|
|
|
|
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 9:12:23 AM | Hey NSlass...
Well, I looked it up and, quite frankly, I find Shaviv's hypothesis dodgy at best. For one thing, in the sun's orbit of the Milky Way, the sun never strays that far from the disk. We are always in the disk. Whether we happen to be going through the ascending or descending node is neither here nor there. It's a little like expecting major effects from Earth going through it's ascending or descending node of its orbit of the sun.
Second, I'm sorry but it just doesn't pass the sniff test of logic. You want a prime example of the effectiveness of CO2 retention, just have a gander over at Venus. The heat at the surface of that planet can melt tin. And that's with a planet-encompassing cloud deck.
Edit: here's an interesting rebuttal. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/solar-activity-cleared-of-global-warming-blame/2007/07/11/1183833599508.html
It should also be interesting to compare weather patterns, temperature and cosmic ray influx from this and other solar minima because, as it happens, this has been a particularly deep minima with cosmic ray influx achieving a space-age level high.
I think the issue is rapidly becoming moot. It's clear that the climate is warming. All the data is there. That is going to have consequences to people on the Earth. Sure, if the north polar cap melts, that's not going to impact sea-level. However, Greenland's ice sheet sure will.
As far as environment is concerned, every process that involves burning fossil fuels has toxic effects on the environment. Just taking a trip into Toronto is all I need to see that. People's health IS affected. Therefore, it only stands to reason that this, as an argument on its own, is sufficient to reconsider our use of fossil fuels.
Finally, it's unsustainable. The "easy oil" is running out. That leaves oil in environmentally sensitive regions. Okay, not everyone values the migratory range of caribou, but they should. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:27:16 PM | I wonder if cycle 24 is going to end up a minima or a maxima. Scientists seem to be divided on that one.
Right now it looks like a minima.... other scientists are saying it's the calm before the storm. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:35:04 PM | Actually muse, we're coming out of minimum and there's a nice sunspot group. Check it out.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov
Right now, no one is really sure what's going to happen. This minima is certainly unprecedented. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:38:15 PM |
Actually muse, we're coming out of minimum and there's a nice sunspot group. Check it out.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov
Right now, no one is really sure what's going to happen. This minima is certainly unprecedented.
Great pics of the current sunspots. So I guess the 'lack of sunspots' is over now ? 
I wonder if this new development of sunspots has now lowered the amount of cosmic rays spitting out ?
Yes, this cycle minimum has been unusually calm, NASA loving every minute of it in terms of improved observability. And because of the unusual calm, I'm thinking that's probably why some scientists believe the upcoming cycle maximum (May 2013?) may be a doozy with overloaded solar flare activity ? 'The calm before the storm' as they've been saying. While others are saying that it'll be minimal and nothing out of the ordinary. From what I've read NASA seems to agree this particular cycle may be a nasty one.
Lately I've been fascinated with the study of solar cycle/activity and its possible connection to weather pattern.
I'm hoping we see an unusually strong solar maxima, and whether or not we see some crazy weather patterns alongside. It could solidy this solar activity-earth weather hypothesis into a proven theory.
In any case, it seems this particular solar cycle has given scientists a ton of new data to chew the fat over. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:38:03 PM | Dave, did you actually read my post or just skim it? I didn't say they were a 1:1 comparison...but if we want to talk about the effectiveness of CO2 in heat retention, well, looks like Venus proves that pretty effectively, don't you think? However, YOU mentioned Mars...clearly I showed the problem with that as a comparison. I also showed problems with using Venus as a DIRECT ANALOGUE to the Earth climatic system. Again...we're talking CO2 here.
YOU brought up women and Venus...clearly totally irrelevant and an incorrect analogy to the point I was trying to make.
The science is far from settled yet people who stand to make billions off the public with schemes such as carbon credit trading claim the science is settled.
WRONG!!!! The MAJORITY of climatologists who are actually doing the science agree that AGW is a factor in Earth's climate now and into the future. Yes, yes, I know...science isn't a democracy. You're right. However, if 30 people standing around saying the sky is blue and one person is saying its purple...might want to check that one guy's meds.
Really, why is that so hard to accept? Why are deniers so adamant that we "can't possibly have an effect" on Earth's climate? Have we not shown ourselves to be pretty good at altering any number of natural systems on Earth? Why is climate such a sacred cow to you?
And you want to talk about the money made by carbon credits...well, how much money is the oil industry making in comparison? Ever notice that those scientists who are most insistent that the science is "wrong" are drawing a paycheque from those who have a stake in continued oil production?
Some of them are the same "scientists" who insisted that cigarettes weren't harmful to our health | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:38:28 AM | Gazer, the point you seem to miss is the nature of CO2 absorption. It is narrow band meaning it will only absorb/radiate IR in three very narrow wavelengths corresponding to specific temperatures. Any IR not at the specific temperature will pass. A perfect analogy would be to consider the IR wavelength as a color. The argument about CO2 appears to assume broadband, not narrow band. Methane, and far more important, water vapor, are broadband absorbers. Water extends well down into microwave radio wavelengths as in microwave ovens. If you had decades of dealing with spectral analysis, as I have, you might have a grasp of what I mean but such science is not mainstream outside of my discipline. The very models used to predict global warming are modified weather prediction programs that were designed to be closed loop. Their use open loop would naturally predict wild swings. It's the expected results of any closed loop system to go to extremes when feedback is lost. That science is most practiced by control engineers. Climate scientists are not practiced in spectral analysis or closed loop analysis. At best, all they can do observe coincidence. One could say that all drug abusers drank milk as kids therefore drinking milk leads to drug abuse. Coincidence is not science. On top of that, they cannot prove that warming does not cause the CO2 levels they use as "proof" and thus the whole argument is circular.
Really, why is that so hard to accept?
I could ask you the same question but then I don't confuse some qualified vote as science. Its not hard to accept we have effects on climate. It's the specifics I have issue with because of the science. When you claim bias because of oil companies, I find that argument hollow. 90% of the oil markets are directly controlled by governments with the remaining 10% highly taxed and regulated. They are not at risk as they are heavily invested in alternative energy such as wind and solar. They are energy companies for the long term. Any costs resulting from taxing schemes are passed through. Compare that to carbon credits trading. There is no product, only pure speculation in a commodity that consists of nothing more than numbers pulled out of bureaucratic regulators' heads. What could be more corrupt? It's like currency trading that is nothing more than an economic parasite. Carbon trading is an energy parasite rewarding traders potentially billions. It does nothing but steer capitol away from energy development to wall street club dues and political payoffs. That is why it has so much traction with those set to reap those billions.
Ever notice that those scientists who are most insistent that the science is "wrong" are drawing a paycheque from those who have a stake in continued oil production?
Does that apply to those cited in this thread? And no, I didn't notice because I reached my conclusions from my analysis, not someone else’s. When someone professes to believe something simply because others are preaching it tends to put that belief under religion, not science. For the most part, I use the data from the AGW sources to prevent any concern over bias in the data. I don't wish to be misled by biased data. As an example, the descriptions of the melting glaciers from those who got paid vacations to visit them and state they were melting and therefore it must be CO2 even though the glacier surface is nearly black with dirt. The devil is in the detail. The concentration of dirt on the surface results in sunlight being absorbed instead of being reflected and thus melting and sublimation. The dust noramlly distributed throughout the ice becomes concentrated on the surface where the water is leaving it. The scientists would not get the paid vacations if they expressed doubt about CO2. Rationalizations that even if wrong about CO2, the efforts are positive work against seeking truth yet this and other global warming threads are full of such rationalizations. All one has to do is look to ethanol mandates to see environmental destruction in the name of CO2 global warming. Science is not rationalization over motive, its about seeking truth.
Some of them are the same "scientists" who insisted that cigarettes weren't harmful to our health
I would like to see this data. In reality, such accusations and personal attacks are standard for the AGW crowd. Is that supposed to be a search for truth?
Virtually all the "scientists" that favor political action over CO2 are funded by the very people who stand to make billions from carbon credit trading, make millions off fear mongering, or have political issues with western culture in general. There is your tobacco science. Personally, my income comes from developing more energy efficient public transportation. I have been recognized in environmental efforts since I was 8 years old, before you were born. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:18:08 AM |
They are not at risk as they are heavily invested in alternative energy such as wind and solar.
Talk about a hollow argument...
And no, I didn't notice because I reached my conclusions from my analysis, not someone else’s.
Are you a climatologist? In this specialized a field of knowledge, this is like saying you would rather do major heart surgery on a loved one of yours because, after all, you're a pediatrician, let's say, than let a heart surgeon who is a virtual stranger (who therefor cannot be fully trusted) do it.
All one has to do is look to ethanol mandates to see environmental destruction in the name of CO2 global warming.
Very possibly true, but it does not contradict climate change. Aka a red herring argument.
"Some of them are the same "scientists" who insisted that cigarettes weren't harmful to our health"
I would like to see this data.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
I've noticed, overall, that much of the denial money trail leads to Exxon, but I don't doubt that all interested parties are complicit in various ways... | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:04:00 AM | I certainly don't wish to wade into this highly controversial debate, but I just had to say this:
So what if global warming IS a natural phenomenon?
Do we simply just carry on with the way we're going? Using up fossil fuels that will eventually run out anyway. And in the process of burning these fuels, pay the obvious price as breathing abnormalities and disorders rise globally?
Do we, smug in the knowledge that it's all Natures fault that the Earth is warming, continue to decimate and plunder the jungles and natural resources all around the world, wiping out whole species of life in the process?
Do we continue using ineffective technology without even bothering to innovate and research smarter, cheaper and yes, cleaner technologies?
I could go on and on with this... But what worries me about these dubious claims that somehow we are NOT responsible for climate change, is that we will simply carry on doing what we're doing and reach a point, global warming or no global warming, in which Life on this planet will become utterly unbearable due to our own selfish actions.
So for me it's VERY clear. I don't give a rat’s ass if people believe we're NOT responsible for climate change. It is quite obvious that either way, we have to change and adapt... Or die. Simple. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 1:19:14 PM |
I would like to see this data. In reality, such accusations and personal attacks are standard for the AGW crowd.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
As an example, the descriptions of the melting glaciers from those who got paid vacations to visit them and state they were melting and therefore it must be CO2 even though the glacier surface is nearly black with dirt. The devil is in the detail. The concentration of dirt on the surface results in sunlight being absorbed instead of being reflected and thus melting and sublimation. The dust noramlly distributed throughout the ice becomes concentrated on the surface where the water is leaving it.
I'm guessing here, Dave, but it doesn't seem to me you've ever lived in a climate that experiences more than a few inches of snow a year. Here in Canada, we are more than familiar with what happens with melting snow and ice. Odd thing...during the height of winter, the whiter snow and ice is. Road sandings disappear with the next snowfall.
Now, funny thing happens in spring as the snow melts. All that dirt concentrates on the surface! Now, you're saying these glaciers are melting because of increased dirt on the surface. Could it be because they're melting? Have you wondered why they might melt in the first place?
Gazer, the point you seem to miss is the nature of CO2 absorption.
No, that's an assumption. But here's the thing...you say that CO2 only absorbs heat in particular narrow band wavelengths. (And yes, a familiarity with astronomy means a familiarity with narrow-band absorbance and filtration.) Okay. However, if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, then doesn't it stand that even that narrow band absorption increases?
Hey, you're a professional in "green" technology and yet, you're critical of new "green" economy initiatives without being equally critical of the oil industry? Let's face it, the profit motive is what it is.
Besides, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The most important discussion now is one of energy use. Kinky also put it very eloquently. The situation we're in is unsustainable. The oil will run out. Time to start making better choices. If they can find ways to end the dependence on oil, so much the better! | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:08:54 PM |
But what worries me about these dubious claims that somehow we are NOT responsible for climate change, is that we will simply carry on doing what we're doing and reach a point, global warming or no global warming, in which Life on this planet will become utterly unbearable due to our own selfish actions.
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.
It's a sad state of affairs. AGW seems to be highly political to me, and I'll explain why I think this way :
Scientists and the IPCC have decided on AGW, I believe, for one reason and one reason only..... If they don't, the politicians, government, corporations, etc will otherwise sit back and not do anything about the destruction of our environment and the dependancy on fossil fuels. History and an understanding of what makes these peoples' boats float can illustrate that easily. Common sense tells us that we have to make changes. However, society, more specifically the head dogs, do not operate on common sense, they operate from the bottom line (understandably to a point). And even though most of us understand that clean energy would, in the long run, improve the bottom line.... it does not accomplish this in the immediate. No instant gratification, means the head dogs dragging their heels and no action.
AGW accomplishes the necessary changes in spades.
Some sort of climate change is happening. The data proves that unquestionably. What scientists don't understand is its causation and to what degree mankind effects it. Climate science is nowhere near to being perfected and there are numerous key factors and uncertainties that have not been taken into account, because the science behind it is still not fully understood. The IPCC admits to this in their report : "There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles." Side note : It is also now widely understood that cosmic rays influence global cloud cover (IPCC should add that to their 'key uncertainty list' too).
There is much still to be learned/understood and scientists are tediously working on it, and will undoubtedly figure out the whole picture eventually. But in the meantime, at least AGW gets the ball rolling (and the funding coming in).
It's terrible that it has to be this way, but that's just the way it is. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter if climate change was anthropogenic or cyclical, or a bit of both.
"Correlation does not imply causation." That's a science truism. And scientists understand this all too well. But they also understand how 'the system' works.
Thus AGW has been put into full force despite that understanding..... Not because AGW is absolute fact, but because it's necessary. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 3:40:13 PM |
So what if global warming IS a natural phenomenon?
Don't waste resources fighting a loosing battle, use them to adapt to the changes.
Do we simply just carry on with the way we're going? Using up fossil fuels that will eventually run out anyway. And in the process of burning these fuels, pay the obvious price as breathing abnormalities and disorders rise globally?
Don't confuse pollution with CO2. If the earth had no carbon monoxide, everything would be just fine. If the earth had no carbon dioxide, we would all die. If it doubled, crops would grow much faster. It's what plants breath in to produce oxygen from sunlight. If you increase CO2, plants will grow much faster. Its a common practice in green houses to inject CO2 to increase plant growth. Earth used to have much more CO2 than now with most of it locked up in rock. Oil and coal are really nothing more than very old biofuels. I agree its only a temporary solution but it fuels an economy that can develop technologies such as fusion. It may take mining the moon for Helium 3 but with the current political climate, that is not going to happen, at least not here. Our society needs to turn away from valuing celebrities and the lawyers that keep them out of prison and value innovation and those who do it. Then science education will be valued as it leads to valued careers.
Do we, smug in the knowledge that it's all Natures fault that the Earth is warming, continue to decimate and plunder the jungles and natural resources all around the world, wiping out whole species of life in the process? Why assume I am in favor of waste and pollution? Quite the opposite. I would suspect I have done more to reduce energy waste than anyone, if not everyone, on this thread. I don't care for waste and environmental destruction in the name of bad science to serve corrupt ends. Look up gulf of mexico dead zone. Much of it is attributible to the fight against CO2 global warming. Consider the rain forrests being cleared as we speak to grow fuel crops to fight CO2 global warming. Consider the thousands of bird wacking wind farms likely to change weather patterns that bring gulf moisture into American farm lands. Do we smugly destroy the environment in a vain effort to stop something that has happend naturally before and will happen again?
Do we continue using ineffective technology without even bothering to innovate and research smarter, cheaper and yes, cleaner technologies? As one of those innovators, I know exactly what it takes to bring new technologies to market. I have been doing it for decades. The first thing you need is truthful science, not politicized hype. American innovation is on the decline as America has less and less engineers who apply science and more and more lawyers who are economic parasites on just about everything. Al Gore is a lawyer, not a scientist or engineer. He makes millions off fear mongering while flying around in the most fuel guzzling transportation you can get, a private jet, to tell us to save fuel. I could deliver a great many innovations that could save large amounts of energy but politics have made starting an innovative venture nearly impossible. Been there, done that. Government does not innovate or drive innovation. It kills it.
Have you wondered why they might melt in the first place?
Long term natural cycles of climate change. Mostly driven by ocean currents powered by temperature differentials. I already described the process. Then again, human, volcanic, or extraterrestrial activity could start a melt cycle that feeds itself.
However, if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, then doesn't it stand that even that narrow band absorption increases?
Read your own sources. It's saturated in the first 300 feet. In other words, it has absorbed all it will absorb within 300 feet of the ground. All other colors pass no matter how dense the CO2. Clouds reflect. Clouds can be seeded by space born particles and thus the articles of this thread. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/27/2009 3:59:56 PM |
However, if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, then doesn't it stand that even that narrow band absorption increases? Read your own sources. It's saturated in the first 300 feet. In other words, it has absorbed all it will absorb within 300 feet of the ground. All other colors pass no matter how dense the CO2. Clouds reflect. Clouds can be seeded by space born particles and thus the articles of this thread.
You're kidding, right? Again...I go back to the example of Venus. Surface temp over 900 degrees. This one sounds a little too "convenient." In short, I don't buy it. Sorry. Again, doesn't answer the volume question at all. In short, more CO2 means more heat. Seems simple enough, doesn't it?
Have you wondered why they might melt in the first place? Long term natural cycles of climate change. Mostly driven by ocean currents powered by temperature differentials. I already described the process. Then again, human, volcanic, or extraterrestrial activity could start a melt cycle that feeds itself.
Ah yes, the "natural" cycle. Denial really isn't just a river in Egypt. While I certainly am willing to acknowledge that volcanic sources of CO2 have impacts, you again fail to take into account that humans are releasing far more CO2 on a continuous basis. That by reason of simple common sense, is gong to be a problem.
Let's face it dave, you're just not selling me on what you're selling. I don't know what your investment is in denying AGW but you've observed that the AGW proponent crowd is almost "religious" in their faith. Seems to me the denial side is just as "faithful." | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:49:11 AM |
I go back to the example of Venus. Surface temp over 900 degrees.
Repetition does not change fact. It's like chanting religious dogma. Venus has 100% cloud cover consisting of complex sulfur and chlorine compounds. Climatology doesn't even have a grasp of the full impact of Earth's partial and temporary cloud cover consisting of water yet anyone who has observed the weather knows it has a major impact. Venus atmosphere is 97% CO2, 92 times as dense and 5 times as thick as Earth with 1.79 times the solar energy. Earth CO2 is less than 1% and the worst case scenario does not change that much. Venus is a green house with its cloud cover serving as the glass barrier. I would guess the surface temperature of Venus is regulated by one of the chemical bond energy bands of CO2, far above that of Earth. I say regulated because if the temperature tries to go higher, the CO2 above the clouds will radiate excess heat into space. Below this temperature, the clouds trap the heat by reflection of broad band IR exactly like a green house does. It would appear to be a controlled oven.
you're just not selling me on what you're selling.
To make a mockery of Chairman Mao, into closed minds, nothing can be put. I clearly cannot change your religious beliefs. Science is about open minds, not dogma.
I don't know what your investment is in denying AGW You didn't "buy" any of the articles cited earlier in this thread either. All you have to do to see my motive is read my posts. I have great concerns over environmental damage resulting from pursuing fixes for a non-problem. Clearing rain forests for fuel crops, alcohol mandates, excessive bird wacking wind turbines etc. The greed, potential for corruption and economic ruin from carbon credit trading schemes is extremely disturbing. Why do you assume I even need some other motive? The political prize winning high priest of your religious order, whose political roots were funded by tobacco, continues to show his hypocrisy with impunity while raking in millions off the fear mongering yet you hint that I have some investment by not bowing to his fear mongering profits as you do. My investment is this planet. Is it that you cannot understand true environmental concern? What are your investments in parroting Al Gore who is a lawyer, not a scientist or engineer? | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:52:38 AM | To make a mockery of Chairman Mao, into closed minds, nothing can be put. I clearly cannot change your religious beliefs.
The same can be said of denial. Every dogma will have its day. But since, again, the majority of climate scientists are actually in agreement with AGW, I guess that makes your point about science moot. Hey, they're the ones actually doing the science. What does that say?
I would guess the surface temperature of Venus is regulated by one of the chemical bond energy bands of CO2, far above that of Earth.
You "guess?" | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:50:35 AM |
But since, again, the majority of climate scientists are actually in agreement with AGW,
Can you find a climate scientist who does not derive income as a result of hyping climate change fear? They would be out of work if it were not for selling climate change fear, unless they found work as weather men. Are you claiming science is a vote restricted to people who have an interest in voting a particular way? One of the earlier cited works discussed the villification of dissenters.
they're the ones actually doing the science.
As an engineer involved in several overlapping technologies, I do the science with an end result that my application of the science actually has to perform as predicted. This is not like publishing climate predictions for way in the future to get grants and sponsered trips to visit glaciers. Politicians need fear to gain power and influence. It would appear to be a perfect symbiotic relationship between the grant givers and the grant recepients. Since the guru of global warming got his start in the tobacco industry, it would seem par for the course.
I would guess the surface temperature of Venus is regulated by one of the chemical bond energy bands of CO2, far above that of Earth. You "guess?"
I suppose it could be called a hypothesis if you like big words associated with science. Being as I don't have some defined scientific protocol to gather evidence and conclusions, the word guess will suffice for now. Call it an educated guess as I base it in my knowledge and experience in the very physics involved. Its different from a religious belief in that I don't consider it some settled absolute. I am open to change my conclusion. You seem to consider AGW as a fact(dogma not subject to change) or will you accept it is a theory(guess)?
There is a Phd in thermal transfer physics less than 10 feet from me now and a Phd in optical theory less than 20 feet from me. I have patents in spectral analysis and measurement technologies with only my name listed as the inventor. I have been recognized for environmental efforts for over 40 years. I have been a sailor since I was ten giving me considerable insight into the weather and wind energy. I have been involved in alternative energy projects. Should my guess carry weight? | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 12:02:14 PM |
There is a Phd in thermal transfer physics less than 10 feet from me now and a Phd in optical theory less than 20 feet from me. I have patents in spectral analysis and measurement technologies with only my name listed as the inventor. I have been recognized for environmental efforts for over 40 years. I have been a sailor since I was ten giving me considerable insight into the weather and wind energy. I have been involved in alternative energy projects. Should my guess carry weight?
Appeals to authority.
You seem to consider AGW as a fact(dogma not subject to change) or will you accept it is a theory(guess)?
Ad hominem. Also, I would accept AGW as a theory but a theory isn't a "guess" as you, a man of science, should well understand. And yes, theories are open for revision. That is science.
As an engineer involved in several overlapping technologies, I do the science with an end result that my application of the science actually has to perform as predicted.
And does any of your expertise relate to actual climate? So you sail. I watch weather all the time for my interest in astronomy. Doesn't make me a climatologist.
So, if an astronomer tells me Mars is green, because he's a dissenting voice, should I give it any weight? I can read and listen to the science and draw my own inferences. Doesn't make me ignorant or somehow less intelligent (or more dogmatic) because I disagree with you. I just don't find your logic compelling.
Since the guru of global warming got his start in the tobacco industry, it would seem par for the course.
Again, ad hominem. | |
|
| |
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 2:19:47 PM |
Don't forget the medias involvement in all of this as well Dave... Since the Cold War ended it's been one thing after the other...
Oh yes, the "big bad media!" Does no one think for themselves, anymore? | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 6:35:18 PM |
Appeals to authority.
Did you see a quote? The context was my circle of coworkers explaining the science I work with every day.
And does any of your expertise relate to actual climate?
Being as I design equipment for transportation including aircraft, yes. It relates to the environment the equipment I design must work in and the testing I subject it to. That includes IR night vision equipment and high altitude radiation effects. Even some work involving EMP.
So you sail. I watch weather all the time for my interest in astronomy. Doesn't make me a climatologist.
I would suggest sailing requires a bit more detail than "is the sky clear." Actually harnessing the wind to propel a boat gives one experience in applying a variety of physical properties of fluid dynamics, surface flow characteristics etc. It also gives one experience in wind shadows from the various objects such as the impact of wind turbines downstream. I don't claim you are ignorant but I figure I have far more applicable experience in the physics claimed to explain AGW that most including you. I do claim you are closed minded on the subject. You would rely on popularity and titles over science presented to you including explanations for the motives behind the popular theory.
So, if an astronomer tells me Mars is green, because he's a dissenting voice, should I give it any weight?
If you did not know better from your own experience, then I would say such an authority should be accepted until you find evidence otherwise, as I have. Your point of view would not give you accurate data to discriminate between what is most accepted and what is most hyped. If you observed Mars as red when a group of astronomers are saying Mars is green, who would you trust?. If you had heard Mars had a lot of copper or nickle instead of iron on the surface, the green might make sense. If there was a reasonable explanation for the red observation with a green surface, would you be open minded?
Does no one think for themselves, anymore?
Gazer, this question should be for you, not by you. I have proven I think for myself and you have attacked me for it. I have fought many such battles in bringing innovative technologies to life. Such is the nature of invention. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:06:26 PM | | Thanks Dave... no... people don't think for themselves anymore... they seem to prefer to jump on band-wagons... reading only what they are told to read... I have read hundreds of articles on Global Warming... reading both sides of the story... have you... BTW... did you know that data has actually gone missing that debunks some GW claims... | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:55:40 PM |
And does any of your expertise relate to actual climate? Being as I design equipment for transportation including aircraft, yes. It relates to the environment the equipment I design must work in and the testing I subject it to. That includes IR night vision equipment and high altitude radiation effects. Even some work involving EMP.
In other words, no. You invent stuff. Good for you and thank you. I'm sure your technical skills are superb. However, you're not a climatologist. Telling me I should believe you on that basis is an appeal to your intellectual authority. Sorry, got my own, thanks.
I would suggest sailing requires a bit more detail than "is the sky clear."
Well that was dismissive. It's about reading weather patterns. Something I've been doing for 30 years. What conditions lead to clear skies. What ones lead to cloudy. Temperature, weather systems, etc.
I don't claim you are ignorant but I figure I have far more applicable experience in the physics claimed to explain AGW that most including you. I do claim you are closed minded on the subject. You would rely on popularity and titles over science presented to you including explanations for the motives behind the popular theory.
Backhanded acknowledgement. I don't rely on what's "popular." I rely on my own experience, my own conclusions based on what I've come to understand of the science of climate. Clearly, we disagree. However, if you were actually a climatologist, your opinion...even a dissenting one...would hold more weight. However, again, since the majority of climatologists are in general agreement of AGW, I'll go with their word.
And actually, I was aware of the solar irradiance/climate connection back in the late '80s early '90s when it was first raised. I could probably even go back to find the article, if I had the boxes of magazines with me. So the concept is not beyond my ken. However, it seems pretty logical to me...dump a lot of something into an environment, it's not going to be that much of a benefit. In fact, it might even be deleterious.
And, you want to talk motives, you don't think there's motive to denying AGW?
Did you see a quote? The context was my circle of coworkers explaining the science I work with every day.
No quotes necessary. The old "my comments were taken out of context" ploy. As a journalist, I've heard it a lot. You were talking about your technical qualifications and those of your coworkers as if that was supposed to hold some weight to the discussion. It didn't. The fact that you have technical skills related to technology doesn't mean you understand climatology any more than my understanding of astronomy makes me qualified to critique the things you build. I'm not going to ask a mechanic to design a deccorative garden for me now, am I?
Bottom line, dave, you and I aren't likely to agree on this anytime soon. But thanks for the lively debate. It was fun. If you feel it necessary to have the last word, be my guest Back to our regular programming, already in progress. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 12:25:08 PM | I observed:
You would rely on popularity and titles over science
You replied:
However, again, since the majority of climatologists.......
That is exactly what I observed. How is that thinking for yourself?
This thread concerns the climate impact from solar emitted particles in cloud formation as it impacts climate.
My comments are based on the physics of IR absorption by the chemical bonds of CO2 and extensive work in spectral analysis for decades. Climatologists work with long term weather observations and conjecture over causes based on such arguments as overlaying graphs. From observed coincidences and a variety of often tainted or oversimplified explanations of CO2 IR absorption, they conclude CO2 is the culprit. I have read what they based their conclusions on and found multiple serious issues with the science based on my specific and extensive work in the very sciences they are referring to. I don't accept that climatologists are somehow more knowledgable about my fields of expertise than I am and therefor do not find their observations of coincidence as anything more than coincidence.
I have read about the modeling they have done to make their extrapolations of climate change and again, found flaws in the architecture of the models. They are using software they are familiar with that serves well to predict weather on the short term. These programs have a degree of artificial intelligence in that feedback from what is actually observed compared to what was predicted allows the program to adjust its prediction algorithms. That works for short term but long term, it does not have the benefit of feedback and cannot compensate for errors in the assumptions made in the modeling algorithm. In control engineering, this would be called open loop and tends to amplify errors to extremes. The resulting predictions for exteme climate changes are just such extremes. Climatologists are not trained in control theory. It is a specialized field in engineering because of its complexity. I don't expect climatologist to somehow be experts in that field. I work with such experts when necessary to tune and stabilize the complex feedback systems I design.
If high CO2 causes runaway heating as predicted by the AGW crowd, then why didn't Earth incinerate when CO2 was much higher than it is today?
In one of your posts characterizing another person's scientific citation as "dodgy", you used a general newspaper, not a technical publication, as your source citation. From that, here is the basic meat of the newspaper understanding:
One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles, called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.
In reality, clouds actually are more effective at retaining heat as they reflect radiated IR back to the surface. Simply go out in the destert at night to feel the effect. Clouds act like the glass of a green house that also reflects radiated IR. Since green houses normally have less CO2 inside than outside due to the plants, the CO2 as a "green house gas" would seem moot.
This topic has a lot of rationalization along the line of "The fixes for CO2 are good even if AGW is wrong." I don't agree and cite alcohol mandates, rain forrest destruction etc. that are results of the CO2 fixes. The creation of a giant bureaucracy and trading market to trade in nothing more than numbers at the expense of everybody is about as non-productive as we can get. How much energy will be wasted supporting the thousands of people and facilities to house them? Carbon credit trading robs the economy of capitol for no other reason than to feed paper shuffling bureaucrats and stuff the pockets of those invested in the trading of the credits, such as Al Gore. The only impact is has to reduce energy waste is by raising the cost of energy to pay for energy wasted in the bureaucracy that raises the cost of energy.
I would suggest the better way to improve energy efficiency is through technology that comes from those who make a living delivering technology rather than those who do nothing but waste energy while producing nothing. Put a cap on the number of lawyers in the country and trade most of the rest for engineers and scientists from Japan, China, India, Germany, Russia etc. Now that would be useful cap and trade. Al Gore should be the first. Perhaps he should be sent to Norway because they love him so much and they need more lawyers. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:29:27 PM | mpaul7172,
It is not any glaring facts about the earth warming then cooling in cycles will deter
any of the booming " save the Earth " business' and scientist's constant denial of the earth having these "cycles". not Even historical proof of these cycles has impeded them from spreading disinformation about Global warming being real, and a growing danger, that builds from constant increases in temperature caused by man made emitters of "Green House" gases.
that would be equivalent to finally admitting that the Piltdown Man was just a practical joke,( and still to this day some still say they discovered the real missing link)
And most of all, they would be out of a job that pays well for agreeing with the Cause Celeb!
If greenhouses co2 causes this warming, and having been proved old growth trees emit a much greater amt. of co2 than younger trees, why is it more difficult to cut and use these trees for lumber, other biulding materiales, furniture, fuel,... instead of making it illegal/ near impossible to cut these old growth trees?
It's only logical, given that old growth trees produce far lesser amt.s of o2 and much greater amt.s of co2 than younger trees, and it would shrink the co2 emissions world wide. but I guess the environMENTALists, and the billiondollar cottage industries of this movement would have to admit they were wrong! ( see Piltdown Man above)
instead they; keep their jobs, build up more disinformation for more profit from people donating to the Cause, create more and more cottage industries which make more and more money in profit....
do we see a pattern yet....
Dale | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:44:54 PM | Kinky B,
I AGREE SOMEWHAT.
an old movie," soilent green" was made in the 60's/70's that left mankind as the near final life on this Planet.
It pretty much goes along the lines you are thinking, but I doubt we will be the final animals alive.
We are much too stupid for that to happen.
so what it all boils down to is what would happen if man were not "in the Picture" any longer.
pretty much, we won't be missed! Life goes on without us!
Dale | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:47:05 PM | Mind you....living in Canada and with winter on the way..."warmer" sounds tempting.
Personally, and on topic with the OP, I've always found the solar irradiance theory compelling. After all, as I recall the data that was discovered, there was a very small but measurable increase from mmaxima and minima in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Having experienced a few cycles, it has seemed to me that there was a slight increase in warmer winters/weather phenomenon related to the solar maxima.
The data seems clear. A "warming" is occurring whether you want to tie it to AGW or not. Tie in aspects of CO2 both natural and human released, methane release, normal warming post-glaciation, etc., we are going to see interesting changes in the environment. It's going to have an effect in international relations/social development.
Also, and I'll say it again, I think it's time to look at energy usage beyond the AGW debate. Hey dave, if your inventions create more efficient use of energy, that's less wear and tear on infrastructure which requires less effort and energy to maintain...it's a feedback system.
I mean hey, we could always just keep going the way we're going. But then what. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
