Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans [Archive]

markus3622

06-22-2006, 10:21 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans

WASHINGTON — It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever.
The National Academy of Sciences (javascript:siteSearch('National Academy of Sciences');), reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

...

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.
The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

-------------------------------------------------------

It appears that the National Academy of Sciences find the evidence for human induced global warming convincing.

sunsettommy

06-22-2006, 11:38 AM

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.

This weakens the entire report significantly.They are referring to the discredited "Hockey Stick" paper.

400 years ago was during the little ice age time frame.

2006-400=1606

This is amazing!

sunsettommy

06-22-2006, 11:39 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans

WASHINGTON — It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever.
The National Academy of Sciences (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('National Academy of Sciences');), reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

...

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.
The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

-------------------------------------------------------

It appears that the National Academy of Sciences find the evidence for human induced global warming convincing.

Link no good!

Naturalized-Texan

06-22-2006, 04:19 PM

sunsettommy: Yep, the junk scientists use weasel words like "likely" and many other similar weasel words because they know that there is no scientific evidence that global warming is human-caused. The hypothesis of human-caused global warming is politics, not science.

MichaelS

06-22-2006, 04:25 PM

From the full report (http://www.nas.edu/morenews/20060622.html)...

Greenhouse gases and tropospheric aerosols varied little from A.D. 1 to around 1850. Volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were likely the most strongly varying external forcings during this period, but it is currently estimated that the temperature variations caused by these forcings were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas forcing since the mid 19th century.The numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.And from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Science Committee, in response...There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change..

maxparrish

06-22-2006, 05:20 PM

From the full report (http://www.nas.edu/morenews/20060622.html)...

And from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Science Committee, in response...

The devil is in the details. The NAS panel tried to satisfy both sides, and came up with a dumb sh*& document. They try to confirm the warming trend as unprecidented, then confess that Mann's hockey stick is a waste, if not a fraud.

The study lists all the faults of Mann's study, not appreciating that most of the faults of Mann's study are in the "independent" reconstructions - same dubious data and many with the same math.

Researchers who have asked for data and methods for reconstruction of the "hockey" team results are rebuffed or given only partial data sets and NO computer programs.

LOOK, I used to trust climate modelers as earnest and that their results were likely true - after reading the papers and the poltics....its clear that they are corrupted by fierce ideological imperatives (and are poor statiscians as well).

Second raters giving third rate results, no wonder they arn't in economics or physics...too much math.

Lubbock

06-22-2006, 05:54 PM

Global Warming is a lucrative business. Follow the $$$$.

Naturalized-Texan

06-22-2006, 06:37 PM

Second raters giving third rate results, no wonder they aren't in economics or physics...too much math.
That's why, when asked for scientific proof that global warming is caused by human activities, they always use the copouts that there is no such thing as scientific proof or science doesn't work that way or there is a consensus among scientists... or the majority of scientists believe...

You sure hit the nail on the head with that sentence. :claps:

Naturalized-Texan

06-22-2006, 06:43 PM

Global Warming is a lucrative business. Follow the $$$$.
Absolutely! If the junk scientists who pretend that global warming is human-caused ever told the truth that it's all a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, their grant money would completely dry up and they would all end up unemployed.

maxparrish

06-22-2006, 07:08 PM

Absolutely! If the junk scientists who pretend that global warming is human-caused ever told the truth that it's all a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, their grant money would completely dry up and they would all end up unemployed. Yes, that is the motive. The feds fund these yahoos only because they ginned up hysteria...their jobs depend on global warming.

markus3622

06-23-2006, 02:41 AM

MichaelS

06-23-2006, 05:52 AM

They would rather believe in a global conspiracy of academia than the possibility that mankind belching millions of tons of a long-lasting, greenhouse gas into an atmospheric system on a yearly basis over an extended period of time might actually influence that system in a noticeable way.

sunsettommy

06-23-2006, 06:26 AM

It's just another report that again vindicates the scientists (Mann et al), so of course, it must be a conspiracy.

Why can't you folks just admit you got it wrong? Why does every report come to the same conclusion?

Still trying to be relevant?

Do you realize that Decades of science and historical research have made it clear that the Little Ice age and Medeival warm period existed?

I notice that you never address this point I have made numerous times.

Here is evidence that the NAS report is weak and two faced.

The link is from Climate Science:

NAS Panel Report (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715)

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>window.document.getElementById('post-715').parentNode.className += ' adhesive_post';</SCRIPT>The early rumors on the NAS Panel was that it was “two handed” – on the one hand, …, on the other hand, … with something for everyone. I’d characterize it more as schizophrenic. It’s got two completely distinct personalities. On the one hand, they pretty much concede that every criticism of MBH is correct. They disown MBH claims to statistical skill for individual decades and especially individual years.

However, they nevertheless conclude that it is “plausible” – whatever that means – that the “Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”. Here, the devil is in the details, as the other studies relied on for this conclusion themselves suffer from the methodological and data problems conceded by the panel. The panel recommendations on methodology are very important; when applied to MBH and the other studies (as they will be in short order), it is my view that they will have major impact and little will be left standing from the cited multiproxy studies.

Update: Eduardo Zorita’s take posted up below was:in my opinion the Panel adopted the most critical position to MBH nowadays possible. I agree with you that it is in many parts ambivalent and some parts are inconsistent with others. It would have been unrealistic to expect a report with a summary stating that MBH98 and MBH99 were wrong (and therefore the IPC TAR had serious problems) when the Fourth Report is in the making. I was indeed surprised by the extensive and deep criticism of the MBH methodology in Chapters 9 and 11 .

I thought that the tone of the question period showed that some reporters were pretty unsettled - there were questions about the "over-selling" of MBH with the panel taking pains to suggest that IPCC would be repsonsible rather than MBH (conveniently omitting that Mann was section author of the section promoting MBH and in his capacity of IPCC author, ratcheted up the statistical claims) ; there was discussion of what "plausible" meant, with a reporter wondering if this was "damning with faint praise".

You can find the report and the recorded briefing here. (http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html)

(A whole lot more and over 230 comments to it)

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715

markus3622

06-23-2006, 08:41 AM

sunsettommy

06-23-2006, 05:37 PM

Tommy,

We've discussed all this before. Of course the people who just lost are going to try and discredit the report, that's expected. Linking to climateaudit isn't going to help.

As I've mentioned before, it doesn't actually matter that the Middle Ages Warm period occurred, for the simple reason is that scientists are studying what is causing the recent warming, not ones in the past. They can give us clues. However, the fact that the middle ages warm period existed does nothing, (as the report shows) the change the fact that the evidence suggests much of the recent warming is caused by human activities.

Trying to be openly dishonest with me?

The Hockey Stick paper was warmly embraced and put on the "front pages" of the 2001 IPCC report.It was given a lot of attention in it.Then a lot of people including you unfortunately gave it thumbs up.

Now this NAS report which you obviously have not read was not all that good for the Hockey Stick charade.They made some disparaging remarks to it and all the while supported the existence of the Medeival warm period and the Little ice age.

It is you who are in denial here.

sunsettommy

06-23-2006, 05:39 PM

Sen. Inhofe: NAS Report Refutes Global Warming TheoryNewsMax.com Wires
Friday, June 23, 2006

Snip:

But the NAS's report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years" noted in its summary that there were "relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the ‘Medieval Warm Period') and a relatively cold period (or ‘Little Ice Age') centered around 1700."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, said in a statement Thursday: "Today's NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick' is broken. Today's report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age." The NAS report also stated that there are "substantial uncertainties" regarding Mann's claims that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest in last 1,000 years.

The report further chastises Mann by declaring: "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990's are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium…'
"This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years ... when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/22/173043.shtml?s=et

I admit the headline is misleading.But NAS report did damage the Hockey Stick paper.

MichaelS

06-23-2006, 07:50 PM

Naturalized-Texan

06-23-2006, 07:55 PM

NAS News Release (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676)

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.

{More at the link above.}

sunsettommy

06-23-2006, 08:45 PM

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. While the current NAS report did not agree with all of Mann's original conclusions, it did concur with its basic premise, that the Earth has been warming and continues to do so and that human activities are the primary driver of that warming since the mid-19th century.

A Barbi Doll can accurately say there is current warming trend going on.

The NAS report was ABOUT the Hockey Stick paper.It was requested by CONGRESS to address the controversy.

Here is a link that shows a few more problems on the H.S. that M and M already pointed out 2 years ago.

From Climate Science:

Comment on the NRC Report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years” (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/06/23/comment-on-the-nrc-report-surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years/)

Filed under: Climate Science Reporting (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/climate-science-reporting/) — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:32 am
The Report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years” (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html#toc) has appeared. This Report discusses the IPCC “hockey stick” plot of the multi-century global average surface temperature trends.
When I first saw this plot several years ago, I assumed it would be quickly shown that pasting togther of proxy data with the instrument data for the last few decades is scientifically flawed. These two approaches represent two distinctly different procedures to assess surface temperature trends. However, this hockey stick figure has become an icon for communicating global warming (and climate change, in general) to the public and policymakers.

In the Report, I fail to see an assessment of the following questions:

1. What is the uncertainty associated with the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature trend by pasting the instrument record onto the end of the proxy record? How does proxy data in the last few decades correspond to the measured surface air temperature trends AT THE SAME LOCATIONS?

2. Why is it assumed that “The Earth warmed by roughly 0.6 degrees….during the 20th century..” when we have documented biases in the peer reviewed literature in the assessment of trends in the land surface temperature data (e.g. see “Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same (http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf)?”; “Assessing ‘Global Warming’ with Surface Heat Content”)? (http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-290.pdf)In a national assessment, why was such peer reviewed literature ignored?

Ignoring these science questions provides the perspective that the Report is intended to promote a particular perspective on climate science, rather than providing a balanced presentation on the issues. Indeed, the statement in Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/22/report_backs_global_warming_claims/)that,

“Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in a (millennium),’’ said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington”,

clearly shows such a biased view. The Report is a disappointment in not adequately addressing the accuracy of the global surface temperature trend data. Since its accuracy is at the foundation of the entire Report, the absence of such an evaluation very substantially weakens the value of the Report in climate science.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/06/23/comment-on-the-nrc-report-surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years/

sunsettommy

06-23-2006, 08:58 PM

MichaelS

06-23-2006, 11:19 PM

sunsettommy

06-24-2006, 07:01 AM

Just for argument's sake, let's say your statements are true. Are you actually trying to detect a trend from only a few years worth of data? Surely not. After all, that would be rather hypocritical of you, now wouldn't it?

Talk about overblown.

:rotflmbo:

Oh the irony!

All I did was state correctly that in recent years the warming has slowed down.In direct contradiction to recent months talk from the Global warmers that we are facing some sort of an ACCELERATED warming trend towards a "tipping point" of a runaway greenhouse warming.

Surely you remember those silly "tipping point" scaremongering we have been reading about this year?

All I did was state that statistically there are FEWER Hurricanes overall globally.True there were an increase in the Atlantic.But just about EVERWHERE ELSE was a decrease.A direct contradiction to claims that the world is getting "stormier".

I correctly stated that El-Ninyos frequency and strength has precipitiously DECLINED! The last one was 5 years ago.The last strong one was EIGHT YEARS AGO! A direct contradiction that the warming would produce more and more El-Ninyos and with greater depth of the phenomenon.

Never did I say anything specific about a temperature trend as a prediction.All I pointed out that the trend is not in line with the scaremongering predictions.

It is the Global Warmers who make overblown arguments based on Modeling Scenarios and CO2 atmospheric increases treated in a Linear fashion.

:smirky:

The IPCC early on made a number of Global Temperature predictions that have been way off the mark.They have changed the predicted level of warming since then by way over HALF of the origional predicted warming.

Remember the 11 degrees C? now it is down to around 2 degrees C.

Have you forgotten that?

Still want to talk about overblown statements?

Lubbock

06-24-2006, 07:44 AM

The earth warms, the earth cools, the earth warms, the earth cools, the earth warms, the earth cools . . . .

(And we're sold out of flag poles . . . [remember that line from a Johnny Cash song?])

MichaelS

06-24-2006, 08:06 AM

But wait, then there's this (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=June&x=20060623094047lcnirellep0.678097) being distributed by the U.S. State Department...

Each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic sea-surface temperatures due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, he said. But the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity.....to supplement this....Global warming accounted for about half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to a new analysis by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
But, as I'm sure you would agree, I have no doubt they're just making all this up and are really in the pockets of some big nameless, faceless global conspiracy that's melting glaciers with hair dryers.

sunsettommy

06-24-2006, 10:38 AM

But wait, then there's this (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=June&x=20060623094047lcnirellep0.678097) being distributed by the U.S. State Department...

....to supplement this....
But, as I'm sure you would agree, I have no doubt they're just making all this up and are really in the pockets of some big nameless, faceless global conspiracy that's melting glaciers with hair dryers.

Why dont you show me evidence that Hurricanes frequency are increasing WORLWIDE?

Hint:try the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER.They keep statistical records of Tropical and Hurricane numbers.There is no evidence of overall increased numbers of Tropical storms and Hurricanes worldwide.

Hint:try considering the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation as the factual evidence on why there is an increase in Hurricanes in the Atlantic in recent years.Go to the NOAA website for an education there.

Still that leaves the rest of the world to consider.Most oceanic regions show a decreasing or stable numbers of Tropical storms and Hurricanes.

Can YOU explain the decrease overall in the rest of the worlds oceans?

There is more to making a Hurricane beyond the 80 degree surface waters temperatures.It is a number of climatic factors that determine the development of a Tropical storm.

I correctly said that only in the ATLANTIC OCEAN is there an increase.It will be fewer this year because the conditions of the Bemuda High and the cooling and more diffused water temperature levels are less favorable to Tropical development.

You never rebutted it.You just make a deflection to what I was saying.

You people are getting desperate.

A common tactic for clueless liberals.

Naturalized-Texan

06-24-2006, 12:04 PM

MichaelS

06-24-2006, 01:32 PM

You people are getting desperate.That's hysterical. :D

I'm not arguing with you, because I have no need to argue. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

You believe what you believe. Have at. Congrats even!

Common sense says that mankind can't spew billions of tons of a greenhouse gas into an atmospheric system without impacting it in noticeable ways.

That common sense is reinforced by the most respected scientific communities in the world including the IPCC, NAS, and NCAR.

But you expect me to try to justify their findings to a nameless, faceless poster on a conservative message board or conversely buy into a global conspiracy among academics? Please. Now, that's desperate. :rolleyes:

Just for fun, here's some more info (http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=654) for ya...The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped since the 1990s, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period.Personally....I'd much rather see a plethora of Albertos than a handful of Katrinas.

Naturalized-Texan

06-24-2006, 04:21 PM

Common sense says that mankind can't spew billions of tons of a greenhouse gas into an atmospheric system without impacting it in noticeable ways.
Sadly for you, there is no evidence that mankind is spewing billions of tons of a greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In fact, there is no evidence that greenhouse gases have anything to do with global warming. You need to priovide proof of your assertion that mankind is spewing billions of tons of a greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as well as proof that greenhouse gases have anything to do with global warming.

That common sense is reinforced by the most respected scientific communities in the world including the IPCC, NAS, and NCAR.
Those organizations make lots of assertions and include lots of weasel words in their assertions, but provide no proof. All they have is a hypothesis based on speculation and supposition.

But you expect me to try to justify their findings to a nameless, faceless poster on a conservative message board or conversely buy into a global conspiracy among academics? Please. Now, that's desperate. :rolleyes:
You've made several assertions without providing proof. Until and unless there is iron-clad proof that global warming is being caused by human activities, there is nothing that we can or should do about it.

Just for fun, here's some more info (http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=654) for ya...The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped since the 1990s, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period.Personally....I'd much rather see a plethora of Albertos than a handful of Katrinas.
That is completely in line with the 30-35 year natural cycle in the intensity and frequency of such storms. Even the hurricane experts at U. of Colorado (Dr. Bill Gray, et al.) and at NOAA's National Hurricane Center deny that there is any connection between the intensity and frequency of hurricanes and global warming.

DoctorDoom has provided to you lefties a set of reasonable criteria for an analysis of the subject of human-caused global warming:

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO2 emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. The analysis must include:

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

We'll be awaiting your analysis.

When you lefties have completed your analysis according to Doc's reasonable criteria, please PM DoctorDoom, sunsettommy, or me so that we can view your analysis. I'll be anxiously awaiting your PM.

MichaelS

06-24-2006, 05:11 PM

Wow. Got a good chuckle out of that one, NT. If you had your head in the sand any further, you'd be speaking Chinese.

Timberwolf

06-24-2006, 05:34 PM

Mikey....what do you NOT understand about the simple FACT that over 99.5% OF the greenhouses gases in our atmosphere is WATER VAPOR????

As a percentage, CO<SUB>2</SUB> comprises roughly .117%....the other greenhouse gases combined make up the other .4%.

Get a clue, Chuckles. It is ONLY if one disregards water vapor do the other trace gases become significant.

MichaelS

06-24-2006, 06:08 PM

Mikey....what do you NOT understand about the simple FACT that over 99.5% OF the greenhouses gases in our atmosphere is WATER VAPOR????

As a percentage, CO<sub>2</sub> comprises roughly .117%....the other greenhouse gases combined make up the other .4%.

Get a clue, Chuckles. It is ONLY if one disregards water vapor do the other trace gases become significant.You act as if CO2 and water vapor act independently of one another. (HINT: They don't.)

Bottom line is that Doomie's little litany of "criteria" are impossible to ascertain. Doomie knows it. NT knows it. But, they'd rather knuckle-deep their fingers in their ears, screaming, "LA LA LA," to the heavens while completely and utterly dismissing that "doing nothing" has its own set of costs and consequences.

I find the following particular item from the Bricker's list particularly amusing.

the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process Now how El Ladrillo can make such assertions without first having the answers to the preceding criteria is incomprehensible. Not that that has ever stopped him in the past.

The reality is that the Doomer knows neither the cost of action nor the cost of reaction and has absolutely no foundation for
any comparison thereof, much less for any conclusion that global warming is "unstoppable".

But at least he has a good follower in NT.

Naturalized-Texan

06-24-2006, 07:01 PM

Bottom line is that Doomie's little litany of "criteria" are impossible to ascertain. Doomie knows it. NT knows it. But, they'd rather knuckle-deep their fingers in their ears, screaming, "LA LA LA," to the heavens while completely and utterly dismissing that "doing nothing" has its own set of costs and consequences.

I find the following particular item from the Bricker's list particularly amusing.

the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process Now how El Ladrillo can make such assertions without first having the answers to the preceding criteria is incomprehensible. Not that that has ever stopped him in the past.

The reality is that the Doomer knows neither the cost of action nor the cost of reaction and has absolutely no foundation for
any comparison thereof, much less for any conclusion that global warming is "unstoppable".

But at least he has a good follower in NT.
Typical liberal copout. When you lefties know that you and the junk scientists you blindly parrot are incapable of proving that global warming is being caused by human activities you copout with statements like the criteria are impossible to ascertain or the science is settled or science doesn't work that way or there is no such thing as scientific proof or some similar copout. By belittling Doom's criteria, you are admitting that you don't really know whether global warming is being caused by human activities or not.

As I said before, until and unless there is iron-clad proof of the hypothesis that global warming is human-caused, there is nothing we can or should do about it. After all, we know that the cost to the American economy to implement the Kyoto Protocols had been estimated to be between $300 billion and $400 million per year, equivalent to the loss of between 6 million and 8 million American jobs. Can you say "Depression"? That is what would have awaited us - a Depression rivalling the Great Depression of the 1930s - had President Bush had not rescinded Kyoto. And for what? Nothing. No effect on global warming.

To reiterate part of my sig line:

”In the meantime, let’s stick with what we know — about melting ice, and about global warming generally. We’re not sure that we have a problem. If we do, we don’t know that we’re the ones causing it. But Time, Al Gore, the Democratic party, the EU, politically correct scientists, and the entire green lobby want us to throw enormous sums of money at solutions that won’t work anyhow."

Timberwolf

06-24-2006, 07:05 PM

You act as if CO2 and water vapor act independently of one another. (HINT: They don't.)
Tell me HOW a gas that comprises less than TWO TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere, can have ANY effect on climate whatsoever. Please, I'm (we're) ALL ears (well, eyes).

OTOH, You act as if increases in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> PRECEEDS increases in global temperature (HINT: Just the reverse is true).

So, again....tell us WHY we should spend TRILLIONS of dollars on a wild goose chase...with nothing APPROACHING a guarantee that said expenditure would do ANYTHING to reverse the warming trend (HINT #2: The warming is taking place on Mars, too...indicative that it's got something to do with THE SUN).

DesertFox

06-24-2006, 07:15 PM

Schiavo, before bankrupting us all, you have a moral obligation to prove that mankind causes global warming.

DoctorDoom

06-24-2006, 07:19 PM

The ecowacko asswarts are not noticing the delicious irony in the OP.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."What those of us who aren't craniorectally impacted see in that statement is this: in "the last 400 years" or "the last several millenia", there was a time when Earth was as warm as it is now. Perhaps the enviroloonies will explain to us WHY Earth was as warm then as it is now when the EEEEE-vill effects of anthropogenic "greenhouse gases" did not exist?

And what did man do to reverse the warming?

Any comments, you tiny-brained twits?

DesertFox

06-24-2006, 07:23 PM

My back hurts and it´s because of global warming. I know because when I got up this morning it was a hot day outside.

DoctorDoom

06-24-2006, 07:37 PM

Could you send a little GW up this way, brer DFG? Thusfar this month it has generally been cooler than normal, so someone is hogging the warming. And some sunshine would be appreciated. It's in scarce supply.

sunsettommy

06-25-2006, 07:26 AM

You act as if CO2 and water vapor act independently of one another. (HINT: They don't.)

Bottom line is that Doomie's little litany of "criteria" are impossible to ascertain. Doomie knows it. NT knows it. But, they'd rather knuckle-deep their fingers in their ears, screaming, "LA LA LA," to the heavens while completely and utterly dismissing that "doing nothing" has its own set of costs and consequences.

I find the following particular item from the Bricker's list particularly amusing.

the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable processNow how El Ladrillo can make such assertions without first having the answers to the preceding criteria is incomprehensible. Not that that has ever stopped him in the past.

The reality is that the Doomer knows neither the cost of action nor the cost of reaction and has absolutely no foundation for
any comparison thereof, much less for any conclusion that global warming is "unstoppable".

But at least he has a good follower in NT.

Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming?

Do you realize that it has a LOGARITHMIC effect?

aaron11

06-25-2006, 07:47 AM

Naturalized-Texan

06-25-2006, 10:09 AM

Since the end of the global cooling panic of the 1970s, the only thing that the high priests of the Church of Liberalism's global warming cult, the politically-motivated junk scientists, have been able to prove is something about which everyone agrees: there has been a slight warming of 0.6 deg. C in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age. Everything else from the global warming cultists is merely speculation and supposition.

As for the absurd claim that hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity because of global warming, look here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24631&highlight=Atlantic+Tropical) for more information. Note: this thread was started before Katrina.

Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year (http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/)

1950: 11 hurricanes: 1 Category 5, 2 Category 4, 5 Category 3.
1961: 8 hurricanes: 2 Category 5, 2 Category 4, 3 Category 3.
1964: 6 hurricanes: 4 Category 4, 2 Category 3.
1969: 12 hurricanes: 1 Category 5 (Camille), 4 Category 3.
1983: 3 hurricanes: 1 Category 3 (Alicia, see below)
1998: 10 hurricanes: 1 Category 5, 1 Category 4, 1 Category 3.
1999: 8 hurricanes: 5 Category 4.
2000: 8 hurricanes: 2 Category 4, 1 Category 3.
2001: 9 hurricanes: 2 Category 4, 2 Category 3
2002: 4 hurricanes: 1 Category 4, 1 Category 3.
2003: 7 hurricanes: 1 Category 5, 1 Category 4, 1 Category 3
2004: 9 hurricanes: 1 Category 5, 2 Category 4, 2 Category 3.
2005: 16 hurricanes: 4 Category 5, 1 Category 4, 2 Category 3. (Note: By the time both Katrina and Rita made landfall, they had been downgraded to Category 3.)

Since we moved back to the Houston Area in 1974, by far the most destructive storms to hit here were not hurricanes, but tropical storms: Claudette in 1979 (27 inches of rain in 24 hours) and Allison in 2001 (massive flooding). In fact, the non-tropical low-pressure system that hit here 2 weekends ago was almost as destructive as Allison.

Hurricane Alicia in 1983 (Category 3) did a lot of damage in the Houston Area (we were without power for 6½ days in mid-August), but the record-breaking freeze during the Christmas Holidays that same year did far more damage.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 12:15 PM

The reality is that the Doomer knows neither the cost of action nor the cost of reaction and has absolutely no foundation for any comparison thereof, much less for any conclusion that global warming is "unstoppable".I know this: you hyperleftist assholes are demanding that we do something, without the merest evidence that it will work, nor a microclue of its economic and ecological impact. And we're supposed to believe your bullshit on your word alone.

Address the list or STFU, loser. We're weary of idiots like you trolling our board.

Don't you have someone to starve, Schiavo?

MichaelS

06-25-2006, 02:12 PM

Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming?Do you really believe that something as microscopic as a virus can have that large of an effect on the human body?

MichaelS

06-25-2006, 02:16 PM

The ecowacko asswarts are not noticing the delicious irony in the OP.

What those of us who aren't craniorectally impacted see in that statement is this: in "the last 400 years" or "the last several millenia", there was a time when Earth was as warm as it is now.Actually, it doesn't mean that at all, though I'm not surprised you would want to interpret it that way. It only says that that is as far back as their data is reliable. It makes no statement whatsoever about the time preceding that period.

MichaelS

06-25-2006, 02:24 PM

Schiavo, before bankrupting us all, you have a moral obligation to prove that mankind causes global warming.If you choose to ignore the opinions of the IPCC, NAS, NCAR, and the NSF that have said exactly that, there's nothing I'm going to say to convince you to change your opinion.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 02:28 PM

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all, though I'm not surprised you would want to interpret it that way. It only says that that is as far back as their data is reliable. It makes no statement whatsoever about the time preceding that period.Nice spin job, but you really need to retake Reading Comprehension 101. The statement is quite clear.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the [b]"recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."If there were NEVER any periods as warm as Earth is now, why would they include year counts? If they meant unprecedented, period, there would be no mention of any number of years.

IAC, where were the SUVs and barbecue grills and gas lawn mowers when the mammoths were peacefully grazing on grass and other vegetation in areas that are now buried under the ice where the beasties were found?

Sorry, Schiavo, but we're not buying your pseudoscience.

MichaelS

06-25-2006, 02:28 PM

Ooooh, so willing to believe the Gub'mint when it's screaming "The sky is falling", yet in thread after thread you attempt to prove the same Gub'mint is lying to us when the news is not so bad. Hmm, must be a liberal thang...:rolleyes:Little inside information...there's a difference between some of the most respected scientific organizations in the world....and Condi Rice and the State Department.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 02:31 PM

If you choose to ignore the opinions of the IPCC, NAS, NARC, and the NSF that have said exactly that, there's nothing I'm going to say to convince you to change your opinion.Interesting wording, S. "... ignore the opinions of the IPCC, NAS, NARC, and the NSF..." Is science now a matter of opinion?

Perhaps you should forward my points list to those politically-motivated hacks and see what responses they provide.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 02:33 PM

MichaelS

06-25-2006, 02:40 PM

Interesting wording, S. "... ignore the opinions of the IPCC, NAS, NARC, and the NSF..." Is science now a matter of opinion?Trust me, their "opinions" are worth infinitely more than your "facts".

sunsettommy

06-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming?


MichaelS Do you really believe that something as microscopic as a virus can have that large of an effect on the human body?

Do you notice that you glossed over this part.

Do you realize that it has a LOGARITHMIC effect?

:roar:

That is because you fail to understand why it is fatal to the IPCC propaganda.

Since CO2 is a TRACE GAS.It can not do much to slow down solar rays from escaping the Earths Atmosphere.Since a part of the spectral window is not blocked by either Water Vapor and CO2.Increasing solar irradiance as noted is at a 1000 year high can do in a cumulative process over a few years be the main driver of warming.

Astronomers are laughing over these climate scientists boobs who stupidly overrate the CO2 power of absorption.

THEY ONLY ABSORB A PART OF THE SUNS RAYS!

Maybe you spend some time reading about the actual spectral window CO2 is on?

Your ignorance is apalling.

Your quote is stupid.

sunsettommy

06-25-2006, 05:39 PM

You act as if CO2 and water vapor act independently of one another. (HINT: They don't.)

Oh yes they do!

Water Vapor blocks part of the solar rays that CO2 does not block at all.

That is acting independently.

Bottom line is that Doomie's little litany of "criteria" are impossible to ascertain. Doomie knows it. NT knows it. But, they'd rather knuckle-deep their fingers in their ears, screaming, "LA LA LA," to the heavens while completely and utterly dismissing that "doing nothing" has its own set of costs and consequences.

No they have a point that if people pushing the Kyoto accords or other draconian ideas to deal with alleged CO2 driven warming.

They would have to be pretty darn sure it is verifiable science.

It is not since so much of the claims are built on GCM with the usual biased input and the unverifiable output.

They are COMPUTER CONSTRUCTS!

So much of it is UNTESTABLE!

Since Kyoto is proven to be worthless.It is a red flag that so many drooling morons still push it.Heck even the IPCC admits in their 2001 report that its effect is negligible.

There is no point spending TRILLIONS over decades to prevent a neglible predicted increase in temperature.An increase that is actually a SCENARIO from a batch of computer modeling runs.

This is absolutely insane to call this science research.

I find the following particular item from the Bricker's list particularly amusing.

the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable processBut of course Kyoto was a proven dud.

Why are you such an ignorant meathead?

Now how El Ladrillo can make such assertions without first having the answers to the preceding criteria is incomprehensible. Not that that has ever stopped him in the past.

The reality is that the Doomer knows neither the cost of action nor the cost of reaction and has absolutely no foundation for
any comparison thereof, much less for any conclusion that global warming is "unstoppable".

I noticed that YOU,Markus and Bob never bother to address Dooms list either by their own efforts or some favorite climate scientist whom they can dredge up.

Where is your attempt?

Nah Doom already made his point and you stupidly walked like a zombie into his fist!

But at least he has a good follower in NT.

Your followers are trolls.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 07:17 PM

Trust me, their "opinions" are worth infinitely more than your "facts".Opinions aren't science, libertroll. And by the way, asswart, you haven't addressed the points yet. Not that I expect that you will, of course, since that would require a measurable IQ.

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 07:20 PM

Do you really believe that something as microscopic as a virus can have that large of an effect on the human body?Viruses multiply, idiot. Do CO<sub>2</sub> molecules?

DoctorDoom

06-25-2006, 07:35 PM

Bottom line is that Doomie's little litany of "criteria" are impossible to ascertain. Doomie knows it. NT knows it.And YOU know it. Bottom line: you demand that we invest billions if not trillions of dollars in a liberal feel-good program while freely admitting that it is impossible to state that it will do anything but waste money. And you expect taxpayers to underwrite that bullshit.

Then again, that's SOP for liberalosers.

But, they'd rather ... anal liberal comment deleted ... while completely and utterly dismissing that "doing nothing" has its own set of costs and consequences.You cannot provide a shred of evidence that doing nothing will have any different results than doing something. Until that data is available, doing nothing is billions or trillions of dollars cheaper.

Stuff your pointy, empty head back up Kofi's arse and resume your coma, idiot.

Timberwolf

06-25-2006, 10:17 PM

Do you really believe that something as microscopic as a virus can have that large of an effect on the human body?
In the concentrations you reference, I don't know if there are ANY viruses that can have much, if any, effect (with the possible exceptions of the hemmhoragics - ebola, etc)...the body will counteract the virus with antibodies before it can do much, if any, harm.

Besides, as Doc stated, viruses multiply - given the chance - CO<sub>2</sub> molecules do not.

markus3622

06-26-2006, 08:40 AM

This is a very difficult time for the worshipers of the Church of Liberalism’s global warming cult. Their fellow cultists have determined that one of the most sacred icons of the global warming cult – Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” – is a fraud. Of course, we have been telling those cultists for years that Michael Mann’s “hockey stick’ was a fraud, but the blind faith of the global warming cultists prevented them from seeing that the sacred icon that they worshiped was a fraud. See, we told you so! :rotflmbo:

Yet, quoting directly from the report
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

The report has concluded that Mann et al were broadly correct in their assertions. Broadly speaking, the report vindicates Mann et al. In short, we told you so.

Yet again, another report from a respected body (this time the National Academy of Sciences) comes up and tells you what I've been telling you. Yet again, you've been shown to be wrong.

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

On the topic of global warming, it would appear that you're unprepared to listen to the leading experts in the world on the subject. You're onviously not going to listen to me. Ignoring the experts seems rather rash to me, and if you continue to do it, you'll continue to be wrong.

DoctorDoom

06-26-2006, 01:21 PM

On the topic of global warming, it would appear that you're unprepared to listen to the leading experts in the world on the subject. You're onviously not going to listen to me. Ignoring the experts seems rather rash to me, and if you continue to do it, you'll continue to be wrong.Kid, the alarmist ravings of politically-motivated "scientists" has become tedious. Tell us WHAT to do about it, backed up with evidence that it will work.

Aussie

06-28-2006, 07:52 AM

The Ozone "hole" is a normal phenomenon.A natural phenomenon compounded by humans using CFCs.

Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming?Yes. Greenhouses gases trap thermal radiation. The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth, but it's a delicate balance. Too much CO2 can results in an increased greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. Too little CO2 and the Earth becomes too cold to support life.

Timberwolf

06-28-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The Ozone "hole" is a normal phenomenon. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A natural phenomenon compounded by humans using CFCs.
Then, you had best figure out a way to put a cork in EVERY volcano on Earth, as they spew thousands times more CFCs in the atmosphere with each eruption than mankind does in 2-4 years.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes. Greenhouses gases trap thermal radiation. The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth, but it's a delicate balance. Too much CO2 can results in an increased greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. Too little CO2 and the Earth becomes too cold to support life.
You're not keeping up...temperature rise LEADS CO<SUB>2</SUB> elevation. Therefore, it is LOGICAL to conclude that CO<SUB>2</SUB> does not CAUSE warming, but is a result OF said warming. Actually, it is more logical to conclude that CO<sub>2</sub> is what causes Earth to cool as, temperature decreases FOLLOW CO<sub>2</sub> elevation. Not saying that's how it goes, but it makes sense.

maxparrish

06-28-2006, 04:10 PM

Yet, quoting directly from the report....

The report has concluded that Mann et al were broadly correct in their assertions. Broadly speaking, the report vindicates Mann et al. In short, we told you so.

Yet again, another report from a respected body (this time the National Academy of Sciences) comes up and tells you what I've been telling you. Yet again, you've been shown to be wrong.

Yet again you quote another policy group's regurgitation of previously digested swill. Let's pick through it, and see what the NAS said: it was "plausible" - according to one panel member that ment it had .66 odds (for something to be considered correct requires a .9 to .95 confidence stat).

More importantly, a secondary source that only requotes dubious science is not proof of anything; the NAS and ICPP (and Union of Concern Scientists, etc.) could republish the same assertion a hundred times and it would not mean anyting UNLESS, such assertions are based on more that repeating "these studies said". Without a serious review of the data, methods, and calculations of the proxy studies (and a finding of solid scientific practice ) why should anyone pay attention to the claims of a clearly political document ?

Ironically, the NAS did do a review common methods of applied statistics and when it came to specifics it said:

- Principle Componenets Analysis should not be used
- Cross validation statistics is nearly mandatory.
- Bristle cone pine strip bark tests are not reliable, and the use of the disputed bristle cone data sources should be minimized or eliminated due to inherent flaws.

Gee, guess what? Some or all of these things are done in the the "supporting studies" - they NAS even labels a graph of a proxy study WITH the bristlecone series (they call it NOAMER)....duh, talk about skitzo.

Moreover, the NAS study refused to answer many of the questions the Congressional Committee asked it to resolve such as: the withholding of data and calculation methods, dissembling of results by Mann, hiding of negative calculations, etc. The most they could bring themselves to do was issue a toothless plea for openess and sharing.

Oh, did you know that the statistical consultant to Hughes (of MBH) was the "stat" expert on the three member panel - talk about a blatent disregard of scientifc integrity.

Last, the political basis of the document is obvious: to the panel whatever supports unprecedented global warming is the "measure" of Mann, NOT the accuracy of 1000 years of data points. By that standard, Mann could have made 999 years of looping nonsense (and some say he has) but as long as the final tick went up ...WHY THAT"S A CONCLUSION CONFIRMED!

Can you imagine the following press release:

"UK TIME MACHINE:

A panel of distinguished scientists have conlcuded that the Piltdown man study's conclusion is correct. Professor Jones said "A number of other proxy studies show ape-like structures mixed with human like features in ancient fossils, so the conclusions of the Piltdown man study is correct".

Buried n the body of the report, it said it is not recommended that researchers put human jaws on ape skulls, hid results and methods, and use questionable artifacts buried with such constructions. Still, given the results, the panel stresssed that the studies finding that it is likely that continued evolution of mankind is likely".

Talk about a climate science being stuck on stupid.....you don't have to join them you know.

DesertFox

06-28-2006, 04:31 PM

If you choose to ignore the opinions of the IPCC, NAS, NCAR, and the NSF that have said exactly that, there's nothing I'm going to say to convince you to change your opinion.True. Those organizations are chockful of politicized liars who will say whatever it takes to keep their funding alive. Believe them if you wish, but citing them merely exposes your own gullibility.

Aussie

06-29-2006, 06:23 AM

Then, you had best figure out a way to put a cork in EVERY volcano on Earth, as they spew thousands times more CFCs in the atmosphere with each eruption than mankind does in 2-4 years. CFCs are man-made. As far as I am aware, there is no natural producer of CFCs.

You're not keeping up...temperature rise LEADS CO<sub>2</sub> elevation. Therefore, it is LOGICAL to conclude that CO<sub>2</sub> does not CAUSE warming, but is a result OF said warming. Actually, it is more logical to conclude that CO<sub>2</sub> is what causes Earth to cool as, temperature decreases FOLLOW CO<sub>2</sub> elevation. Not saying that's how it goes, but it makes sense.Really? Temperatures rise before CO2 elevation? I've never heard about that...do you have some sources for that?

Naturalized-Texan

06-29-2006, 05:42 PM

Really? Temperatures rise before CO2 elevation? I've never heard about that...do you have some sources for that?
There are links to several sources for the fact that temperatures rise before CO2 elevation in other threads in the Global Climate forum. It certainly appears from the long-term record that increased CO2 levels followed increased temperatures by 400 to 800 years.

Timberwolf

06-29-2006, 10:57 PM

Tex, that last post confuses me....:grin: Read the 2nd sentence again...

Aussie

06-30-2006, 04:55 AM

There are links to several sources for the fact that temperatures rise before CO2 elevation in other threads in the Global Climate forum. It certainly appears from the long-term record that increased CO2 levels preceeded increased temperatures by 400 to 800 years.I think you meant that temperatures increased before CO2 emissions, not the other way around.

I'll have a look at the sources.

Naturalized-Texan

06-30-2006, 08:02 AM

Tex, that last post confuses me....:grin: Read the 2nd sentence again...
After I shut down for the night, I had a feeling that I had messed it up and I did. I corrected my error. Sorry for the confusion. :biggrin:

DoctorDoom

06-30-2006, 08:05 AM

If you were perfect, you'd be in Glory. That's coming.

markus3622

06-30-2006, 08:23 AM

And has been discussed, we need to think in terms of a system in terms of feedbacks. The temperature increases precede the CO2 rise, which in turn acts as a positive feedback to further increase the temperatures. This last part is agreed basic physics, that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more heat being trapped.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf

I get a full line on skeptic's bingo

http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo

Timberwolf

06-30-2006, 01:59 PM

No, marky mark...after the CO<sub>2</sub> rises, Earth begins to cool.

markus3622

06-30-2006, 02:17 PM

No it doesn't. You need to view the climate as a dynamic system.

I will quote from the article published in Science

This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

Timberwolf

07-02-2006, 07:03 PM

DesertFox

07-02-2006, 08:49 PM

Not even nuclear war would change it. A nuclear war would involve no more than maybe half-a-dozen nukes on either side, and most likely half-a-dozen altogether. But figure an even dozen. Today's nukes are nowhere near as powerful as those of the Fifties, when we and the Soviets frequently tested H-bombs. I don't have the data at hand but would bet that all the nukes in our own arsenal don't equal the hundred megatons of a single bomb from that era.

Meanwhile, the site of several such bombs -- Bikini Atoll -- is today as pristine as it's possible to be. The waters harbor abundant aquatic life of all kinds and the atoll itself is alive with, well, life.

markus3622

07-03-2006, 05:13 AM

Maybe in the fantasy world of the evirowhacko...but, in REALITY, Earth warms, followed by a rise in CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels, followed by Earth cooling, followed by a fall in CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels...it's really quite interesting as, Earth has a self-correcting climate. Nothing mankind does, short of nuclear war, will change it.

I'm sorry, but this is the epitome of the global warming debate. A skeptic will make a statement of the sort you made earlier

"After the CO<SUB>2</SUB> rises, Earth begins to cool".

I present a paper from a peer-reviewed paper, from one of the world's top scientific journal that has analysed the data, the existing literature and come to a conclusion. The authors of the paper are at top institutions. Then comes the rebuttal

"Maybe in the fantasy world of the evirowhacko...but, in REALITY..."

That's it. A priori, the scientists are wrong. They're wackos, (albeit supported by evidence), whereas "reality" is something that appears to come from no evidence. There's no supporting evidence, no papers, no data for "reality", but a priori, you know it to be correct. Look at the paper I presented before.

This is why the global warming debate (whether man is warming the atmosphere) is settled in the scientific community. They've been discussing this over papers, at conferences and at workshops.

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 08:33 AM

Maybe in the fantasy world of the evirowhacko...but, in REALITY, Earth warms, followed by a rise in CO<sub>2</sub> levels, followed by Earth cooling, followed by a fall in CO<sub>2</sub> levels...it's really quite interesting as, Earth has a self-correcting climate. Nothing mankind does, short of nuclear war, will change it.The REALITY is that you're agreeing with markus.

In the case of warming, one or more natural forcings (e.g., increased solar activity, changes in Earth's orbit, etc.) can cause the atmospheric temperature to rise. This causes natural reactions such as melting ice, which releases additional amounts of CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and decreasing reflectivity leading to greater heat absorbtion, causing further atmospheric warming. This continues until a natural balance is reached between the actions (forcings) and the reactions (feedbacks).

Looking strictly at isolated numbers, the rise in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) would follow the initiation of the heating from the external forcing, but this dismisses the contribution those gases have to additional heating after the initial forcing.

This is the system markus is describing.

The reverse of this cycle would occur during cooling. An external forcing would cause an initial temperature drop, leading to greater ice formation, the trapping of greenhouse gases, and an increase in reflectivity, causing further cooling.

So, yes, the Earth's atmosphere is a naturally balancing system based on the forcings presented to it. The contribution of anthropogenic CO2 is simply a new man-made forcing, and the atmosphere is responding accordingly.

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 08:41 AM

Viruses multiply, idiot. Do CO<sub>2</sub> molecules?You're absolutely right, Doomie, viruses multiply, and CO2 molecules do not.

But, here's a little inside information...CO2 molecules don't have to, when we're doing the multiplying for them.

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Do you really believe that a trace gas can do that much warming?

Do you realize that it has a LOGARITHMIC effect?Ironic that you put both of these statements in the same response. The logarithmic nature of the CO2 effect only becomes considerable when the incident rate of radiated heat with atmospheric CO2 molecules becomes massive, in other words, when a large percentage of the radiated heat contacts CO2 molecules on the outbound trip to space. We're nowhere near that yet, and, my guess is, you wouldn't want to be around when that would be the case.

Right now, as you mention, CO2 is a trace gas, so only a very small percentage of the radiated heat actually collides with atmospheric CO2 molecules.

And, no I don't believe a trace gas can cause that much warming. I believe a trace gas can trigger that much warming, and those are two very different things.

markus3622

07-03-2006, 08:54 AM

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 08:58 AM

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 09:27 AM

And since there seems to be an affinity with Doomie's little question list, let's take a stab.

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;CO2 is a greenhouse gas emitted by mankind in increasingly larger quantities. Concurrently, deforestation efforts by mankind further reduce the availability of sinks for the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The rise of CO2 levels raises air temperatures which creates a positive feedback with water vapor, further raising air temperatures.

• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;An exact percentage is unrealistic considering the complexity and ongoing change of the global climate system. The absence of an exact percentage changes neither the fact that mankind is influencing the global climate system nor that this influence will escalate in significance as amounts of anthropogenic CO2 increase.

• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;Once again, it is unrealistic to attempt to relate a percentage reduction of CO2 to a percentage of related climate change for the same reasons. It is also unnecessary. Any reduction in anthropogenic CO2 will have a favorable influence in the climate system by reducing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;A huge impact could be seen simply through a multitude of approaches to conservation. However, significant progress is being made on numerous fronts to explore alternative energy sources (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/energy/).

• the costs of research and development to optimize them;There are tremendous business opportunities in alternative and renewable energy sources. Companies are taking it upon themselves to perform this research and development in order to exploit these opportunities.

• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;This goes part and parcel with the R&D mentioned above. These would be costs associated with any business case.

As long as there is a market, there will be companies looking to enter, innovate, and dominate that market.

• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;The environmental impacts of any alternative energy source will be part of the deciding factors regarding which ones will succeed and which will fail, just as the environmental impacts of fossil fuels are starting to impact their future viability.

• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;The U.S. has seen multiple shifts in multiple industries in its history and not only weathered them, but prospered. The surest way to succeed is to be on the forefront of that shift. The U.S. imported 3.7 billion barrels (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrimus1A.htm) of oil in 2005. At $50/barrel, that's an annual $184 billion influx of capital into industry that could be gained from energy independence. At $70/barrel, that becomes $257 billion per year.

• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;The greatest imposition would be a greater awareness of the world around them in which they live and on which they depend. It is also not coincidental that conservation efforts by individuals also save them money, putting more money into their pockets and potentially more money back into the economy through consumer spending.

• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;With any developed product or system, the longer a problem persists in the system, the more expensive it becomes to remove it. To achieve the highest cost-benefit ratio, problems, once known, should be addressed as early as possible in the process once it is agreed that the problem cannot be allowed to remain in that system. And mankind's escalating contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmospheric system has reached that point. So, the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets.

• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;Mankind has little influence on "natural changes" in the level of greenhouse gases. However, mankind can have signifcant influence over its own emissions of greenhouse gases.

• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.See the response earlier regarding the available capital to be gained from energy independence. And there are many companies that don't perceive the pursuit of alternate energy sources as a burden but rather as an opportunity.

• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.In order for a response to be given, you would have to first start with an unstoppable process.

DoctorDoom

07-03-2006, 09:56 AM

Nifty spin job, Mikey. Are you a politician? You've managed to use 569 words (MS Word count) to say that you really don't have a clue about whether anything man can do will make a difference.

So many assumptions, so little evidence. But, you tried. You get an A for effort ... and an F for science.

MichaelS

07-03-2006, 10:14 AM

sunsettommy

07-03-2006, 12:11 PM

MichaelS, when someone says that the concentration of carbon dioxide gas is so minimal, I often wonder whether they would happily sit in a room with the same concentration of cianide gas as carbon dioxide.

Man for an alleged scientist.You have no idea what LD50 is.

It is DOSE that determines the level of toxicity.A trace of Cianide gas is deadly.

360ppm or even 720ppm level of CO2 is not toxic to us.

There are GREENHOUSES with higher levels than that and people work in them just fine.

Gawd!

sunsettommy

07-03-2006, 12:17 PM

:D It's only a trace amount after all.

Do you happen to know what percentage CO2 is in relation to the REST of the Atmospheric gases and then what is the percentage as a greenhouse gas in relation to the OTHER greenhouse gases?

Nope you dont..........

I rest my case.

:roar:

Naturalized-Texan

07-03-2006, 12:49 PM

ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION (http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html)

The atmosphere is comprised of gases which are considered to be permanent (gases which remain essentially constant by percent) and gases considered to be variable (gases which have changing concentrations over a finite period of time).

PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:

Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%

(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)

Other permanent gases:

Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%

VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:

Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%

In other words, CO2 is a trace gas that we breathe in with every breath with no deleterious effect.

Nutrider99

07-03-2006, 01:16 PM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now....

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected....

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = SECTION /><SECTION:CONTENT_FOOTER>
</SECTION:CONTENT_FOOTER>

Naturalized-Texan

07-03-2006, 02:50 PM

The AlGore caricature in that article is precious:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/070206gore.jpg

DoctorDoom

07-03-2006, 03:24 PM

In other words, CO2 is a trace gas that we breathe in with every breath with no deleterious effect.The adult human body produces about one kilogram of CO<sub>2</sub> daily. The world's population is about 6.53 billion. Ergo that is about 6 billion KG (allowing for kids exhaling less), or about 6,613,800 tons per day. In a year of 365.25 days, human breathing contributes 2,415,690,450 tons of CO<sub>2</sub>.

If we kill all the liberals, lawyers and ecowackos, that will result in a reduction.

DoctorDoom

07-03-2006, 03:29 PM

Man can't make a difference....

I always love excuses like this from a political party that advocates personal accountability.Accountability does not equate to doing useless things just because clue-deficient liberals demand it. PROVE that man CAN make a difference and we'll go from there.

DoctorDoom

07-03-2006, 03:37 PM

Brer NR, you need to trim your post to 25% (and preferably less) of the piece to comply with copyright standards. Danke.

markus3622

07-04-2006, 02:31 AM

Man for an alleged scientist.You have no idea what LD50 is.

It is DOSE that determines the level of toxicity.A trace of Cianide gas is deadly.

360ppm or even 720ppm level of CO2 is not toxic to us.

There are GREENHOUSES with higher levels than that and people work in them just fine.

Gawd!

Uh, I have to say that you managed to entirely miss my point. It was a conceptual argument, so I'll restate it. People often argue that because CO2 exists in small quantities, then it can't affect the climate. I was making the argument that some substance X can have a large effect, even if it is in low quantities (I made the point, flippantly, that cianide gas is fatal in very small quantities). Translating that to the global warming debate, scientists are fully aware that 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays a signficant role in the greenhouse effect (not that it's fatal, LOL). I'm surprised that you and NT both made the same mistake.

Book

07-04-2006, 07:24 AM

Phew! Is it just me or is it warm in here?

sunsettommy

07-04-2006, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by markus3622
MichaelS, when someone says that the concentration of carbon dioxide gas is so minimal, I often wonder whether they would happily sit in a room with the same concentration of cianide gas as carbon dioxide.

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
Man for an alleged scientist.You have no idea what LD50 is.

It is DOSE that determines the level of toxicity.A trace of Cianide gas is deadly.

360ppm or even 720ppm level of CO2 is not toxic to us.

There are GREENHOUSES with higher levels than that and people work in them just fine.

Gawd!

Uh, I have to say that you managed to entirely miss my point. It was a conceptual argument, so I'll restate it. People often argue that because CO2 exists in small quantities, then it can't affect the climate. I was making the argument that some substance X can have a large effect, even if it is in low quantities (I made the point, flippantly, that cianide gas is fatal in very small quantities). Translating that to the global warming debate, scientists are fully aware that 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays a signficant role in the greenhouse effect (not that it's fatal, LOL). I'm surprised that you and NT both made the same mistake.

HA HA HA,

The idea that since Cyanide gas can be fatal in trace amounts can be used to imply that CO2 in trace amounts would be just as powerfull in its effects on the atmosphere.

A very dumb anology since they are very different in what they affect.They are different in toxicity by a long shot as well.

First of all CO2 IS a trace greenhouse gas and is dwarfed by the much more prevalent Water Vapor also a Greenhouse gas.CO2 is also dwarfed by the prevalence of other gases in the atmosphere.

Then too CO2 covers a much smaller portion of the spectral window than Water Vapor does.Plus it has a Logarithmic behavior with additional CO2.

I refer to what NT posted:

PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:

Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%

(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)

Other permanent gases:

Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%

VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:

Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%

We can DOUBLE the atmospheric CO2 level and only a small warming can be adduced from it.We can safely breathe in this doubled amount with safety.

Cyanide is already dangerous at small amounts and doubling a small amount can kill.

Cyanides are a class in itself.They do not pose a threat when it is not used for nefarious purpose.

Like I said.It is a bad idea to make such an anology.

sunsettommy

07-04-2006, 08:03 AM

Accountability does not equate to doing useless things just because clue-deficient liberals demand it. PROVE that man CAN make a difference and we'll go from there.

Since they failed to prove the problem with that dumb Kyoto treaty idea.

There is no point going overboard over a trace gas.

MichaelS

07-04-2006, 08:35 AM

HA HA HA,

The idea that since Cyanide gas can be fatal in trace amounts can be used to imply that CO2 in trace amounts would be just as powerfull in its effects on the atmosphere.

A very dumb anology since they are very different in what they affect.They are different in toxicity by a long shot as well.

First of all CO2 IS a trace greenhouse gas and is dwarfed by the much more prevalent Water Vapor also a Greenhouse gas.CO2 is also dwarfed by the prevalence of other gases in the atmosphere.

Then too CO2 covers a much smaller portion of the spectral window than Water Vapor does.Plus it has a Logarithmic behavior with additional CO2.

We can DOUBLE the atmospheric CO2 level and only a small warming can be adduced from it.We can safely breathe in this doubled amount with safety.

Cyanide is already dangerous at small amounts and doubling a small amount can kill.

Cyanides are a class in itself.They do not pose a threat when it is not used for nefarious purpose.

Like I said.It is a bad idea to make such an anology.:smack:

markus3622

07-04-2006, 08:48 AM

sunsettommy

07-04-2006, 01:39 PM

Tommy

How are you managing to miss the point here? I'm not arguing that carbon dioxide is as toxic as cianide. Forget the cianide, it's not important! You're the one making an analogy, and the wrong one at that.

"We can DOUBLE the atmospheric CO2 level and only a small warming can be adduced from it".

How much warming is small? 1C, 2C, 3C? If I just use scholar.google.com, I can find a number of papers that suggest a range of temperature rises from a doubling of CO2. I find papers going as far back as 1956 saying that the rises would not be small.

LOL,

YOU were the one who FIRST brought up the absurd Cyanide/CO2 anology!

:sad:

They already predicted around a 2 degree celsius increase with a DOUBLING of CO2!(of course it was a lot higher back in the 1990's.He he he) It is already being noted that the current increase is actually much slower than that.It is a 1 degree C increase in 94 more years.

:rotflmbo:

The Climate is a lot more complex than you guys realize and that is why it was asinine to blame the increasing CO2 levels on the warming back in the late 1980's.When the Climate science understanding for it was minimal.There were then less than a 100 people researching full time on it.

NaturalizedTexian showed recently that the IPCC was created for the purpose of studying the CO2 effect on the warming.A tainted beginning that is now a multi BILLION dollar research regime.They have a vested interest in promoting the CO2 cabal.Otherwise the purpose of the IPCC would be unfulfilled.

It is a deplorable shame that you so easily miss the few facts that badly damaged the whole CO2 warming theory.

The CO2/global warming papers are just predictions based on Scenarios.The GCM's are just scenarios with mathematics.Models that lack predictive skills.

I prefer the more concrete stuff such as EMPIRICAL data.

The Satellite and Radio Sonde data already shows that the warming is much smaller than predicted with just CO2 as the main forcer.

Antartica is doing exactly the opposite of the Global Warming Theory.It is cooling.So is Greenland.Then the Ice and snow levels exceed the melting rate in these two locations as well.

The theory stated that the Polar regions would show the effects of increasing CO2 levels first and the most.It is supposed to be warming the MOST!

It is not happening at all.

The Artic is warming much less than you guys dishonestly claim.The ice loss is mostly on one side too.The Russian side.

We have learned that the Sun.THE only source of warming is now at its most radiant in a 1000 years.Which just happens to coincide with the last time we had a SIMILAR warming trend.Then it went into a lower than usual radiative period just in time with the LIA period.It is again more radiant than usual.Just in time for the observed warming trend we see.

Gosh just lucky coincidences!

:roar:

You clods have discounted the obvious fact of the Suns powerful influence of the last 1000 years.Hell there is evidence that ALL the specific warming and cooling periods Earth has been through since the last ice is directly tied to the Suns changing output.

Man you are so stuck on a trace greenhouse gas that has a LOGARITHMIC curve.The astronomers and physicists are laughing at the climate researchers since it is known that increasing levels of CO2 has a smaller and smaller warming effect.They reach a SATURATION level.

There are holes in the spectral window(frequencies) that NEITHER CO2 and Water Vapor even covers! The Sun goes right through!

Already the warming has been slowing down since 1998 and reports that the sun has also been a little less active as well recently.In fact the warming started slowed down BEFORE the Sun reached its last radiative peak.

You people are underrating the suns effect on the Earths climate.

Very dumb.

sunsettommy

07-04-2006, 01:40 PM

:smack:

What a rebuttal!

:finger:

Timberwolf

07-04-2006, 08:23 PM

Someone PLEASE explain how a TRACE compound (.117% of total atmosphere) can have much, if any, effect on global temperature...especially when it's been shown that CO<sub>2</sub> levels LAG temperature increases.

Let go of yourselves and get a grip on reality.

DesertFox

07-04-2006, 08:56 PM

Tee, ANY compound will affect global temperature in a liberal universe. It's only here in the real, conservative universe that trace compounds only have trace effects.

markus3622

07-05-2006, 04:03 AM

Someone PLEASE explain how a TRACE compound (.117% of total atmosphere) can have much, if any, effect on global temperature...especially when it's been shown that CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels LAG temperature increases.

Let go of yourselves and get a grip on reality.

Tee, ANY compound will affect global temperature in a liberal universe. It's only here in the real, conservative universe that trace compounds only have trace effects.

I'm very confused as to when science became a liberal thing. Anyway, it's been explained why CO2 both lags warming and causes warming. I really don't think that should be discussed again.

On to the question at hand. You seem to be disputing whether the greenhouse effect exists. The greenhouse effect is a natural thing and basically allows life on earth to exist by making the planet warmer than it would be. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere, and they're not greenhouse gases. So, greenhouse gases are typically only a small part of the atmosphere, and have a large effect.

I hope no-one is disputing the fact that 78% of the atmosphere which is nitrogen has no effect on the greenhouse effect and water vapor, which is around 0.1% of the atmosphere does play a big role in the greenhouse vapor. See, how much of a greenhouse effect there is depends on more than how much there is, but how the molecules "selectively absorb" radiation. It turns out that water vapor and carbon dioxide selectively absorb longwave radiation, heating the atmosphere.

The figure below is quite small, but it is possible to see the absorption spectrum for several greenhouse gases. So let's have no more of that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas thing, because it is well established science. And it's silly to claim that science is a liberal thing, because conservatives can do science.http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/Images/atmos_win.gif

Timberwolf

07-05-2006, 07:18 AM

markus, the ENTIRE point is that WATER VAPOR comprises 99½% of the total composition of greenhouse gases. The others are going to have LITTLE if ANY effect on global temperatures!

Global warming is occuring, but to say that it's caused by HUMANS is preposterous. Remember, 30 years ago, these self-same "experts" were warning us of "the coming ice age" because of "global COOLING". Quit being such a putz and realize that those buffoons are gonna be screeching about global cooling again in another 30 years.

Good grief.

markus3622

07-05-2006, 07:46 AM

MichaelS

07-05-2006, 08:30 AM

In addition, it is likely that a warmer atmosphere will cause increased water vapor concentrations.Are you implying that warmer air can hold more water vapor? :confused:

markus3622

07-05-2006, 08:36 AM

Indeed, it has the potential to be a positive feedback.

MichaelS

07-05-2006, 09:02 AM

Indeed, [water vapor] has the potential to be a positive feedback.So, if that's true, it sounds like what you're saying is that a small increase in air temperature as a result of raising the level of CO2 would enable the air to hold more water vapor from evaporation. And the increase in the amount of water vapor in the air would raise the temperature even further until a balance is reached. Of course, if you then raise the CO2 level again, the cycle begins again, continually raising the air temperature again and again while the levels of CO2 keep going up and up.

I'm not sure I can buy into that, markus. It sounds too much like a liberal, Bush-bashing ploy from the America-hating crowd to me.

Do you, by chance, have any propositions actually based in science?

MichaelS

07-05-2006, 09:10 AM

What a rebuttal!

:finger:By the way, ST, with statements like...We can safely breathe in this doubled amount with safety....a response of...
:smack:
...was all that was warranted.

Timberwolf

07-06-2006, 12:52 PM

Timberwolf, it is undisputed that carbon dioxide causes around 10-25% of the greenhouse effect. Methane causes around 5%. The atmospheric concentration of both these gases have increased. So although there is more water vapor, it does not create 99% of the greenhouse effect. In addition, it is likely that a warmer atmosphere will cause increased water vapor concentrations. Do you see the point?
And, since every rise is CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels has lagged a rise in global temperature, what's your point? Earth's climate is self-correcting. NO ONE is disputing that Earth is warmer now than it was 400 years ago. What IS being disputed is that HUMAN ACTIVITY had anything to do with it.

A warmer atmosphere will be able to hold more water...causing the likelyhood of more sunlight being REFLECTED BACK INTO SPACE, thus causing Earth to cool. So, no, I don't see your point.

Now, there is nothing preposterous that changing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change the strength of the greenhouse effect.
What's preposterous is that you liberals feel that humans are having a significant effect on global climate.

In fact, it's far more preposterous to suggest it will have no effect.
Like I said, cork up all the volcanos... :rolleyes:

The increase in well-mixed greenhouse gases is calculated to have increased the radiative forcing by 2.5 Watts per square meter (certainly not insignificant)
Heavy emphasis on "well-mixed". Who SAYS we have uniformity in the atmosphere? No one of whom I know would make such a ludicrous claim...wait a minute, didn't YOU just make such a ludicrous claim? :question:

Except that they weren't. This is a terrible myth. We've discussed this before. Unless you want to present some scientific papers from the period, showing anything comparable to today.

Except, THEY DID. It is no myth. I read it in the paper...I watched it on the news. That you are, apparently, too young to have experienced it is no fault of mine or anyone else. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/global%20cooling.htm

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

The following is from LAST DECEMBER...mind you it is but a small blurb in a newpaper, but it cites National Geographic and Nature. SIX MONTHS ago, those two publications were reporting "the coming of a "mini ice age," reminiscent of the "great cooling" predicted in the 1970s."http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051210/OPINION01/512100311/1008

Finally:http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/5990#comment-36142

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/5990#comment-36145

These two chaps seem to understand a lot more than "the experts", who seem to do nothing but look for consensus...sorry, but that's not science.

But FTR, YES, there was a "gloom and doom, coming ice-age, global COOLING scare" back in the 70s.

As for global warming, I'm done with it. Earth warms, Earth cools...been happening since time began. Humanity can do nothing, short of nuclear war, to have the slightest effect on global climate. If you and I are still around in 30 years, I guarantee you that the "sheep" will be bleating about the coming ice age, once again.

Timberwolf

07-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Okay, I guess I'm not...sue me. :D So, if that's true, it sounds like what you're saying is that a small increase in air temperature as a result of raising the level of CO2 would enable the air to hold more water vapor from evaporation. And the increase in the amount of water vapor in the air would raise the temperature even further until a balance is reached. Of course, if you then raise the CO2 level again, the cycle begins again, continually raising the air temperature again and again while the levels of CO2 keep going up and up.

I'm not sure I can buy into that, markus. It sounds too much like a liberal, Bush-bashing ploy from the America-hating crowd to me.
Stop that Mikey...you're scarin' me. You don't agree with me on anything, remember?? :biggrin: While it is true that warmer air can hold more water, it's not true that it would necessarily warm the planet, even though water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There's this pesky little thing called the "point of diminishing returns". Up to a certain level, water allows Earth to warm and acts as an insulator...too much water in the atmosphere has the effect of a cooling agent by reflecting sunlight back into space.

markus and his "buds" go wrong with thinking that elevations in CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels cause Earth to warm. It has been shown, time and time again, that the reverse is true...and it is the rise in CO<SUB>2</SUB> that leads a FALL in temperature. In light of my previous paragraph, it may have no effect at all. For instance:1) Increased solar output causes Earth to warm, which
ii) Leads to higher levels of evaporation / water in the atmosphere, which
C) Causes Earth to warm more significantly (insulation), which
IV) Causes MORE evaporation / water in the atmosphere, which
e) Causes solar energy to be reflected back into space, which
6) Causes Earth to cool.

You'll please notice, not once did I make mention of carbon dioxide levels rising or falling. Not that they don't have any effect, just showing that it doesn't necessarily HAVE TO happen as the global warming "Chicken Little" crowd says it does.

Do you, by chance, have any propositions actually based in science?
We've been waiting a LOOOOOONG time for them, Mike...dunno that you're gonna meet with any more success than we have.