Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer By the way Pooey in response to your assertion that you had first brought up the influences of the IPO and La Nina and El Nino, here it is is my post on it #1402....May 26th...Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science Evidence that natural influences can and do influence climate and overwhelm the human generated CO2 influences. Now I notice you have admitted that such natural influences do exert an overwhelming influence. Can this just indicate progress?

Computer says no. I mentioned El Nino last year and quite clearly pointed out that the 1998 record breaker was due to said effect. The only progress here is that you've finally acknowledged its existence.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot, I'm puzzled? Give me an example of a climate model that consists of laws of physics and doesn't have some data(even proxy data and assumptions) in the mix? One can't make computer iterations without some data? e.g.

Here's a very simple climate model you can use to determine the effective radiating temperature of Earth. You can even fiddle with the parameters and see what effect changing certain things will have (e.g. changing the greenhouse effect).

(1 − a)Sπr^2 = 4πr^2εσT^4

Where S is the solar constant, a is the Earth's albedo (with a value of about 30% or 0.3), r is the Earth's radius, ε is the Earth's emissivity (with a value of about 0.612), and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

The left hand side of the equation represents energy coming in from the sun, and the right hand side represents outgoing energy from the Earth. (You can factor out πr^2 to get (1 − a)S = 4εσT^4

Plugging in the numbers gives Earth an effective radiating temperature of about 288 K, which is the same given by direct measurement, so we know the model is fairly robust.

If you want to fiddle with it, try changing the solar constant, or the planet's emissivity (which in this model accounts for the greenhouse effect) and see what temperature you come up with. You could even rearrange it to see how much of a change in any factor you'd need to produce a given temperature change.

We know its a law that when temperature equals the dew point moisture will form? How can we apply that to the vagaries of weather?

The weather is seemingly random, but it still follows the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe.

We are discussing what variable natural and humanmade influences drive climate change. I'm not denying laws of physics. I am denying that the variable of anthropogenic created CO2 is the important driver of climate change! I'm trying to demonstrate that the climate doom demagogues are not infected with logic. And are distorting facts. plus ignoring recent measurements?

I know what you're trying to demonstrate.


Note to Matt: Sorry. I'll try to behave from now on.

[xyzer]

Parrot are we not getting back to an issue that has been touched on?
That is the earths albedo varies depending on other factors. Most important is cloud cover which can affect it.
We can postulate...
On average the Earth and its atmosphere typically reflect about 4% and 26%, respectively, of the sun’s incoming radiation back to space over the course of one year. As a result, the earth-atmosphere system has a combined albedo of about 30%, the number highly dependent on the local surface makeup, cover, and cloud distribution. We know that CO2(of which humans contribute less that 1%) has a blocking effect on radiation. Does not it strain credulity to think that we humans can make a global effort to reduce that less than 1% amount and have a significant affect on albedo? Even the IPCC indicated it would take several hundred years for such an effort to have any effect? Just how long will it take to curtail energy use by the major countries in this the age of carbon energy consumption?

If we use an equation to determine it, what solar radiation value should we plug into it? Can we predict the amount of cloud cover at a future date? Can we predict the amount of solar radiation that will occur at a future time?

Climate is a product of a number of variables which change constantly. What the IPCC models predict has to be based on past data because we can't predict what the main driver of the earths climate will be?
One can argue that when we put data into a computer model and then iterate it we will get trends. Is that the proper basis for spending 45 trillion $. Is that the proper basis for predictions that are qualified by termms such as likely? This is not a horse race,

I've said in the past and say again the prudent course is to adapt rather than try to change something we know so little about. Geologic changes take lots of time(in human terms)

[EnragedParrot]

Technically, Xyzer, the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect doesn't affect the planet's albedo, but its emissivity.

That aside, strain our credulity as it might, the physical evidence strongly suggests that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to have produced much of the late 20th century warming period.

And I've never said in the past but I'll say it now, given the uncertainties involved the most prudent course is to both adapt to the change and take sensible steps to prevent future change.

[Baarst]

Quote by: EnragedParrot Technically, Xyzer, the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect doesn't affect the planet's albedo, but its emissivity. That aside, strain our credulity as it might, the physical evidence strongly suggests that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to have produced much of the late 20th century warming period. And I've never said in the past but I'll say it now, given the uncertainties involved the most prudent course is to both adapt to the change and take sensible steps to prevent future change.

There is strong scientific data that states high CO2 levels lag behind high global temperatures by approximately 800 years, also there is strong evidence that volcanoes, rotting vegetation, animal waste and the sea produce far more CO2 then human related causes. I was told 20 years ago+ that sea levels would rise by over a metre in 10 years yet i haven't noticed any difference. I also find it funny that it was labeled as global warning a while back and now they call it climate change, it's just another scare tactic to try and keep the populous in line.

[EnragedParrot]

I don't see why any of that is relevant to what I just said.

[Baarst]

Quote by: EnragedParrot I don't see why any of that is relevant to what I just said.

You have stated that an increase in CO2 has driven global temperatures up, i have stated that there is strong evidence that CO2 rises after the temperature increases, i think what i posted has relevance to what you posted.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Baarst You have stated that an increase in CO2 has driven global temperatures up, i have stated that there is strong evidence that CO2 rises after the temperature increases, i think what i posted has relevance to what you posted.

Ah, I see what you were getting at now. It's the old "CO2 historically lags temperatures by 800 years and so cannot be causing the current warming" argument.

[xyzer]

Parrot..

That aside, strain our credulity as it might, the physical evidence strongly suggests that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to have produced much of the late 20th century warming period.

But we just disscussed the IPO and La Nina/El Ninos overwhelming influence? Are you now suggesting that those natural factors could have been more important than the increasing amount of anthropogenic CO2?
Voila! A break through? Something besides CO2 affects climate change? Is an even greater influence on the warming trend at the end of the last century?
Baarth speaks with "straight tongue" there is evidence(plenty of it ) that heating precedes CO2 increases. The ocean, which holds most of the CO2 releases more of it when it warms up. That something just might be solar radiance?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot.. But we just disscussed the IPO and La Nina/El Ninos overwhelming influence? Are you now suggesting that those natural factors could have been more important than the increasing amount of anthropogenic CO2? Voila! A break through? Something besides CO2 affects climate change? Is an even greater influence on the warming trend at the end of the last century?

I've never denied that other factors affect climate change, or even that other factors are at play in the current climate change. All I've said, and still say, is that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming.

Baarth speaks with "straight tongue" there is evidence(plenty of it ) that heating precedes CO2 increases. The ocean, which holds most of the CO2 releases more of it when it warms up. That something just might be solar radiance?

A straight tongue he may well speak with. But his straight tongue hasn't yet said anything remarkable. His argument does little, if anything, to refute the role of CO2 as the primary driver of the current warming.

[xyzer]

Parrot, Here is an interesting transcript of a talk by a noted weatherman. He is not a climate guru nor is this the result of a peer reviewed general climate study, but he does present a good view of the climate warming frenzy that has swept the world in the last few years.
John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

He verifies what I have ben saying about the recent reversal of warming as anthropogenic CO2 increases. It shows that natural forces are the major culprits in climate change. And your latest statement...

All I've said, and still say, is that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming.

.. is not supported by fact? the importance of human energy use and affect on CO2s influence is not factually or logically supported by the evidence.
This paragraph from Colemans monologue amuses me...

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

There are admittedly many natural factors that canand do) affect climate warming and cooling.and have since well before humans started lighting fires?
Instead of pausing, you climate warming believers dont want any conflicting eviidence? It wont get scientists more money for research studies, or line the pockets of the politicians and charlatans that stand to make s dollar off the cause? It might even result in schools having to get updated textbooks, or carbon credit schemers not being able to get rich?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot, Here is an interesting transcript of a talk by a noted weatherman. He is not a climate guru nor is this the result of a peer reviewed general climate study, but he does present a good view of the climate warming frenzy that has swept the world in the last few years. John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner He verifies what I have ben saying about the recent reversal of warming as anthropogenic CO2 increases. It shows that natural forces are the major culprits in climate change.

Verification requires evidence. Coleman doesn't provide any, he just repeats the same things you've been saying.

And your latest statement..... is not supported by fact? the importance of human energy use and affect on CO2s influence is not factually or logically supported by the evidence.

Sure it is.

This paragraph from Colemans monologue amuses me...

It amuses me too, but probably not for the same reason.

There are admittedly many natural factors that canand do) affect climate warming and cooling.and have since well before humans started lighting fires? Instead of pausing, you climate warming believers dont want any conflicting eviidence? It wont get scientists more money for research studies, or line the pockets of the politicians and charlatans that stand to make s dollar off the cause? It might even result in schools having to get updated textbooks, or carbon credit schemers not being able to get rich?

There are many factors that affect the climate, and I don't mind conflicting evidence. You just haven't presented any that I find convincing.

[xyzer]

Parrot, you are begining to disappoint me. You don't give factual denials or proof contra to my references and assertions. Instead you attack the messenger with flippant comments such as "Sure it is.", It amuses me too, but probably not for the same reason" A straight tongue he may well speak with. But his straight tongue hasn't yet said anything remarkable. "His argument does little, if anything, to refute the role of CO2 as the primary driver of the current warming."


Am I given to believe you are as rigid in your beliefs as other erstwhile believers in the Gorelike myths of global warming? You don't respond to obvious evidence(satellite measurements) which cast doubt on the anthropognic causes . And of course the vaunted models referred to by the IPCC have been shown to be flawed?

I fear the walls of mythical belief have crumbled before the reality of the situation? Followers, unlike leaders take that path? Yep. I guess the earth is flat.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot, you are begining to disappoint me. You don't give factual denials or proof contra to my references and assertions. Instead you attack the messenger with flippant comments such as "Sure it is.", It amuses me too, but probably not for the same reason" A straight tongue he may well speak with. But his straight tongue hasn't yet said anything remarkable. "His argument does little, if anything, to refute the role of CO2 as the primary driver of the current warming."

I didn't respond to your article because I didn't know why you gave it to me, only that you found it interesting and thought I might too. I didn't know I was expected to rebut the whole thing, and have neither the time nor the will to do so.

Perhaps if you give me a specific point or argument in the article that you find particularly compelling, we might be able to discuss it.

Am I given to believe you are as rigid in your beliefs as other erstwhile believers in the Gorelike myths of global warming? You don't respond to obvious evidence(satellite measurements) which cast doubt on the anthropognic causes . And of course the vaunted models referred to by the IPCC have been shown to be flawed?

You are to believe whatever you like.

[Georgia]

Everybody has their beliefs about GW, and are well entrenched

I am neither scientist nor climatologist, so I can only gather information and make an educated decision.

We can have both an:
* inactive and
* active storm season,
Both are undisputible proof of man-made GW: Everything that happens is more prooof of GW- they have it both ways.

Everything is caused by GW from kids acne to Yellow Fever:
warmlist

Given the quality and quantity of professional scientists who reject man's effect on global climate:
Global Warming Petition Project

Along with the multitude of other evidence- and the fact that:
* It is all based exclusively on computer "models"
* Proposed large transference of money (IE "Cap and spend scheme")
* Political posturing

I just can't sign onto the idea that man is causing GW.

Isn't this as a new global religion?
Mother Earth as the deity, sacrifices to be offered (Cap & Spend along with other "Imaginable" taxes) and an urgency to grow the faith? Mankind have been told of impending doom for how many milleniums?
The United States and her industrial engine stands as the great Satan in this new ideology, and this simply MUST be delt with.

The whole thing is obsurd. For example:
I've read where many scientists agree that we will soon be entering a natural global cooling cycle. Just for fun I googled "global cooling caused by global warming" and found, 1st website as:

"Global warming can cause global cooling"

Google it yourself and find many rediculous links saying the same thing. By default, this stuff will never end. Not when they can have it all ways.

I'd laugh if it wasn't going straight for our wallets. You're not forced to pay taxes to the Muslim or Christian faith, but are you ready to pay alms to the new "Mother Earth" movement? Both Obama and Mccain have a plan. Wouldn't Al Gore be proper wearing a religious robe?

Oh, yes- it's all "for the children". At least according to a TV show I saw my kids watching last weekend. Better to get them young.

I was told 20 years ago+ that sea levels would rise by over a metre in 10 years yet i haven't noticed any difference. I also find it funny that it was labeled as global warning a while back and now they call it climate change, it's just another scare tactic to try and keep the populous in line.

Exactly. Except where it's now ramped up to the point which they plan to send you a bill.
-Steve

[xyzer]

Yay Verily Georgia...
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

Some of them inhabit this thread.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Georgia Everybody has their beliefs about GW, and are well entrenched I am neither scientist nor climatologist, so I can only gather information and make an educated decision.

We shall see where your investigations lead but at a first glance, I can already see that you've not actually looked at the science...

Quote by: Georgia We can have both an: * inactive and * active storm season, Both are undisputible proof of man-made GW: Everything that happens is more prooof of GW- they have it both ways. Everything is caused by GW from kids acne to Yellow Fever: warmlist

Clicking on that link makes me laugh, those accusations and purported reasons are just random stuff people have clobbered together and posted online; it has no merit and certainly does not have any relevance to whether Global Warming is primarily anthropogenic.

Quote by: Georgia Given the quality and quantity of professional scientists who reject man's effect on global climate: Global Warming Petition Project

Psst, if you'd read any of my posts which responds to this petition, you'd know that it was a complete farce, and certainly does not represent a large proportion of scientists.

Quote by: Georgia Along with the multitude of other evidence- and the fact that: * It is all based exclusively on computer "models" * Proposed large transference of money (IE "Cap and spend scheme") * Political posturing

I can't speak for the politics side, but the your "fact" that it is all based on computer "models" is entirely wrong.

Quote by: Georgia I just can't sign onto the idea that man is causing GW.

Well, of course you're not convinced, you've been misinformed and misled!

Quote by: Georgia Isn't this as a new global religion? Mother Earth as the deity, sacrifices to be offered (Cap & Spend along with other "Imaginable" taxes) and an urgency to grow the faith? Mankind have been told of impending doom for how many milleniums? The United States and her industrial engine stands as the great Satan in this new ideology, and this simply MUST be delt with.

A little egocentric isn't it? This is a global problem which everyone must deal with, China has already surpassed the US as the single greatest CO2 contributor.

Quote by: Georgia The whole thing is obsurd. For example: I've read where many scientists agree that we will soon be entering a natural global cooling cycle. Just for fun I googled "global cooling caused by global warming" and found, 1st website as: "Global warming can cause global cooling" Google it yourself and find many rediculous links saying the same thing. By default, this stuff will never end. Not when they can have it all ways.

This is the media taking what has been said entirely out of context, and you have taken it hook, line and sinker without a little investigation. Some scientists may have reported that due to strong La Nina effect, we may temporarily see a flatline in the warming but this is by no means global cooling.

Quote by: Georgia I'd laugh if it wasn't going straight for our wallets. You're not forced to pay taxes to the Muslim or Christian faith, but are you ready to pay alms to the new "Mother Earth" movement? Both Obama and Mccain have a plan. Wouldn't Al Gore be proper wearing a religious robe? Oh, yes- it's all "for the children". At least according to a TV show I saw my kids watching last weekend. Better to get them young. Exactly. Except where it's now ramped up to the point which they plan to send you a bill. -Steve

Ridicule all you want but at current projections, we may see a 20% reduction in global economy by 2100 due to climate change that we may be able to prevent. I guess that doesn't matter to you as it's unlikely you'll see the 22nd century but spare a thought for your descendants.

[Hodge Podge]

Quote by: JohnMK If I could answer that question: The Oracle. Ethylene gas, you know the ritual. CO2 at roughly 390 ppm is about 90 ppm above its average, and about 70 ppm above its cyclical peak. We're in record territory here folks, the geologic record shows that in the past million years or so we're really setting quite the trend. In ~1960, we were at roughly 330 ppm. A lay understanding of atmospheric chemistry should make the obvious implications of such a growth trend clear: manbearpig.

Ethanol is crap and not a feasible solution. First it would rise the price of food dramatically, and the stuff takes a lot of energy to make in the first place.

I'm not sure about global warming, or whatever they call it now. I've seen convincing evidence on both sides of the issue.

[xyzer]

Here is a recent article which says it the way it is.
FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Time to Retire 'Denier' - Opinion

The author from junkscience has experience in shattering illogical myths.

Consider the logic.
99+% of the earths greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2?
97% ofCO2 emissions come from natural(mostly the oceans) rather than human sources.
Recent satellite measurements show a leveling or even cooling of global temps inspite of the increasing human contributions to CO2.

The believers can rant on about how computer models predicted increased warming and it was directly related to human carbon use but their conclusions are illogical. It strains credibility to believe that humans who contribute a fraction of the actual greenhouse gas can overcome natural influences and change climate patterns? And there is no scientific proof they can.

It seems to me absurd to postulate that global warming(and increased CO2) are going to increase a global economic drag? CO2 increases are the essence of plant growth. Crops respond to CO2 by increasing growth! Warmer climes mean some areas are now open to crops that wouldn't grow before? This latest bit of propaganda is just more illogical nonsense designed to confirm the myth that humans can and should influence climate.

By the way Pooey if the global warming myth isn't based on computer modes and alarmist hype, what is it based on? The actual evidence since the initial frenzy started shows cooling as well as other more important influences(El Nino and La Nina) overcoming the alleged human influence?

[xyzer]

Here is another example ot the feces thats peddled by the Mainstream Media as some sort of example of the perils of global warming?American Thinker Blog: CBS Pulls Unvetted Story Blaming Earthquakes on Global Warming

The author of this stupidity is a flake whose credentials are to be questioned and yet CBS runs the story without out any investigation and when caught blames the AP? Which in its turn denies the story?

And so it goes in the circus which surrounds the global warming issue?