Global Warming

[xyzer]

I'm amused at your plaintiff 'nit pick' Pooey? You find one anomaly in a host of data and point it out? What about the accuracy and impact of the major portion of the data? I'd opine it's typical of the defenders of the current global warming hysteria? They blithely ignore lots of counter evidence and continue to generalize about human contributions to Co2?

You do a lot of verbal posturing about scientific inquiry and yet you imply certainty to the qualified opinions contained in the conclusions of certain scientific studies? And. amazingly either ignore or counter the accuracy of contra finding and opinions?

The levels of Co2 and humans contributions to it are there and minimal, and yet you defend those who amplify these levels or there importance?? There are all sorts of definitve sources which show it's less than 1% of the earths gases and yet you seem to agree changing a fraction of it will 'tip the scales' of global climate?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm amused at your plaintiff 'nit pick' Pooey? You find one anomaly in a host of data and point it out?

If the one anomaly draws into question the validity of all the data used then I'd say it was more than worth pointing out.

Quote by: xyzer What about the accuracy and impact of the major portion of the data? I'd opine it's typical of the defenders of the current global warming hysteria? They blithely ignore lots of counter evidence and continue to generalize about human contributions to Co2?

What have I ignored? What have I said so that constitutes as part of the hysteria? Bare in mind again, I don't agree nor use materials from Al Gore and other extremists hippies out there.

Quote by: xyzer You do a lot of verbal posturing about scientific inquiry and yet you imply certainty to the qualified opinions contained in the conclusions of certain scientific studies?

If by that you mean I'm less questioning of papers published in scientific journals compared to poorly constructed websites, well I'm guilty as charged.

Quote by: xyzer And. amazingly either ignore or counter the accuracy of contra finding and opinions?

Which contra findings and opinions are those (in specific)?

Quote by: xyzer The levels of Co2 and humans contributions to it are there and minimal, and yet you defend those who amplify these levels or there importance?? There are all sorts of definitve sources which show it's less than 1% of the earths gases and yet you seem to agree changing a fraction of it will 'tip the scales' of global climate?

A change of 100ppm from 280 to 380 ppm is hardly minimal, in the past this amount of change would take at least 5 thousand years and we've seen it occur in just 2 centuries. We also happen to have seen a stark rise in global temperature at the same time frame. Now until you can find the direct cause for this warming, rising CO2 levels remain the most likely explanation for it. You may have much anecdotes and rhetoric but I've yet to see you present me with an alternate explanation to this phenomenon which is properly established.

[jamesbdunn]

Whether or not Global Warming is the cause of humans or not, what can we do to reverse the trends to help stabilize our environment and ecology? Just because it may be a natural process doesn't mean it's a desireable process. I know of one species that has become extinct because of regional warming, regardless of global warming.

Yahoo! 360° - Entries tagged "weather_control"

Regulating a Weather Control System & Global Power Stations

Put aside whether or not you believe a practical and effective weather control system can be created. If there is a practical method of controlling the weather so that Global Warming can be reversed, would it be criminal for any governing body on Earth that failed to support establishing a Weather Control System (WCS)? Would they be liable for any damages, injuries, and deaths incurred because of negligently failing to provide remedy?

Yahoo! 360° - Scientific Technologies & Political Reform - Weather Control System (WCS)

Additionally, the WCS can potentially provide abundant clean power, more than what the world currently consumes; eliminating the majority of all human produced greenhouse gases. Approximately 1 gigawatt per WCS satellite.

Yahoo! 360° - Scientific Technologies & Political Reform - WCS provides Solar Power to power the world

How would we regulate the power distribution and cost of power since it would be virtually a monopoly?

Obviously, we need to be careful about abusing such a system. But it is a viable tool for helping to ensure our survival; especially if nothing else works.

What laws would have to be put into place to ensure the ethical use of a Weather Control System, and a Global Power System?

[xyzer]

Interesting points James! You are assuming,however, that the warming period will continue and that anthropogenic Co2 is a major factor? I'm not so sure of those assumptions..There are several authortative climate studies that contravene this alarmist scenario!

You and Pooey should read this treatise.carefully....http://http://www.friendsofscience.o.../deFreitas.pdf
before you commit yourselves to a conjectural hoax perpetrated by the IPCC and spread by the likes of Al Gore.

There is all sorts of evidence that the 'hockey stick" graph and other assumptions by the panel have been wrongly applied. There is also evidence that other more influential sources of climate change have been virtually ignored as the Co2 theory has been inflated out of proportion..Unfortunately the press in its inimitable fashion has so inflated this psuedo science as to alarm he world.

[Derach]

There needs to me more investment in the science of climatology and how we can protect ourselves from the inevidible climate shifts that will continue to occur on earth. Unfortunately, we have not evolved beyond investing in killing oneanother yet so that we can put resources into studying the impact of cosmic or natural events like weather, climate, or for that matter, meteor strikes. We are still FAR more likely to cause direct environmental disasters intentionally or neglectfully (Chernobyl) than we are to succumb to the long term effect of using weed-wackers or getting 20MPG instead of 35.

[xyzer]

There needs to me more investment in the science of climatology and how we can protect ourselves from the inevidible climate shifts that will continue to occur on earth. Unfortunately, we have not evolved beyond investing in killing oneanother yet so that we can put resources into studying the impact of cosmic or natural events like weather, climate, or for that matter, meteor strikes. We are still FAR more likely to cause direct environmental disasters intentionally or neglectfully (Chernobyl) than we are to succumb to the long term effect of using weed-wackers or getting 20MPG instead of 35.

Good points, but is it prudent to waste resources trying to change natural climate cycles? Do we want to pay for something we have no current technology or ability to change? The IPCC which put out a damning scenario admitted that even IF Co2 was humanly causal and even if humans could affect C02 levels immediately it would take over two centuries for it to have a noticeable affect on climate?
I repeat if Co2 comprises less than one % of our atmoshpheric gases and humans impact some small fraction of that amount...is it logical to assume that humans can affect climate? The sun is the bad guy and the studies that the alarmists site didn't consider its major impact!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Good points, but is it prudent to waste resources trying to change natural climate cycles? Do we want to pay for something we have no current technology or ability to change? The IPCC which put out a damning scenario admitted that even IF Co2 was humanly causal and even if humans could affect C02 levels immediately it would take over two centuries for it to have a noticeable affect on climate?

Are you saying that the Stern report is wrong then? What do you base this on?

Quote by: xyzer I repeat if Co2 comprises less than one % of our atmoshpheric gases and humans impact some small fraction of that amount...is it logical to assume that humans can affect climate? The sun is the bad guy and the studies that the alarmists site didn't consider its major impact!

I'll ask again, support your accusations with reliable evidence. Show me where reports and models have deliberately left out the solar factor.

[jamesbdunn]

We have the technologies to control the weather. Most of the technologies need to be adapted for implementation in space. They need to evolve of course.

Yahoo! 360° - Scientific Technologies & Political Reform - Weather Control System (WCS)

The effort is more of a Systems Engineering effort rather than a research effort. Most pieces of the system have already been explored by multiple researchers for diverse reasons.

But the main stumbling block isn't the adaptation of current technologies for space based applications, it is the ethical use of the technologies.

Also, one solar reflector can concentrate about 1 gigawatt of power. The Weather Control System could feasibly pay for itself by selling abundant clean solar energy. Virtually eliminating all human produced greenhouse gases.

We need to implement a State elected ethical management team for managing the NSA.

Yahoo! 360° - Entries tagged "nsa"

To build a system that affects the world, there should be a means to eliminate all forms of corruption.

James Dunn

[xyzer]

Pooey posts

I'll ask again, support your accusations with reliable evidence. Show me where reports and models have deliberately left out the solar factor

It does me no good to post reliable sources you obviously don't read them or discard them off hand! See and reread, friendy science post of April 15?
http://http://http://www.friendsofsc.../deFreitas.pdf

Here is another confirming opinion that supports my contention that alarmists are already going overboard on this issue. The obvious hysteria based on an unproven bunch of assumptions and prognostications that are not only flawed but arranged to support a hypothesis? This bunch of supposition is hyped by a willing press and becomes unrealistic hyteria!
http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...22/nclim22.xml

"The politicians are still hooked up on this global leadership on climate change, which has become a political bandwagon," he said. "You can see all the politicians trying to out-green each other. There is a danger they will damage competitiveness and companies will move jobs to other countries."

His comments come weeks after Chris Gibson Smith, the chairman of the London Stock Exchange, said the Government's policies on climate change risked damaging British business.

I have asked repeatedly whether it is prudent to start using resources on a hopeless quest? Now even the business world is begining to wonder?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts It does me no good to post reliable sources you obviously don't read them or discard them off hand! See and reread, friendy science post of April 15? http://http://http://www.friendsofsc.../deFreitas.pdf

First of all, your link is broken. Second of all, you've yet to cite anything that isn't just subjective rhetoric. I await your evidence, until then your accusations are baseless.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another confirming opinion that supports my contention that alarmists are already going overboard on this issue. The obvious hysteria based on an unproven bunch of assumptions and prognostications that are not only flawed but arranged to support a hypothesis? This bunch of supposition is hyped by a willing press and becomes unrealistic hyteria! http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...22/nclim22.xml I have asked repeatedly whether it is prudent to start using resources on a hopeless quest? Now even the business world is begining to wonder?

I have asked whether it is prudent to do nothing now and then realise in half a century's time how costly it is to make amends. According to the Stern report, prevention is better than trying to find a cure later on. Are you going to call Stern a tree hugging hippie?

[xyzer]

I asked the question on another thread about warming.. It is whether estimates agreeing with estimates equal certainty or even probability?
Here is another ..can estimates of what the suns intensity will be in 50 years added to estimates derived from past dendrology and ice core evidence(so called climate proxies) be used to predict temperatures within a few degress some distant time in the future? If the urgency is caused by less that 1 degrees C warming in 100 years how can estimates be indicative of another increase of 1 degree in the next hundred years? Follow that one with the estimate that we humans who contribute some small fraction of 1 % of Co2 in our atmosphere can affect climate by changing that fraction? Thats the logic you are believing with certainty or likelihood? The studies you cite are replete with words like "it is estimated" and conclusions prefaced with words like "could", might" ad nauseam! Estimates of estimates resulting in certainty?
I don't think it fits logic and reality.. and I as I have repeatedly said it is imprudent to try to waste resources on something so illogically based..
You post..

I have asked whether it is prudent to do nothing now and then realise in half a century's time how costly it is to make amends. According to the Stern report, prevention is better than trying to find a cure later on. Are you going to call Stern a tree hugging hippie?

I'm not calling Stern anything. I realize that in 50 years many thing could change..climate will change as it has over the eons..it could get colder and it could get warmer. Which do you bet on and what are the odds? You have to admit the estimates are in fact guesses...I don't like the odds.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I asked the question on another thread about warming.. It is whether estimates agreeing with estimates equal certainty or even probability?

You'll need to clarify this question. How do you mean by "equal certainty or even probability"?

Quote by: xyzer Here is another ..can estimates of what the suns intensity will be in 50 years added to estimates derived from past dendrology and ice core evidence(so called climate proxies) be used to predict temperatures within a few degrees some distant time in the future? If the urgency is caused by less that 1 degrees C warming in 100 years how can estimates be indicative of another increase of 1 degree in the next hundred years?

That all depends on the reliability of the data, are you questioning that? Do you have a better technique or model? If you do, please share it with us.

Quote by: xyzer Follow that one with the estimate that we humans who contribute some small fraction of 1 % of Co2 in our atmosphere can affect climate by changing that fraction?

A 30% increase isn't a small fraction. You make it sound like it's trivial.

Quote by: xyzer Thats the logic you are believing with certainty or likelihood? The studies you cite are replete with words like "it is estimated" and conclusions prefaced with words like "could", might" ad nauseam! Estimates of estimates resulting in certainty? I don't think it fits logic and reality.. and I as I have repeatedly said it is imprudent to try to waste resources on something so illogically based.. You post..

Again, you are playing with semantics. Scientific language is ALWAYS cautious and conclusions ALWAYS given in terms of statistic significance figure or term. If you've ever read more than one scientific paper you would know this.

Quote by: xyzer I'm not calling Stern anything. I realize that in 50 years many thing could change..climate will change as it has over the eons..it could get colder and it could get warmer. Which do you bet on and what are the odds? You have to admit the estimates are in fact guesses...I don't like the odds.

The estimates are our best projections from our limited models. Again, if you have a better modelling system to provide more accurate and precise predictions, do share.

[xyzer]

Come on Pooey?

A 30% increase isn't a small fraction. You make it sound like it's trivial

Do the math! .30X.04 An .0420 increase of the human contribution to Co2 which is something like .04% of the total 1% is insignificant and doesn't possibly counteract the major(natural) influences on climate?

Here is another?

You'll need to clarify this question. How do you mean by "equal certainty or even probability"?

Just pick up your dictionary and check the defition of certainty..then check the definition of estimates. Then answer the question does the term estimate =certainty?

It ought to become evident that we are being duped by the IFCC and climate alarmists about the signifigance of human contributions to global warming. Yes there is evidence that we have been in a warmer cycle the last quarter century but no there is no definitive evidence that humsn caused emissions are a major or even minor cause for it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Come on Pooey? Do the math! .30X.04 An .0420 increase of the human contribution to Co2 which is something like .04% of the total 1% is insignificant and doesn't possibly counteract the major(natural) influences on climate?

Let's put this into perspective, we've seen 280PPM rise to 380PPM, something which normally takes thousands of years (not to mention this peak is the highest in the past 300k years at the very least). You're assuming that CO2 has minimal contribution to thermal retention, or the greenhouse effect. Therefore, you're playing the % game to make it appear as if you have the numbers on your side, when in fact, you don't.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another? Just pick up your dictionary and check the defition of certainty..then check the definition of estimates. Then answer the question does the term estimate =certainty?

When did I equate estimate to certainty? Where is that written or implied?

Quote by: xyzer It ought to become evident that we are being duped by the IFCC and climate alarmists about the signifigance of human contributions to global warming. Yes there is evidence that we have been in a warmer cycle the last quarter century but no there is no definitive evidence that humsn caused emissions are a major or even minor cause for it?

There is mounting evidence for human induced global warming, it remains the most likely explanation so until you can find something else that fits it better, that's what you'll have to accept. I don't want to hear any more flimsy anecdotes, if for example you think it's the sun's fault then find the evidence to support your assertions. If you can't then you've got no point and no case, just denial.

[deepk]

With global warming the new concept of carbon trading has come up. Under the scheme polluting countries can buy carbon credits from non-polluting countries by paying them.

It is quite ridiculous that countries keep on pulluting under some garb or another effectivly not reducing the global warming at all.

[Sugar]

Carbon trading is not the way to control global warming. Rather it has become a tool in the hands of the polluters to carry on their polluting activities legally

[xyzer]

I keep reading comments from Pooey about there being consensus among scientists about anthropogenic influences on climate? ..
Here is a prominent dissenter..A scientist who does not concede to the alarmism about Co2..[quote]
http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/...269033,00.html

Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.

He said research arguing that humans are causing global warming is "mush" based on unreliable computer models that cannot possibly take into account the hundreds of factors that influence the weather.

Pooey, you asked sometime back..

I'll ask again, support your accusations with reliable evidence. Show me where reports and models have deliberately left out the solar factor.

Do you want to show me the hundreds of factors this expert says have been left out of the models you so implicitly believe in ?
Show me where the suns influence was included, I haven't found it? Show me where ocean currents and temps have been included?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I keep reading comments from Pooey about there being consensus among scientists about anthropogenic influences on climate? ..

Consensus means a majority agreement, I never said absolute and I've mentioned it before that even evolution has dissenters and if taken court it'll be proven beyond doubt.

Quote by: xyzer Here is a prominent dissenter..A scientist who does not concede to the alarmism about Co2.. http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/...269033,00.html

Well, only time will tell on his predictions. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, you asked sometime back.. Do you want to show me the hundreds of factors this expert says have been left out of the models you so implicitly believe in ? Show me where the suns influence was included, I haven't found it? Show me where ocean currents and temps have been included?

You made the accusations, you must support them first.
Seeing as you're so persistent but lack substance, here's an article citing studies that demonstrate no correlation between Solar activity and global warming and again (click on Nature journal.

So what's your next move?

[medi]

Carbon Credits has become the new tool to legalise pollution. There must be UN regulations to regulate trading in such credits.

[xyzer]

Pooey posts..

Seeing as you're so persistent but lack substance, here's an article citing studies that demonstrate no correlation between Solar activity and global warming and again (click on Nature journal.

And yet the first paragraph of his reference reads..

There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).

And yet the reference shows a definite lack of consensus among some scientists, i'e,' conjecture about the suns influence? You proved my point that there is no real consensus in the scientific community. And you didn't show whether the suns influence was used in the IPCC data and resultant report? I asked you to point it out as a factor in the models you so implicitly trust. Talk about substance? Where is it? As usual you are sidestepping the issue?

Facts about incoming solar/cosmic particles..
14% absorbed by earths atmosphere
7% reflected by earths atmosphere
24% reflected by clouds
4% reflected by oceans and land

51% absorbed by earths surface. Heat is a climate maker!

Content of earths atmosphere:
78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
0.93% Argon
less than .07% C02. Human caused contribution less than that. Some smaller part of that .07%

Is it logical to say that by us changing our consumption of fossil fuels by some small amount that we will in effect place less of a block on the reflection of the suns heat back into space? And cause the earth to become warmer? Even the IPCC people stated that even if we could
change CO2 levels it would take a couple of centuries to see any effects?