?

Oh, and the Alliance for Climate Protection is a nonprofit with no investments to pull up. Its also doing useful things if you scan their website.(Non profit orgasnizations still retain about a quarter of their donations for expenses, such as salaries) Lastly get it through your head that CO2 concentrations have doubled since the industrial revolution. Its not some small percent, its 50%. The climate is also changing; on average the glaciers are going backwards. You're living in your own little world..Huh? CO2 concentrations are less than one percent of the earths atmospheric gas. Anthropogenic inputs to that 1% are one quarter of the 1%.Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So if we can get the whole energy producing world to reduce their energy use by some small fraction..that is going to affect the natural climare factors? Nonsnse! Where did you get your 50%? Are you trying to make the actual 0.03811% look bigger than it actualy is?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos..surely you aren't serious?

I'm as serious as a rock. Reading through the wiki article, the figures you cited about carbon dioxide from humans are not there. What gives?

Not that you'll care, but this is how carbon dioxide levels have changed since 1958:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/gra...e_thrudc04.pdf

Consider the long term view. 260 ppm or so in preindustrial times vs a current level of 383 ppm and rising (quoted from your odd wikipedia article). That works out to about a 50% increase. My bad for implying doubling; my memory was fuzzy and I spoke without redoing the research.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

There's only one other thing that injects CO2 into the air besides burning forests and driving cars. That's volcanoes.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Hypothetical: suppose everything I am telling you is the truth. What would you do? How would you feel?

[xyzer]

Thanatos..Here is what I and the rest of the public understand about CO2 in the earths atmospheric content? The main gases:
Nitrogen..78.12% by volume
Oxygen...20.9% by volume
Argon......0.9% "
Water Vapor...0 to 4%(Variable)

That doesn't leave much does it? So we go to the rest which are so small they have to be expressed as parts per million.(ppm)
Methane...1,750 ppm
CO2...350 ppm Eureka we have reached our goal! Whats the human fraction of that less than 1%?

Of this less than 1% how much do you think is anthropogenically created and by how many different countries?
Even if we could get China(the second largest energy producer) to agree to cut its development do you think it would change climate?

Do you think carbon trade offs and other silly solutions will provide that change? Or do you think a prudent attempt to reduce our carbon producing energy ways by developing cleaner sources would be better?
Clean burning coal technology, nuclear power and even hydorogen technology are in the future.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos..Here is what I and the rest of the public understand about CO2 in the earths atmospheric content? The main gases: Nitrogen..78.12% by volume Oxygen...20.9% by volume Argon......0.9% " Water Vapor...0 to 4%(Variable) That doesn't leave much does it? So we go to the rest which are so small they have to be expressed as parts per million.(ppm) Methane...1,750 ppm CO2...350 ppm Eureka we have reached our goal! Whats the human fraction of that less than 1%? Of this less than 1% how much do you think is anthropogenically created and by how many different countries? Even if we could get China(the second largest energy producer) to agree to cut its development do you think it would change climate? Do you think carbon trade offs and other silly solutions will provide that change? Or do you think a prudent attempt to reduce our carbon producing energy ways by developing cleaner sources would be better? Clean burning coal technology, nuclear power and even hydorogen technology are in the future.

But the human fraction is clearly not 1%.

And furthermore CO2 is exceedingly powerful even in small quantities. If there was enough of it to register as a percentage instead of ppm then we'd be locked in a perpetual solar oven. That's just how the absorption spectrum works out. This should explain it clearly.

Climate myths: CO<SUB>2</SUB> isn't the most important greenhouse gas - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

And don't even mention powering civilization with nuclear energy until after somebody invents a way to dispose of the waste. That's pretty crazy, even crazier than what you said about CO2.

Hydrogen is an efficient battery, a means of storing energy and not producing it. Its part of a bunch of potential solutions but not a solution in and of itself.

Solar is the way forward. We'll coat the deserts and strip mall roofs with heliostats and organic photovoltaic cells and be set for energy for a long, long time. Sadly this is barely viable in developed countries with existing technology and definitely not viable in most developing nations.

The year after somebody begins mass producing a solar cell that can produce electricity at a lower cost than coal will be the year things change. Until that time, yes, cap and trade programs can suck a lot of the emissions back out of the air. Its a band aid solution that cannot work forever (they'll run out of places to plant new ten thousand acre tree farms pretty fast) but until further notice its a damn good idea.

[xyzer]

Thanatos posts..

But the human fraction is clearly not 1%. I answer..isn't that what I said? It's less than 1% And furthermore CO2 is exceedingly powerful even in small quantities. If there was enough of it to register as a percentage instead of ppm then we'd be locked in a perpetual solar oven. That's just how the absorption spectrum works out.

I agree the 'forcing' properties of CO2 are known. The problem with all this is we forget that something has to create the heat that is to be radiated back into space? The variable influence of the sun! It waxes and wanes. It can emit solar flares which interrupt electronics here on earth and vary the amount of heat we recieve? If we add to that the various other natural influence, e.g. solar flares, sun spots, volcano eruptions, the influence of the 2/3 coverage of earth by the oceans (which condense constantly into clouds under the suns heat) Methane and other influences, the Anthropogeic argument weakens? The evidence is in the variability of global temps over the eons..which as I have asked pose the question that why is there a cooling period even when human created CO2 is increasing? Logic tells us that there are other more dominent factors?

By the way your ideas about nuclear waste are unfounded. Remember the theory E=M(C) squared? The constant is the speed of light squared? A very small amount of mass will create a large amount of energy and the waste products are minimal. Though the waste is radioactive it is relatively easy to store underground. e.g. France has many such plants, the USA about 100 creating some 20% of our power needs and disposal is not a problem? The Navy has powered ships with nuclear for many years?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos posts.. I agree the 'forcing' properties of CO2 are known. The problem with all this is we forget that something has to create the heat that is to be radiated back into space? The variable influence of the sun! It waxes and wanes. It can emit solar flares which interrupt electronics here on earth and vary the amount of heat we recieve? If we add to that the various other natural influence, e.g. solar flares, sun spots, volcano eruptions, the influence of the 2/3 coverage of earth by the oceans (which condense constantly into clouds under the suns heat) Methane and other influences, the Anthropogeic argument weakens? The evidence is in the variability of global temps over the eons..which as I have asked pose the question that why is there a cooling period even when human created CO2 is increasing? Logic tells us that there are other more dominent factors? By the way your ideas about nuclear waste are unfounded. Remember the theory E=M(C) squared? The constant is the speed of light squared? A very small amount of mass will create a large amount of energy and the waste products are minimal. Though the waste is radioactive it is relatively easy to store underground. e.g. France has many such plants, the USA about 100 creating some 20% of our power needs and disposal is not a problem? The Navy has powered ships with nuclear for many years?

I did not repeat my explanation about CO2 from human activity because you did not respond to it the first time. You told me CO2 was a small percentage of the atmosphere, which is true, when I had been arguing that a large percentage of CO2 came from humans.

Your response here to the issue of what that CO2 does does not make sense. The sun's solar flares are on a short 10 year cycle compared to the trend in warming, and what are you talking about with this extra heat being reflected back into space? Tell me, does putting a glass house around plants make them get colder? CO2 absorbs parts of the infrared bands. The sun emits lots of visible, which strikes the Earth and converts to infrared. And volcanoes? Did you read that article or did you just reject it for unstated reasons?

And about nuclear...you have no idea what you are talking about. You convert a tiny fraction of a uranium fuel rod to energy. If the whole thing just magically turned into energy that would be nice, but you wind up with a lot of unusable uranium isotopes and weird radioactive uranium breakdown products. A fuel rod really does not lose that much mass over its lifetime, and when it comes out of the reactor its still hot enough to catch on fire if you don't keep it under water. This is suicidal. There are tons and tons of the stuff cooling in a pool near my house already and no place to put it for long term storage.

Learn. Just do your research on radioactive waste from nuclear power. Just this one issue, so you can learn what it feels like to be completely and devastatingly wrong. You have made a massive mistake by speaking outside the bounds of your personal understanding.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos posts.. I agree the 'forcing' properties of CO2 are known. The problem with all this is we forget that something has to create the heat that is to be radiated back into space? The variable influence of the sun! It waxes and wanes. It can emit solar flares which interrupt electronics here on earth and vary the amount of heat we recieve? If we add to that the various other natural influence, e.g. solar flares, sun spots, volcano eruptions, the influence of the 2/3 coverage of earth by the oceans (which condense constantly into clouds under the suns heat) Methane and other influences, the Anthropogeic argument weakens? The evidence is in the variability of global temps over the eons..which as I have asked pose the question that why is there a cooling period even when human created CO2 is increasing? Logic tells us that there are other more dominent factors?

Nobody has ever denied the sun's role in climate change, Xyzer. Changes in solar output have been responsible for a great many of the Earth's climatic shifts. But, and I'll even put this in bolded italics so it's impossible to miss, There have been no changes in solar activity in the past 150 years sufficient to have produced the bulk of the 20th century warming. I can't stress this fact enough. Solar activity can and does affect the climate, but changes in solar irradiance are simply not responsible for the current change.

By the way your ideas about nuclear waste are unfounded. Remember the theory E=M(C) squared? The constant is the speed of light squared? A very small amount of mass will create a large amount of energy and the waste products are minimal. Though the waste is radioactive it is relatively easy to store underground. e.g. France has many such plants, the USA about 100 creating some 20% of our power needs and disposal is not a problem? The Navy has powered ships with nuclear for many years?

But Xyzer, you don't... wait a minute, I actually agree with you for once! Nuclear energy, despite any potential drawbacks, is so far the only feasible alternative to fossil fuels yet proposed.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Well then Pooey you answer the question I ask and Sonart avoids answering directly. He is fond of referencing articles that do not specifically answer my questions. Then not answering directly and claiming he has refuted my contentions?? Lets have your specific recfutations(answers). This is supposed to be a discussion forum for conflicting opinions and ideas. I enjoy the riposte. If you have the answers post them..Post your opinions too but I reserve the right to counter themif I don't agree.

We've countered them many times and are getting tired of doing so. Cite specific ones again and I'll see if I link back to what we've already posted.

Quote by: xyzer All I want to learn from you pseudo climate experts is

We've never claimed to be experts, we don't interpret the data. You, on the other hand qualify for the said title.

Quote by: xyzer ...How come the IPCC climate models and pronouncements of a direct and dire correlation of warming with CO2 increases did not pan out in the middle of the last century and the begining of this one? It cooled then and NASA reoports is cooling again now as anthropogenic energy consumption increases.

Again, we've gone through this before, mid-century cooling was easily accounted for, as due to human pollution and volcanic activity. As for the beginning of this century, if I may quote from your own previous source:

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say

Quote by: xyzer We are now much better able to measure global temps than we ever haved been? Measurements that went into the predictive climate models late in the 90s were flawed, and taken from surface rather than satellite measurements at differnt altitudes.

Please justify your statement.

Quote by: xyzer A follow on question is If humans contribution to the !% CO2 in our atmosphere is some fraction of that 1% how can we control climate by cutting our energy consumption? I'll remind you that the IPCC indicated it would take centuries for any effects to be felt even if we could?

Misleading numbers again, because although nitrogen makes up about 79% of the atmosphere, it's not involved really in thermal retention. Please read here to learn more about greenhouse gases. But I know that you won't because it's not from an Economist think-tank's website and nor does it go with your narrow minded agenda.

Quote by: xyzer Your suggestion I don't care for the science is nonsense. I do but I also temper my conclusions with logic and the reality involved. If you ignore the real paradox of cooling when its predicted to warm then you along with Sonart don't realize how little we really know about all the influences on global climate? I know climate varies but we are listening to so called experts say we humans can and do cause that variance? Nonsense!

Again, you talk out of your arse. There is no paradox here, apart from your thinking and the real world. The apparent cooling are very much explainable as stated above and furthermore, CO2 is not the prime driver of every day's greenhouse house effect but it is an important component. So other things can happen that will eclipse its effects, do you have trouble understanding this or would I need to draw diagrams?

[xyzer]

Pooey, you amaze me? You attermpt to counter my contentions by giving evidence that supports them? Your refernce..

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again. The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space. The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

So now you concede that sulphate aerosols can mitigate the forcing effect of CO2 produced at the same time by the same amount of actiivty and a volcano or two? Isn't that another so called climate influencer?
The so called Maunder Minimum (lack of sunspots) several centuries back produced a period of dramatic cooling for about 75 years.
The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research?

One should be wary of jumping to conclusions about the role of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere in procuring a generalized warming of the Earth, given the great complexity of physical processes inherent in the reaction of the atmosphere-ocean system to a change in atmospheric transparency, knowing that such a change is in fact occurring as a result of the emission of gases in industry and transport. To this area of doubt the advocates of solar global warming have been able to add their element of confusion. Maybe we are experiencing a steady rise in the solar constant, accompanying a similar rise in solar magnetic variability, and maybe the greenhouse effect is not the main agent, or even a cause, of global warming. The novelty of the use of the Maunder Minimum in this context is the hypothesis that the time-scale associated with any change may be of order hundreds rather than tens of years, which would be the scale for changes directly linked to individual 11- or 22-year cycles.

Can you tell us what your prediction is for sunspot activity in the next 100 years? While your at it predict the changes in the suuns magnetice fields will be?

[xyzer]

Parrot, as usual you are perceptive!

There have been no changes in solar activity in the past 150 years sufficient to have produced the bulk of the 20th century warming.

. Good point? But, more importantly, can you predict that there wont be in the future? Can you also assure us that there have been or will be, no changes in the other natural climate drivers. Most on this site concede that climate is variable and influenced by a number of variables. Correlation is not necessarily causation. You and most of the other believers are so convinced that the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and warming is exact that you've long since lost sight of the other factors which can be involved? And you have lost sight of the non human time frames of geologic changes?

Above all can you assure us that reducing our use of the cheapest energy sources in this the age of energy use, will turn global warming around in the near and far distant future? I know you agree nuclear and natural gas are good immediate substitutes as is hydrogen technology. But carbon tradeoffs and reduction of oil use are unrealistic pap IMNSHO

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, you amaze me? You attermpt to counter my contentions by giving evidence that supports them? Your refernce.. So now you concede that sulphate aerosols can mitigate the forcing effect of CO2 produced at the same time by the same amount of actiivty and a volcano or two? Isn't that another so called climate influencer? The so called Maunder Minimum (lack of sunspots) several centuries back produced a period of dramatic cooling for about 75 years. The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research? Can you tell us what your prediction is for sunspot activity in the next 100 years? While your at it predict the changes in the suuns magnetice fields will be?

None of the above points invalidate the current research and facts we've cited with regards to global warming and carbon dioxide.
No one has ever claimed that sulphate aerosols don't counteract global warming, in fact, I have said many times before that the cooling seen in the mid 20th century is due to those particulates!
I really do not see how you're seeing that you're winning the argument, I am entirely consistent throughout whereas you flip flop and evade points.
Let's see, so you cite a 1998 research paper which says that more attention needs to be paid on the solar component. Well guess what? Research has been done recently aren't really changing the story.

Also, to showcase the fact that we're just going around in circles, I will cite a previous post where I refuted your claims that increased warming, at least in the past 2 decades, could have been due to change in Solar activity. Note that the post was made over 6 months ago but you've still not managed to get that through your thick skull.

[xyzer]

Lets see now? It couldn't be cosmic particles because one experiment at one period showed there seemed to be a randomness to cloud formation rather than a steady indication? So that rules out that one without peer review? The study was conducted locally and one wonders how accurate the measures of cloud formation were over the vast reaches of our oceans? Who were those guys who made the observations?

No one has ever claimed that sulphate aerosols don't counteract global warming, in fact, I have said many times before that the cooling seen in the mid 20th century is due to those particulates!

What about the recent volcanic eruption in South America, will it add to the cooling trend we are already experiencing? Thousands of volcanos continually spew out varying amounts of sulphate aeorosols every day?

What I'm pointing our,sarcastically I must admit , is that no matter what the natural condition is that may affect climate you believers will rationalize it to your own beliefs? You follow the Gore parody of blaming any disaster or aberrative weather condition on global warming. Isn't his latest that the Hurricane in Myamar was the result of warming? This when satellite measurements indicates we are in a cooling trend?

Answer the question, do we really know? Why with dire predictions of rapid and dangerous warming certain to come do we have cooling? An overcoming of the effect of increases in anthropogenic CO2 increases?