|
|
|
|
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/30/2008 6:06:23 PM |
And who's telling the lies that control you? Everyone has an agenda, even your sources.
Some of use are driven by truth. I have been an amateur environmentalist for decades. The environmental damage, in particular from the ethanol mandates, from the political activism of the AGW crowd is nothing short of an environmental and human disaster. The analytical engineer in me finds great fault in the AGW theory. I don't need data to tell me there are problems with it. Other than that, I have no stake in the issue except, as an engineer, efforts in alternate energy probably help my profession and indirectly, me.
As an engineer working with patented analysis algorithms in the EM spectrum, of which IR is part. I would argue I have a lot more understanding of the spectrum than a climatologist in understanding energy within the EM spectrum. To add further, my recent work involves sensing and sending infrared light through the atmosphere. Again, not something I would expect from a climatologist. As an engineer, getting published means very little. Whatever I do has to be proven to work and therefor the application of physics correct. All the publish or parish crowd has to do is get published and harvest grants. I would suggest you do your own research in the history of the term "green house gas". | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/30/2008 6:43:56 PM | Shit Dave, if I wasn't so far away I'd like to buy you lunch and discuss these issues at greater length.
It's funny how so many people will fight tooth and nail for the comfort of what they believe in as truth, perhaps to the death, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 1:15:54 AM | So if I can't trust NASA, the IPCC, or climatologists who can I trust wrt AGW? Where can i go to see a reliable model of climate behavior in it's full detail? If I want to see the quantitative analysis of this stuff where should I go?
Also, what incentive do all of these government agencies and NGOs have to continue to champion what is apparently such a flawed concept? If it's really all just about getting grants to do research wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to spend that grant money researching REAL climate models rather than the bunk you say they're churning out? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 3:15:46 AM | You won't find an accurate model of climate behavior because there are too many unknown variables in climatology, rendering the models inaccurate past short time periods. Their accuracy is restricted to the accuracy of the information being fed into them, so if not all parameters are understood, then the predictions will be wrong. Just having one parameter off would cause a certain error level, so imagine having 4 or 5 parameters that are for the most part, unknown.
Since funding modelling research is not a phenomenon limited to climatology, I would not say that the government has any agenda in regard to climate change and reducing CO2 levels; our world leaders, for the most part, are not scientists and they are turning to the experts for input.
I think that there are a couple of things going on:
1. Everyone is now paying attention to the slightest difference in climate from year to year on both local and global scales, making global climate change seem more real now than ever before. The media has caused this frenzy: from melting ice caps to grade 5 hurricanes, the climate is THE story to get headlines.
2. Politicians' platforms are based around getting the majority of votes, and right now the public believes that the earth is heating up and CO2 is responsible.
3. Models looking 100 years into the future won't be proven wrong any time soon, so changing the dogma at this point is not easy.
4. If you don't believe in global warming or that CO2 is the sole contributor, you are on a personal level labelled as someone who doesn't care about the environment and on a professional level denied grant money or tenure or even fired. Because of this, very few people speak out publicly
In my opinion, the system is failing us | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 11:33:06 AM |
who can I trust wrt AGW?
As I suggested all along, trust yourself. Study the science yourself. This is the internet and you can find arguments for both sides of anything. Citing those pages may or may not serve the truth. What is believable, just as with any other media, is presentation more than substance. Agendas are mostly about money. One side would say it's all about big oil protecting its market while the other (myself included) talk about the millions being made by the fear mongering itself and the political power derived from the fear. Use your own judgment. NASA gets its funding from the government and must sell politicians on the mission need. AGW is a perfect tool for that purpose. I don't say there is some conspiracy but more a process of rationalization. Perhaps I am more idealist but I constantly evaluate my one motivations. In my career, I turned down lucrative offers to work on nuclear WMDs simply because I had a problem with my efforts going that direction. A close relative did not and helped develop multiple warhead weapons where a single missile can destroy an entire country. I don't have to worry about my work actually being used.
I occasionally make it to the Northwest on business but its usually airports, hotels and labs. Not much time to meet people for lunch. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 6:12:27 PM |
As I suggested all along, trust yourself. Study the science yourself. This is the internet and you can find arguments for both sides of anything.
My fellow Dave and I have reached opposite conclusions on this issue, but on the above we certainly agree.
Do your own research. Google is your friend. Study all the arguments, and one rings true to you, do a bit of research on who is making the argument and read whatever counter arguments may be out there. Dave will probably not agree with my next suggested step, but I also check to see if they have participated in the peer-review process and if so what those peers had to say.
There is a lot of garbage out there related to climate change. I find the best way to sift through it all is to see if respected peers support any given stance, and whether the person pushing that perspective has a record of performing solid science.
Dave | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 7:24:57 PM | Question to you guys:
Both Dave and Waterfall, you seem to have done a lot of research on this subject. Have either of you seen studies where a legitimate climate model has been proven accurate? When I checked the peer-reviewed climatology journals, 90% of the articles were model based, yet I've talked to a forestry researcher and read the opinions of Hendrik Tennekes on climate models and they both held the same opinion: models are not accurate if they have more than a few parameters.
Just curious what you think about that subject? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/31/2008 7:27:17 PM | I suspect we disagree on the peer aspect as I have found it seriously lacking. It's much like having your assignment graded by someone without the passion, vision, or skill to write it themselves. I picture a group of professors stroking their beards and dipping tea bags. Had I stopped when such people said what I was attempting would not work, I would not have achieved much.
Until a direct cause and effect link is established, and the AGW crowd say they can't, then its not proven. Instead, the proof and eloquent peer reviewed papers are all about coincidence. My analysis of CO2 indicates it is not a factor and thus the various data showing a lag in CO2 in the ice core records are correct. I laid out reasoning to explain the ice core records. I laid out the processes of ocean currents and how they use the melting polar ice as a cold heat sink to power them. The cold being necessary for their movement just as the tropical heat is also needed. The running of this engine "burns" that fuel until it is depleted. That is when the freeze starts again. A simpler explanation for land based ice melt will predictably behave the same way.
Without an understanding of fine details of the EM spectrum of IR absorption-radiation, it is difficult to understand why CO2 is not a factor. Since the climate papers I have read never get to that level and instead attribute the attenuated broad band IR as an opaqueness, I is quite understandable why they reach their conclusions. They see increasing CO2 as being less transparent when the reality is that CO2 only absorbs a few narrow bands of IR and the atmospheric concentrations are saturated in a few tens of feet. Water vapor has far more bands and clouds made of water droplets and ice crystals have many more. The clouds reflect most IR and therefor actually do act like green hous GLASS which is the real reason a green house is warmer than ambient. Its not CO2 in your car making in hot in the summer. Its the glass.
When Dave mentions someone having a record of solid science to be qualified for peer review, would that not exclude anyone who disagrees with AGW? Just read some of the many sites referenced for the pro AGW argument. Most use extremely derogatory names for those who question the dogma. How is it possible in such an environment to propose a disagreeing paper? It's not. Fear of damage to one's reputation, withheld grants, and even possible job lose are far more real then the AGW theory. Universities do not want to be associated with such "crackpots" or oil company lackies. Think about it Dave. This issue is as much about politics as science. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/1/2008 6:29:23 AM | "When Dave mentions someone having a record of solid science to be qualified for peer review, would that not exclude anyone who disagrees with AGW? Just read some of the many sites referenced for the pro AGW argument. Most use extremely derogatory names for those who question the dogma. How is it possible in such an environment to propose a disagreeing paper? It's not. Fear of damage to one's reputation, withheld grants, and even possible job lose are far more real then the AGW theory. Universities do not want to be associated with such "crackpots" or oil company lackies. Think about it Dave. This issue is as much about politics as science. "
It's not the submitting of the papers that go against accepted theories that is the problem. It's having the guts to do it if your institute agrees with current theory.
I happen to be pro peer review, as it is apolitical and represents the impartial nature that defines science. Peer-reviewed journals take careful measures to find two or three referees who are not only qualified to evaluate the material but who have no conflicts of interest with the author of the paper and who have expertise that covers different aspects of the paper in question. So if someone submits a paper that follows accepted research protocol and the experiments are repeatable, then the paper then has no problem getting published.
Of note is that science journals are evaluated by impact factors, which are calculated based on the average number of citations their articles receive, so everyone is always hoping to publish those papers that reveal a new finding...A paper showing sound proof that increased atmospheric CO2 does not increase AGW would be a great acquisition for a journal in that regard.
The problem as I see it is that the AGW field receives a large portion of the funding for research, so the bulk of papers you see are naturally from those groups. And, as I noted above and you seem to agree with, it's hard to have the guts to go against your own institute's stance if current theories are deemed "settled". You are correct that people are labelled in the climate change field, which has more to do with politics than science. It shows that the two must always be kept separate, but I'm not sure that that goal could ever be achieved.
To be honest, I do not have enough of an expertise in the field that you are working in to know whether what you are describing makes sense, but if it is valid, then there would be no reason that you could not get your work published. Have you tried? If you are uncomfortable submitting to a journal that deals with climate, you could try a journal that deals with physics. Just a thought | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/1/2008 11:19:20 PM |
Both Dave and Waterfall, you seem to have done a lot of research on this subject.
Actually, I think Dave would agree that he and I approach this topic very differently. Dave will I'm sure correct me on any mischaracterization I make on his behalf, but it seems to me that he has a strong scientific background and applies what he personally has discovered and applied about science to the arguments made by those specializing in this particular area of science. If I had his skills and background I'd do the same thing.
My science resume is much more basic, (A math degree combined with my high school and college level biology, chemistry, and physics classes) so I rely on reading and evaluating all I can on the topic based not only on what my logic tells me makes sense but also on how others with expertise in the area think about any given conclusion.
Dave seems to feel that the climate science community is full of people who simply back each other up, but sorely lacking in those who see the failings in their position that are crystal clear to him, based on his understanding of physics, an understanding that has served him well in his work, but one that I can't find any other scientists agreeing with as it pertains to climate change.
His arguments about the IR absorption aspects of CO2 seem basic enough that I would expect to find some discussion of it in the literature, but my attempts to date have been unable to yield any such discussion.
As to climate models with a proven track record, James Hansen's 1988 effort is one good example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
There's a good discussion of model accuracy here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649
In both cases, be sure to read the comments after the articles. You'll find pro and con viewpoints and can make your own judgements about the validity of those.
My observation in the fifteen years I've been tracking climate change developments is that so far observed results have outpaced the model predictions, and as a result predictions for future decades have skewed toward the more dire.
No model is perfect, and I try not to put a lot of faith in any one model, but when independent modeling efforts are compiled and commonalities are noted, that has more value in my view.
Every year more sophisticated models are developed. The case could be made that the more variables included the greater the margin for error, but in many cases the increased sophistication comes not from additional variables but from better interpretation of existing variables, combined with increased monitoring data.
Dave | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/2/2008 11:23:43 AM | The first cited page is little more than insulting thode who disagree with with AGW. Their proof is in the form of a short term trend analysis of projections by models that project based on past short term trends.
The second cite claims the models are proven by predicting history. Since these models are self modifying by feeding back error terms from actual data, it stands to reason they would predict history quite well.
Two of my points are pretty well made in that disagreeing points of view of riticuled and the models long term accuracy cannot be proven because of the short term error feedback the gives them the appearance of accuracy.
We know from geological records that heating and cooling of earth are cyclic. In that regard, we must consider these cycles, bit the highest frequency and lowest frequency, to effectively sample data for its content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
This should give you a better picture of what is wrong with making long term predictions in a cyclic environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Weather predictions more than short term are little more than guesses. One can predict winter is colder than summer and day is hotter than night but those are cyclic events. There is a tidal effect on a 28 day cycle but probably less important but still could effect weather. These are but a few cycles we know well because they are within our observation time window. I would suggest there are substantial cycles around 7 years and 20 years based only on observed periods of droughts and floods. Still all these are higher frequency cycles but to observe long term, we need to have accurate data covering at least one full cycle of the lowest frequency, say an ice age cycle sampled at least twice the rate of the highest frequency, the day/night cycle. In other words, daily and nightly temperatures through the last ice age cycle. Not likely. Trend analysis from short term data more than short term in a long term cyclic environment is questionable at best but that is what weather prediction is all about. These same models have been modified to project much longer than short term and renamed "climate". How many models, that did not produce the results desired, were rejected?
The basic math of trend analysis involves interpolation with extrapolation. In my freshman year, I concluded interpolation was a poor way to project between points of empiracle data and decided a basic second order polynomial would be much better. Any higher order would not necessarily be stable. I did the routine and used it to interpolate missing points in a variety of tabular data. It was a minimum order of magnetude better than linear interpolation. Still, like many other creative solutions, I was graded poorly and was forced to fight academia to prove my solution. This and other projects pretty well soured me on academic pursuits prefering engineering. I really don't see any difference in that academic attutude and what prevails in climatology. In the corporate engineering world, it's referred to as NIH. Its human nature, not policy. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/2/2008 12:51:21 PM | Well now…
As CoolNomad said in msg 273…
But you neglected to answer any of the other questions (actually ALL of the questions) opting instead to attack my arbitrary statement.
(Right on good sir. Excellent observation.)
It’s pretty apparent that some deniers will purposely AVOID answering direct questions ON THE TOPIC (that means one can’t deflect this by saying others aren’t answering requests pointed at them… we have, even the irrelevant ones). They will do so by attempts to REDIRECT the conversation into a flame-war (by falsely accusing, denigrating and name-calling any that question their “theories”). They will do so by pretending no one has asked any questions. Coolnomad (msg 273) has also noticed that the “skeptic” who posted msg 257 has avoided answering SPECIFIC questions and instead chooses to focus attacks elsewhere (such as denigrating the challenger). This is the classic DIVERSION.
Don’t think one is just being contrary? Then answer this…
In your “theory” that atmospheric CO2 actually creates a cooling effect, how does one account for the emissions from CO2 molecules that are NOT towards space? In order for the presence of CO2 to have a “cooling effect” over and above NO presence of CO2, your model must mean that the CO2 transfers MORE heat away (or more quickly) from the earth than a relatively CO2 free atmosphere. Given a random distribution of orientation, there is just as much emission downward as in any other direction. Uninhibited, infrared frequencies that would be absorbed and re-emitted (in a random direction) would simply radiate into space. Inhibited, SOME of it will eventually make its way back down, or at the very least, stick around for a while longer). How is one accounting for a system with a slower process of heat emission (that of absorption and re-emission) to have a LOWER equilibrium temperature than a system without the inhibitor?
Being warmed by the sun at in a different range, the infrared radiation from the earth happens either way (there ISN’T any EXTRA radiation from the presence of a GHG), but somehow in your model, CO2 transfer more energy towards space than pure uninhibited radiation. Unlike the garden variety greenhouse, as we all agree, one cannot create an opening and allow energized atmosphere to escape. The GHG remains in the system and has a relative inhibiting effect on radiation escaping into space. Please explain how one’s model for “relative cooling” reverses this basic physics. Note also that any given parcel of atmosphere beneath a radiating molecule is not guaranteed to be warmer either.
ANSWER the questions INCLUDING the main one here, or, prove, as usual, that one is only speciously being contrary.
No resorting to asides about how “unthinking” challengers are, or making fun of their avatars now, or “go find the answer yourself” deflections (after all the main question is on YOUR special theory of absorption-emission)… ANSWER the challenge. (Or will we just get the usual deflections via personal attacks rife with false accusations and irrelevant asides)
.
.
.
Specific answers…
Msg 257…
Again, I would ask Borg to try to refute a single aspect of the physics I have described that refute the concept of CO2 acting to warm the atmosphere. I have repeatedly described the physics in ways some have described as "high school" level yet with worlds like "insincere", at best Borg only insults.
Try? RoFl. Already did and succeeded. Reread the part about, “ignoring the RANDOM direction in which a molecule of CO2 will emit energy” (it’s been mentioned several times by The Collective). The notion that the presence of this GHG will actually have a slight cooling effect was based on this fundamental flaw. If one is as experienced in CO2 behaviour as one claims, then the assertion of insincerity is valid. To continue to pretend that one’s theory has not been dismantled (as it has in the past too) is also insincere. This is a statement built on observation. The Collective has no agenda or intention to “Insult”.
Yes, there was a fundamental refutation.
Please see the challenge in the pre-amble regarding “relative cooling”.
Oh… and don’t even try to obfuscate this by saying that the presence of CO2 collects more heat from the earth, or that the absorption and re-radiation of energy in random directions is a faster transport mode than pure uninhibited emission. The earth emits the same heat bandwidths with or without the GHG. The truth is a mechanism that inhibits the free radiation of heat, over and above other vehicles, will keep that heat around a little longer than a system void of that mechanism. Basic physics. Basic logic. Any theory that ignores that basic physics is a basic failure. Basic enough?
Msg 257…
I have stated that coincidence is not cause and effect while a direct explanation of the physics is. The physics principals I have described indicate CO2 would have a slight cooling effect. Not a single aspect of this explanation has even been argued much less refuted. If any of those chanting the AGW dogma understand enough physics, please step forward. At best, the chanters cite papers that do nothing more than observe changes and assume coincidence is cause and effect. The authors of these papers usually have a financial stake in promoting the theory and getting published. One could just as easily argue the hot air from the AGW chanting has also coincidentally increased at the same time therefor it is responsible.
Coincidence? Essentially everything (yes everything) can be deemed a coincidence, but interdependency can be secured with enough corroboration. To claim illegitimacy based on even LESS significance than what one attempts to decry is illogical.
It is up to deniers to prove that the current science has not enough corroboration. However, all we see is the usual misconstructions based on even less corroboration (the “cherry-pick”). The “hot air” comment? Yes. Resorting to specious disparagement again we see.
Msg 257…
Even the term "green house gas" is deceptive and I would argue its use is meant to deceive. The term arose when the understanding of the physics indicated the gas in green house was responsible for its higher than ambient yet more modern analysis proves this is false. So why keep a false label?
The term was “hot house” back in Arrhenius’ day. It is doubtful that his intent was to deceive anybody about this. Why keep a misleading label? That’s a good question for those who like to call themselves “skeptics” when they clearly behave as deniers. At any rate, this is merely the deflective tactic of arguing semantics. Call it the green cheese effect if you wish. It doesn’t change the mechanism. Semantics are not really relevant when we consider that those involved in this discussion largely understand the difference between the GHG mechanism and the garden hot house one (if they didn’t, some have mentioned it enough times already LoL).
Msg 257…
The observed climate changes have occured many times in the past before human influence and can be expected again. Why now assume such changes are a result of evil oil companies? Because there is profit and political power to be gained. Simply look at the leaders of the AGW movement. Look at the income for the "scientists" promoting the theory.
The earth also didn’t exist when the sun was forming too (as it’s material was just part of a large accretion disk) and that fact is just as irrelevant. “Climate changes have occurred many times in the past” is one of the usual red herrings. Anthropogenic climate change is all about artificial and accelerated inputs into that system. One wouldn’t have to resort to this type of subterfuge if they really HAD a LOGICALLY SOUND alternate scientific explanation. Once again, this is not an “insult” but an obvious and important observation.
Evil Oil Companies? That’s just the exaggerated stance that forms another straw man argument. There’s even more profit to be gained (and quietly gained) by merely colluding and raising the price of oil. Claiming that proponents of science at large are banding together to create this elaborate hoax is beyond ludicrous. As far as the income of scientists promoting the theory, please feel free to provide evidence of this lest this be deemed as nothing more than biased speculation.
Msg 257…
Borg's identity and qualification are not revealed and he has stated only a credentialed climatologist is qualified to discuss the climate changes. I don't agree yet borg himself has made no claims to be qualified under his own rules.
The Collective’s own rules? Please provide proof of such a set of rules, IN CONTEXT, or be officially cited for intentional defamation. As far as credentials, The Collective, your own, or anybody else’s is irrelevant to the discussion UNLESS they are as a bona fide climate scientist. Such credentials would necessarily carry more weight than a poster that has it not. Misconstruing this to mean that “only a credentialed climate scientist is qualified” is disingenuous, a sign of poor comprehension, a bad grasp on logic or a combination thereof.
If one conveniently ignores the random direction in which a CO2 molecule emits its absorbed energy, or that a system that has inhibited radiation has a LOWER equilibrium ambient mean temperature than one without, any former credentials (patents, papers, science fair prizes) do not mitigate the logical flaw. The merit of one’s argument is the measure of matter.
It’s bad enough already. It would be far worse for those bested by The B0rg if The Collective’s credentials were that of grade school drop out… although we suspect that some hope that it is.
Msg 257…
A climatologist is outside his field when he discusses the physics of CO2 and infrered light. A climatologist is a glorified weatherman and the models used for their AGW arguments are modified weather prediction programs. These programs are self-modifying statistical analysis programs that use past errors to refine their prediction accuracy through long term error feedback. There is no long term error feedback when discussing global changes whose cycles are well beyond recorded human history or even the fossil record of human existance.
Right… a climate scientist can ONLY understand climate studies. There must be some heavily enforced laws that prevent any climate scientist from gaining experience and knowledge on the physics of CO2 or infrared light. A couple of them tried to get some hands-on training once, but were ejected from the team once their climate-science membership cards were discovered. The “no climate scientists are to have practical experience in CO2 and infrared radiation” police are everywhere…
We’ve already gone over why the refinement of the predictive model does not mean that the basic premise is incorrect.
Msg 257…
Certainly not deployment of accurate instrumentation. In my instrumentation development, I specialize in time and frequency domain analysis algorithms. In that work, there are specific aspects of sampling theory such as the Nyquist criteria define the uncertainties of sampled data analysis.
As mentioned before, plate tectonics is another premise that has periods far greater than human existence. Are you claiming that they too are wrong based on failing the Nyquist criteria?
Msg 257…
What is being claimed as the proof of AGW is pure fiction. It is nothing more than speculation based on coincidence and anecdotal observations even if elaborate and well funded. To make claims the AGW is a real factor, one must demonstrate the direct physical principals to show cause and effect.
No. Pure fiction is like the “17,000 so-called scientists” that allegedly signed the OISM petition (is one going to disambiguate this to mean “accusing one of quoting OISM’s petition?). Pure fiction is conveniently ignoring the random direction in which CO2 emits absorbed energy in order to claim a “cooling effect” (reminder… such a mechanism ISN’T picking up any extra heat). Pure fiction is implying that The Collective resorts to “personal attack” when it is clearly The Collective’s opponents that degenerate to that level of “debate”.
But, corroborating data that supports anthropogenic climate change? That is inescapable fact.
Real peer-reviewed climate papers demonstrate adherence to physical law. Theories that suggest the presence of a gas that absorbs and emits energy in the atmosphere will lower the temperature of an atmosphere without said gas DOES NOT. If ANY energy is emitted downward, the system with the GHG will have a higher mean temperature equilibrium. Basic physics. Basic logic.
Msg 257…
I have shown such an analysis does the opposite. Where is the counter argument?
The counter arguments have been presented as many times as deniers have posted up the junk ad nauseam. To pretend that these refutations do not exist is just practicing denial.
.
.
.
ANSWER the questions INCLUDING the main one here, or, prove, as usual, that one is only speciously being contrary.
No resorting to asides about how “unthinking” challengers are, or making fun of their avatars now, or “go find the answer yourself” deflections (after all the main question is on YOUR special theory of absorption-emission)… ANSWER the challenge. (Or will we just get the usual deflections via personal attacks rife with false accusations and irrelevant asides)
You have engage the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(LoL… and RELEVANT questions posed to deniers, are never answered succinctly) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/2/2008 2:11:26 PM | | Borg said lots of words. I'll ask for something far simpler. Why is Venus hotter than Mercury if CO2 cools? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:10:49 PM | Attention span problem Borg?
In the narrow lines of absorption of IR, CO2 in the atmosphere is way past saturation. As I said, its more like coats of paint of the same color. Everything the CO2 will absorb has been done in the first few tens of feet of the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration a factor of ten, say like it was in the ancient past when life thrived on this planet without incinerating, would not make a significant difference.
As for the random direction of radiated heat in the form of photons, those same photons will be absorbed in other CO2 molecules and be radiated again. The net result is that the radiation of heat favors toward the coldest and away from the warmest much like walking by a window in winter. Only a very small spot in space is occupied by the sun. The rest of space is extremely cold. The warm CO2 is a gas and increases convection by the small amount of heat it absorbs from is IR fingerprint.
Water vapor has a much broader range of IR absorption. When the water forms clouds of water droplets and ice crystals, it reflects an even greater spectrum of IR. CO2 does not precipitate and reaches altitudes above the clouds where it radiates heat. Note how overnight temperatures drop less during times of cloud cover than during clear skies.
As for plate tectonics, there is direct evidence in a great many sciences to back up that theory. When I discussed the ocean currents melting sea ice where the sea ice melt provides the heat sink to power the currents into the polar regions, I specifically mention geology as part of this physical engine and possible controllers of the flow. The channels for polar currents must be open or the freeze will restart. Once the ice "fuel" is depleted, the flow will slow or stop as well restarting a freeze cycle. The melt cycle reinforces itself leading to a geometric increase in melt rate. This is part of the so called proof of AGW.
<div class="quote"> The term was “hot house” back in Arrhenius’ day. It is doubtful that his intent was to deceive anybody about this.
So did his theory prove out? Nope. It is not the gas in a green house. It is the glass. How many of your 17,000 bureaucrats and scientists know this? Why use a label that is wrong but supports a specific theory unless it purpose is to deceive?
<div class="quote">But, corroborating data that supports anthropogenic climate change? That is inescapable fact.
No matter how many ways you look at a coincidence, it's still a coincidence. When such things as sea ice melt is used as an example yet has another explanation, that is a coincidence. Assuming the increasing polar temperatures would begin to thaw tundra and allow its decay and thus CO2 release, is more than just a coincidence, it's an explanation for the elevated CO2 during warming periods.
So are you going to address my comments about the models and sampling theory?
As for ending your posts with a quote from canceled TV show and your silence on any qualifications to argue physics or climate, it seems clear you are more grounded in fiction than reality. The phrase "colluding and raising the price of oil." is pretty clear in addressing your emotions about oil companies. What about the millions Gore makes from AGW speeches and his movie while flying around in a private jet? Even that pales in comparison to the concept of carbon credit trading in which he is personally heavily invested. The oil companies, those not nationalized, are largely owned by pension funds etc. Their profit margin is smaller than most businesses. What is your investment in carbon credit trading? What is your stake in this debate?
For those who don't understand what carbon credit trading is, it is an artificial commodity that only exists on paper. Companies that release carbon, say your local power company or employer, will need to buy carbon credits from companies that don't. The customers pay the price so expect higher energy prices. In between, there are people like Gore who will make a profit from this trade. Do you think his profit margin will be more than the oil companies? He will be able to buy a whole fleet of jets. Its kind of like some TV preachers and their private jets who have thousands of devout followers. It's a religion.
Conserving energy has its own merits to justify the effort. We don't need the corruption of government power forced on us.
Venus is closer to the sun and Mar's atmosphere is largely CO2.
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:39:45 PM | o76923:
Why is Venus hotter than Mercury if CO2 cools?
ahoytheredave:
Venus is closer to the sun and Mar's atmosphere is largely CO2.
You answered the wrong question. I asked why Mercury (the planet closest to the sun) is hotter than Venus (the hotter planet, with a thick Co2 atmosphere). Neither Mars nor Mercury has a permanent atmosphere, Venus has one far denser than earth. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/3/2008 11:59:17 AM | Was answering the more detailed post I added your answer as an after thought. Sorry for assuming Mars. Mercury is much smaller, about like the moon, has no clouds and minimal atmosphere. It will act much like our moon.
Venus is all clouds kind of like the glass of a green house. If the clouds pass higher energy light to the surface which in turn radiates the heat in lower energy photons, in this case much higher than earth IR radiation but still IR, then heat will continue to build. Just what the makup of the dense Venus atmosphere is not precisely known but it is nothing like that of Earth.
If atmosphere alone caused global warming, what about the Nitrogen and Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere? Why don't they cause global warming? No clouds. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/3/2008 1:16:31 PM | Nitrogen and Oxygen don't absorb wavelengths from the IR band. I'm finding your last sentence to be nearly impossible to interpret. Does that even count as a straw man?
And are you insinuating that clouds are responsible for warming because they are opaque? Then shouldn't opaque things be hot in all cases?
Snow is more opaque than water therefore snow is hotter than water.
Your argument thus far has to a great extent bemoaned the fact that climatologists are ignoring or are unaware of the greenhouse effect of water vapor. This would be a legitimate case if it were true, but it's not. Water vapor has been taken into consideration. WV and CO2 combined compose somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% of our atmosphere. They do however, trap enough heat to raise the temp. of our beloved Earth by 33 degrees C. (thereby making it livable for us.)
Q: Lol, what kind of scientists would they be if they actually ignored such a huge factor?
A: not scientists.
for reference: water vapor strongly absorbs wavelengths near 6.3 micrometers and waves longer than 12 micrometers. CO2 absorbs about half of the IR with wavelengths of 14 to 16 micrometers.
Now, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is currently thought to have remained steady over time but the other GHGs are rising. If you could demonstrate that there is significantly more WV in our atmosphere than there was before the industrial revolution I think you have a case.
Addressing the argument of the Earth has had temperature changes before... well duh... but the concern here is the rate of the changes that are occurring. Rapid changes can bring droughts, storms and of course wreak havoc on many of our ecosystems.
I.E. killing a bunch of sh!t.
BTW: this is me paraphrasing what I'm learning in my GENERAL chemistry courses. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/3/2008 9:43:16 PM |
are you insinuating that clouds are responsible for warming because they are opaque? Then shouldn't opaque things be hot in all cases?
Snow is more opaque than water therefore snow is hotter than water.
Its about reflection, not absorption. Snow and clouds are reflective and will reflect IR. Black objects will get hot faster in the sunlight but will get colder at night. The narrow bands of IR the CO2 absorbs and radiates are a very small part of the IR spectrum. Actually snow makes a very good insulator to keep people warm even if it is cold. Ever hear of an igloo?
The 33 degree figure is almost entirely from the clouds. The reflection of higher energy light from the surface color makes a huge difference in the energy absorbed and the IR "color" determines the surface retention of heat and rate of radiant cooling. Cloud cover will reflect the IR back. Black sunglasses and mirrored sunglasses may block the same amount of light passing through but the mirrored glasses will reflect while the black glasses will absorb. Judging by simple opaqueness is only part of the equation.
As for an accelerating rate of change, pretty much based on polar region observations only, I have explained how the temperature difference from melting ice mixing with warm ocean current water is what feeds the propulsion of these current to do the melting. This results in an accelerating current and even faster melting appearing as accelerating heating. Do you have some records to indicate rates of melting ice in the ancient past?
As far as I can tell, we don't have a good record of water vapor concentrations and even less for cloud cover in pre-instrumentation times. In areas of population growth in desert areas, there has been a measurable increase in average humidity. Over land in general, man has impeded and redirected much of the natural water flow for irrigation and human use resulting in increased plant growth and water evaporation rates. Check your IR absorption data. Its fingerprint in the IR spectrum is quite small compared to water vapor. The issue is not the gas state of water but the clouds. The formation of clouds depends on particles such as those from solar flares and volcanic activity. Man has used cloud seeding to control weather and it really doesn't take a lot of mass of particles to cause cloud formation.
The Sahara desert has been green in the past. Droughts and periods of growth are part of the long term cycles I have mentioned as natural change. We should be aware of changes coming but be aware that some of our overreaction is more damaging than positive. I have cited ethanol mandates as an example coming directly from the political activism of the AGW believers. It has resulted in high food costs and shortage of food to relieve famine. It has resulted in increased cutting of rain forests. It has resulted in expanding dead zones around river outlets from the crop cycles causing algae blooms that then die and decay in the next phase of the crop cycle and rain runoff. The decay kills virtually all sea life by starving it of oxygen int he process of producing CO2. The dead zone around the Mississippi delta is approaching 80,000 square miles and accelerating.
The undisputed leader and champion of AGW is Al Gore, a lawyer and politician who travels by private jet making millions telling people to lower their carbon footprint. He is also an investor in carbon credit trading, an artificial market in a paper commodity that does not really exist but if successfully mandated, will make billions for Gore. He is one of your unbiased scientists and the guru of AGW. I guess it would be inconvenient to take more carbon efficient public airlines where he could promote his agenda to even more people. So why do you chant the same old dogma as Al Gore? Are you an expert in any of the sciences involved? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 2:36:09 AM |
My observation in the fifteen years I've been tracking climate change developments is that so far observed results have outpaced the model predictions, and as a result predictions for future decades have skewed toward the more dire.
First, thanks for the links. I did go visit the discussion of model validity but haven't had time to look at the former. I tend to agree with those people who think that models are not as accurate as we might believe and that we won't be able to show that for another 100 years or more but I'll reserve judgement until I've looked at the first link.
I quoted you above because it struck a cord with me. It's also how I used to feel, but over the last 2 or 3 months I've started to think more about how dire things are. The ice in the Arctic, for example. It was supposed to have melted this year, and last I heard the ice depth is 10% thicker than it was last summer, which puts it at the second-thinnest depth since I don't know how long.
In terms of hurricanes: we've had more than average this year
It's hard for us to know as individuals whether the average global temperature is increasing (even specialists have a hard time doing that), but the above two statements are things we can observe. Thing is, depending what side of the fence you sit on, you can look at those facts in two ways:
The ice, for example; it could be a great sign that the ice did not completely melt this year, so its being 10% thicker might be a sign that next year it will melt even less, OR you could look at it as it being the second-thinnest ice depth since we've been recording it. In reality, we don't know which direction it will go. As the other Dave mentions above, as individuals we base our view of rapid global warming on the poles, but there is a reason their changes are more exaggerated than the rest of the earth: their temperature is close to the freezing point. That automatically makes the poles more susceptible to slight increases in temperature. I believe the earth has been naturally warming about .5C per century since the last ice age...at a certain point, poles reach that critical temperature where melts occur. Any GW increases above the .5C that we would measure (which in itself is difficult), could be attributed to humans, but even then we couldn't be sure how much of that extra warming was due to us
And for the hurricanes. I read a post, maybe on this thread, from a specialist in storms and he said that the number of storms does not increase because of warming but the intensity of the storms do, but storm intensity does not appear to be out of the normal this year, but frequency of storms does. Therefore, some would conclude that global warming is not affecting storms this year. OR, people who have heard that the number of storms is due to global warming will say, look, the number of storms is above normal again like in 2005; something is wrong.
On that subject, I read a summary of the number of hurricanes and tropical storms for the periods 1940-1970 and 1970 to present. Both frequency and intensity of storms were greater during the former period, which was a cooling period on earth.
Don't get me wrong: I think that we should find alternative methods of energy that are clean and nonfinite; I think that what we've accomplished for the environment in terms of reducing waste, recycling and diminishing emissions (SO2, NO2, aerosols, for example) is phenomenal; and I think that we do have to worry about future generations and proceed with caution....But I'm not sure that we understand the full climate picture...there are too many variables and interactions (especially on a global scale) to make predictions something we should rely upon.
I agree with AhoyThereDave that we should be prepared and ready to react to whatever future climates might bring, but I disagree that we should focus on our mistakes like ethanol. I agree, it did turn out to cause food shortages, but the alternative to making mistakes is not trying at all, and that to me would be a colossal mistake.
However, I do share Ahoy's skepticism on carbon credits. Firstly, if a company is not cutting emissions, but buys credits instead, how does that make their high emissions go away? But secondly, we have to be careful how we distribute credits. I've heard that some countries have cut down their old growth so that they can get money (credits) to replant, because growing trees use more CO2 than old growth...It just seems like an area where companies and countries can get around the system for their own needs, and, yes, some of them would make a profit off it while actually causing more harm to the environment.
That's my two cents on the subject. Thanks for the great posts | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 6:26:36 AM | Part of the problem here is that comparing ice melt this summer to another summer (regardless of how recent or remote) isn't really looking at the big picture. I know that if you lived with me in the midwest over this summer you'd have thought global warming was done forever (or that it would be a welcome change). In truth though, it was the warmest winter on record. The problem is that we aren't getting a big enough sample size.
On top of that, all statistics have outliers. It's one of the dirty little secret of statisticians. They only make sure things are true about 95% of the time. Beyond that, it's ok to just overlook them. And in imprecise models like climate science, they don't even have to be right 95% of the time, instead we measure that we're 95% sure this wouldn't happen on its own. So when people come out decrying global warming as a hoax or as natural, they cling to the 5% variance or point to how our model failed. What you'd actually have to do in order to be on the same standing of veracity as global warming would be to come up with a model more likely to be accurate than global warming. As of yet, there isn't a climate model, made and tested by an expert, that predicts a long range trend better.
Back to the point of this summer v. last summer though. Climatology isn't the same as weather forecasting or even things like the farmer's almanac. Those are both short-range models. And yes on some theoretical level if you were able to get amazingly good at weather forecasting, you could potentially forecast what happens years in advance. However, we aren't anywhere near that good at it. Climatology is the same thing but backwards. Climatology is designed to predict what the weather will be like centuries ago or centuries from now. We have gotten good enough at it that we can be pretty damn sure what's going to happen one century from now and that we have a decent idea how it will be each decade in between. But, I'm not going to ask my local weatherman whether I'll need an umbrella next September 4th, asking a climatologist would be just as foolish. Neither one is good enough at what they do to predict something that far from what their goal is.
When you look at the average temperature of an entire decade, then it becomes clear that temperatures are trending upwards at a fast rate than they have ever before. And the rate at which temperatures are increasing is increasing. A 2nd order increase in temperature happens to be really bad for people and unfortunately falls in a bad area. By the time a lay-person will notice "huh, it's been growing at a rate of 10 degrees per year for a couple years now" its already far far too late to do anything about it. You have to catch it when the temperature is creeping up at a rate of a few degrees per decade.
Oh, in regards to cap and trade. The entire point of it is that it doesn't actually decrease pollution. It stops pollution from increasing by making pollution output a resource that's owned. The idea that the only way to keep people from basically destroying the world when it comes to this sort of thing is called the dilema of the commons. What it boils down to is that it is to everyone's advantage to have nobody pollute, however it is always more benefitial to pollute more than everyone else. The way you get around it is that you have a fixed limit of how much pollution everyone is allowed to produce. Then, if someone wants to pollute more, they have to "buy" the right to pollute from someone else. That means that they have to pay money in order to pollute. Eventually, it will go to their advantage to become more energy efficient so that they can sell their pollution credits to somebody else. It's basically forcing polluting to become a limited resource just like other commodities are (oil, man power, steel, etc). Because the environment actually is a limited resource, it just has a lag time that makes it difficult for us to tell that we've run out until its too late. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 7:20:28 AM | When comparing say temperature, one should use absolute zero as a reference. A 0.5 degree C change in temperature is 0.16%. How accurate is your thermometer?
As for arctic ice melting, the air temperature in the arctic remains way below freezing. Explain the ice melt. Maybe is not melting but sublimation. Either will result in colder ice. Sublimation will be drastically impacted by wind and relative humidity. Relative humidity of air as it travels from one place to another will be impacted by precipitation. That is driven by particulates much like man made cloud seeding. Such particulates may come from volcanic activity, natural dust, man made dust, and extraterrestrial such as solar wind and its variability from solar flares etc. With all this, the AGW crowd is certain of accuracy in their predictions tighter than most thermometers can even measure.
Many seem to interpret arguments against AGW as being arguments against conservation. Far from it. It is the reactionary knee jerk responses such as ethanol mandates and carbon credit trading that are more destructive than doing nothing that concern me.
I will put my conservation efforts record up against anyone. I have received recognition for my environmental efforts since my childhood. It's not a religion, its common sense. From recycling to designing for end of life, its can be reasonable if people are inspired to take care of themselves and their planet. I work with youth in an effort to inspire them to be concerned for their planet. That effort will outlast anything physical or legislative we do. I have led kids planting thousands of trees and led them hiking among the giant trees I planted as a kid. But when you empower people over others to force the latest knee jerk envirowacko idea in an environment of fear mongering, its nothing more than an opportunity for corruption and gives environmental concern a bad rep.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." I don't hide behind the work of others but take these arguments on myself and educate myself when I find questions I can't resolve. Its a fantastic quest I recommend for everyone. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 4:55:06 PM | It's ludicrous to use absolute zero to measure temperature for these purposes. For starters, the point isn't to measure at what point something catastrophic will happen to the earth, it's to measure at what point people won't be able to live the same way on earth. Now, we can all agree that a 100 degree change in temperature will make the planet uninhabitable for people. On the scale of 0 kelvin to the hottest temperature man has been able to create (2 billion Kelvin-ish), 100 degrees is utterly meaningless. Beyond that, we generally use mercury to measure temperature on earth (or at least used to). Mercury measurements can be infinitely accurate if we had a large enough thermometer and an accurate enough measuring device. That being said, we seldom need more than three decimal places.
To put it in simple terms: just because we know a light year can be used to measure distance, doesn't mean that we should ignore all yard sticks and rulers because they are nothing compared to a light year. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 5:21:24 PM | Too EASY! Here the rebuttal for msg 289…
We have yet to see a direct and clear answer… just deflections into politics, efficiencies of mitigation plans, the nature of non-GHG constituents, etc… or other arguments (and the usual personal attack too).
The challenge was to explain in YOUR THEORY, how a system WITH a GHG could have a more efficient transfer of heat (therefore a lower ambient mean temperature) than that of a system WITHOUT a GHG. You have NOT answered this (again). Loosely tying in the “it’s because of the band saturated atmosphere” Misconception (a 1901 one dispelled in the 1940’s) is NOT answering the challenge.
Answer the questions (especially the one about the “slight cooling effect”), or prove again, by resorting to deflection and name-calling, that one is speciously being contrary, and showing that this “CO2 slightly cools theory” has little merit much less logical foundation.
.
.
.
Specific Answers…
Msg 289…
Attention span problem Borg?
Yes. It IS quite possible that you may have an attention span problem. However, it isn’t relevant unless it is causing you to neglect basic physics and logic in trying to answer the challenge (or neglecting the challenge altogether). The main problem is that you still have not answered the question and have only sought to avoid it with denigration and deflections (as predicted). This shows again, that your theory is fallacious AND that continually parading it about as if no one has refuted it is typical of what deniers do.
Msg 289…
In the narrow lines of absorption of IR, CO2 in the atmosphere is way past saturation. As I said, its more like coats of paint of the same color. Everything the CO2 will absorb has been done in the first few tens of feet of the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration a factor of ten, say like it was in the ancient past when life thrived on this planet without incinerating, would not make a significant difference.
The challenge was to explain how a system WITH a GHG could have a more efficient transfer of heat (and therefore a lower ambient mean temperature) than that of a system WITHOUT a GHG. You have NOT answered this (again).
ROFLMAO. Are you for real? The tired old “The CO2 in the atmosphere is already at saturation for the wavelengths that matter” MYTH? We have ignored this before to give people the chance to distance themselves from such obviously flawed denial excuses. But, alright then, let’s tear a strip off of this smug “reason” too…
Firstly, this deflection is based on a fallacy. The amount of CO2 in lower altitudes can be as transmittance saturated as one desires, but that is not what matters in the GHG effect. Heck, one could maintain orders of magnitude higher of CO2 at that level and not make a difference to the mechanism. Why? It’s because it’s the thin layers that sit up on the top of the troposphere that lose the energy into space. Since CO2 mixes quite well in the atmosphere, an increase in CO2 will effectively increase the level at which the density is thin enough to allow emissions into space. A higher level translates to a lower transfer of energy.
Secondly, the atmosphere is NOT truly “saturated” with respects to absorption by CO2. That is a one of the typical myths using 1901 thinking. The atmosphere has a pressure and temperature gradient. The conditions and therefore how things interact at the lowest layers of the atmosphere is entirely different from the upper layers. This is the FUNDAMENTAL error in thinking. This is why OVERSIMPLYING can create all sorts of wrong conclusions (including fallacious “slight cooling” due to CO2 theories).
Climate models as much as one wishes to malign them, already account for this. It was well understood and documented over half a century ago (Plass in 1956 IIRC).
The “layers of paint” idea? Sure CO2 in the atmosphere is opaque even over short distances at 14.99 um but that’s too simplistic a view. The atmosphere is not a single slab of pressure and temperature (essentially like layers of paint). It is a system that has to be considered along with it’s temperature and pressure gradient. So much for the “atmosphere is saturated with respects to absorption by CO2” MYTH. LoL.
You have not answered the challenge and now you have been called out on using another typical denier’s myth as an excuse (and it doesn’t even mitigate the problem with your “theory” even if it were so).
Msg 289…
As for the random direction of radiated heat in the form of photons, those same photons will be absorbed in other CO2 molecules and be radiated again. The net result is that the radiation of heat favors toward the coldest and away from the warmest much like walking by a window in winter.
Favours the colder region… sure that is not a problem. However, it is the fact that this is effectively a retention mechanism when compared to pure unabated radiation that is the wrinkle. Once again, explain how an INHIBITED system will have a COOLER mean temperature than an UNINHIBITED one. There is not MORE energy being re-emitted, and such a system cannot be any MORE efficient than pure uninhibited radiation when one considers the temperature and pressure gradient and randomization of direction.
Even if we want to simplify it to a basic level… say a level of walking by TWO windows in the winter... one with a coat of paint and one without. The coat of paint will radiate its captured heat outside too, but some will radiate back. So… nope, you have not accounted for this basic flaw in your “theory”.
Msg 289…
Only a very small spot in space is occupied by the sun. The rest of space is extremely cold. The warm CO2 is a gas and increases convection by the small amount of heat it absorbs from is IR fingerprint.
No? Really? The sun occupies a small spot in space? Space is cold? Wow. Those are real nuggets of information. ROFLMAO. That is truly the reddest herring yet. Perhaps an infrared herring? RofL.
Because of the presence of a GHG, radiation can be seen as essentially escaping into space from a higher altitude instead of directly from the surface. By the time CO2 reaches the edge of space, it has cooled from expansion and its emission rate is much less that of typical emissions at lower altitudes (much less direct radiation from the ground). Remember, that CO2 can’t have ANYMORE energy overall than what it absorbed from the earth’s surface (vicariously or directly), AND that is no more energy than the Earth WITHOUT the GHG. Raise the GHG concentration… raise the effective pure radiation “surface”, hence the GHG effect.
A fundamental oversight is neglecting the pressure temperature gradient of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere had a constant density with a distinct outer surface, GHG would have little effect (since it would radiate the same temperature at that outer surface as the earth’s surface). Less energy lost means more energy retained. Some of that energy remains in the atmosphere (and effectively “sticks around”). That is why the “slight cooling” effect is nonsensical.
Your “theory” does not account for this, and that is why it fails. (Didn’t Yoda says something like that? LoL)
Msg 289…
Water vapor has a much broader range of IR absorption. When the water forms clouds of water droplets and ice crystals, it reflects an even greater spectrum of IR. CO2 does not precipitate and reaches altitudes above the clouds where it radiates heat. Note how overnight temperatures drop less during times of cloud cover than during clear skies.
The H2O vapour ploy is one of the classic red herrings. H2O IR absorption… The basic flaw is in not understanding that it is BECAUSE it precipitates out of the atmosphere that makes it less important as the altitude rises. Water vapour concentration falls quickly with altitude. At the ceiling of the troposphere where GHG effect is pronounced, there is less H2O vapour than CO2 (yes there is). That is why H2O vapour is only 65% of the GHG effect even with all of the IR range and lower altitude concentration “advantages”. That is why oversimplified knowledge is not enough to refute the GHG effect (and definitely not a foundation for alternate “theories”).
No deflections into albedo in attempt to refute this now…
Msg 289…
As for plate tectonics, there is direct evidence in a great many sciences to back up that theory.
The comment about plate tectonics was to refute your claim that failing the Nyquist criteria casts sufficient doubt on the current anthropogenic climate change contributions (perhaps you DO have a short attention span… or you are just trying to obfuscate the original premise of The Collective’s reason for paralleling plate tectonics).
At any rate, is it not curious that while plate tectonics is validated by corroboration from a “great many sciences”, anthropogenic climate change is not in your eyes? The truth is that substantiation via independent paths will render demands for satisfaction of the Nyquist criteria moot. If it does for plate tectonics, it does for anthropogenic climate change contributions.
Msg 289…
When I discussed the ocean currents melting sea ice where the sea ice melt provides the heat sink to power the currents into the polar regions, I specifically mention geology as part of this physical engine and possible controllers of the flow. The channels for polar currents must be open or the freeze will restart. Once the ice "fuel" is depleted, the flow will slow or stop as well restarting a freeze cycle. The melt cycle reinforces itself leading to a geometric increase in melt rate. This is part of the so called proof of AGW.
The topic is atmospheric CO2. Your claim was that CO2 has a slight cooling effect. That was proven to be wrong. Are you now abandoning the “theory” and holding a position on another one?
Msg 289…
So did his theory prove out? Nope. It is not the gas in a green house. It is the glass. How many of your 17,000 bureaucrats and scientists know this? Why use a label that is wrong but supports a specific theory unless it purpose is to deceive?
Did Arrhenius’ theory hold? Certainly. No one has proven it to NOT be happening. In fact, though the critics in the early 1900’s based their dismissal on a simplistic lab experiment, subsequent studies in the 1940’s have shown that he was absolutely correct.
Yes, we are all aware of the difference between the GHG mechanism and how garden green house works. Why the moniker of Green house gas effect? Probably because the END RESULT of retaining heat was all Arrhenius was conveying. It’s a disambiguation to read anything more into it. Heck we call planets, “planets” yet by their very definition they are NOT “wanderers” even though they are observed to retrograde and hence earned that description. We have already mentioned that this is merely MORE of the deflective ploy of arguing semantics.
The Collective’s 17,000? Nice attempt to confuse the audience on WHO is the denier. The Collective was commenting on the absurdity of the denier hero astroturfer OISM and its 17,000 so-called “experts” in their “petition”. This is just an obfuscation tactic. LoL.
Msg 289…
No matter how many ways you look at a coincidence, it's still a coincidence. When such things as sea ice melt is used as an example yet has another explanation, that is a coincidence. Assuming the increasing polar temperatures would begin to thaw tundra and allow its decay and thus CO2 release, is more than just a coincidence, it's an explanation for the elevated CO2 during warming periods.
This is just speciously IGNORING the comment in our previous post that essentially EVERYTHING is a coincidence. Corroboration by observation is one way of establishing a relationship between “coincidences”. With enough corroboration, a function can be formulated. No matter how many times one pretends that their arguments were not refuted, the record still shows it.
During past warming periods there is definitely corroboration with the theory that thawing permafrost may rapidly reintroduce CO2. However, this does NOT refute the theory that CO2 can lead such thawing as well as follow it. One can ignore that bit of logic too, but it is still true.
Msg 289…
you going to address my comments about the models and sampling theory?
So… does that mean you are abandoning your CO2 “cooling effect” theory, as well as the “atmosphere is saturated as far as CO2 is concerned” myth and focusing on other issues?
The notion that the presence of a GHG causes slight cooling has been shown to be erroneous. Furthermore, the postulate that the atmosphere is “saturated” as far as CO2 absorption bands are concerned has been shown to be functionally untrue.
Officially concede defeat and The Collective will address whatever else is relevant to the discussion. (Of course, one can just keep pretending that they haven’t been refuted and post false “theory” and myths ad nauseam).
Msg 289…
As for ending your posts with a quote from canceled TV show and your silence on any qualifications to argue physics or climate, it seems clear you are more grounded in fiction than reality.
That is absolutely irrelevant and non-sequitur in reasoning. Your continued attempts to deflect via derogatory remarks only reflect on how indefensible your position has been. Come on. Why would one need to resort to this type of harassing distraction if LOGIC was on their side? Has one any qualifications to argue physics or climate? One only had to refute your specious claims. As others have mentioned too, that only needed a rudimentary understanding of both and it is illogical to assume that one’s opponent has reached its level of competency doing so. LoL.
Msg 289…
The phrase "colluding and raising the price of oil." is pretty clear in addressing your emotions about oil companies. What about the millions Gore makes from AGW speeches and his movie while flying around in a private jet? Even that pales in comparison to the concept of carbon credit trading in which he is personally heavily invested. The oil companies, those not nationalized, are largely owned by pension funds etc. Their profit margin is smaller than most businesses. What is your investment in carbon credit trading? What is your stake in this debate?
Even taking that phrase OUT-OF-CONTEXT like you have, it is still unclear what that statement reveals regarding one’s “emotions” on oil companies.
You have been called to submit citation on your claims that scientists involved in climate change research are making large sums of money (as it IS YOUR assertion). We are waiting for this citation. Gore is neither a scientist nor has he claimed to be one. As far as his “millions” in earnings, please cite this along with a comparison to major shareholders in the oil industry. Continuing to make these claims without clear evidence is merely biased hearsay (as we have already mentioned). It is also an attempt to deflect the topic, The atmospheric CO2 GHG mechanism into one of politics.
Please provide some form of third party citation on the comparative Return-on-Equity of oil companies (nationalized or not) as proof that their margins are smaller than most businesses. Until this is accomplished, your claims are, again, purely unsubstantiated opinion. If this is avoided yet again, the likelihood that it is FALSE rises significantly.
The Collective’s investment in carbon credit trading (or lack there of) and its stake in this debate is irrelevant to the illogic of your claims. This is just throwing up a smokescreen to avoid the question.
Msg 289…
For those who don't understand what carbon credit trading is, it is an artificial commodity that only exists on paper. Companies that release carbon, say your local power company or employer, will need to buy carbon credits from companies that don't. The customers pay the price so expect higher energy prices. In between, there are people like Gore who will make a profit from this trade. Do you think his profit margin will be more than the oil companies? He will be able to buy a whole fleet of jets. Its kind of like some TV preachers and their private jets who have thousands of devout followers. It's a religion.
Nope. It’s irrelevant to the SCIENCE of atmospheric CO2 GHG effect no matter how many times deniers like to bring up Gore like he’s a scientist and then proceed to bash him. This is the classic straw man.
Msg 289…
Conserving energy has its own merits to justify the effort. We don't need the corruption of government power forced on us.
No one needs more corrupt government (with the exception of those actively in that corrupt government), however, that is not discussing the SCIENCE of atmospheric CO2 GHG effect.
.
.
.
The challenge was to explain in YOUR THEORY, how a system WITH a GHG could have a more efficient transfer of heat (therefore a lower ambient mean temperature) than that of a system WITHOUT a GHG. You have NOT answered this (again). Loosely tying in the “it’s because of the band saturated atmosphere” Misconception (a 1901 one dispelled in the 1940’s) is NOT answering the challenge.
Answer the questions (especially the one about the “slight cooling effect”), or prove again, by resorting to deflection and name-calling, that one is speciously being contrary, and showing that this “CO2 slightly cools theory” has little merit much less logical foundation.
You have engaged the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(Deflection and personal insults instead of answering the specific questions or conceding defeat only proves The Collective’s assertion that there is a self-realization of indefensibility). | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 7:44:42 PM | As I said several times before, convection carries CO2 above the reflective clouds where CO2 can radiate in its specific bands while most other atmospheric gasses can't. Wonder why the upper atmosphere is cold? Without the radiation capabilities of CO2 and water in all its forms, the upper atmosphere has nothing to cool it yet it's very cold.
In the basic physics of heat transfer, conduction radiation and convection are pretty much it. A Crookes radiometer is an interesting device for studying heat transfer although many would say its not well understood how it works. Consider Brownian movement then apply the concept to photons radiated and absorbed by gas molecules. Exposure to space cools CO2 that has been heated by conduction and slightly by radiation then convection results in the CO2 being exposed to the cold of space. In between, there are clouds. Consider also the other gasses in the atmosphere heated by contact with the surface. Convection also carries these gasses to the upper atmosphere but they don't radiate unless there is CO2 and water vapor to do that for them. Its really not that complicated.
You have been called to submit citation on your claims that scientists involved in climate change research are making large sums of money
Cite where I said scientists made large sums of money. I specifically stated their income but when referring to large sums of money, I specifically refer to the likes of Al Gore as a promoter of fear of AGW or in other words, profiting from fear mongering. Borg's inattention to general public knowledge about AL Gore, the leader of the AGW movement and his highly profitable movie, speaking fees and private jet travel is probably a knowledge barrier that cannot be overcome. He seems to dismiss anything not peer reviewed. Such public information is not subject to peer review. The source of income for scientists in the publish or parish environment of AGW is usually grants that are awarded based on publication quantity and politics. Politics are strongly driven by public fear such as the doom and gloom of AGW. Its an environment that is self feeding. Bureaucracies such as NASA get their budgets for space projects through similar political motivations. Its a logical cause and effect analysis obvious to me without resorting to citations. If Borg wishes to refute the logic, he will have to do more than demand citations of others. If Borg wishes to claim Gore does not make money from the AGW theory, please make the argument or if he wishes to refer to others, cite away. As I said, I do my own arguments, I don't hide behind the work of others by citing the work of others and dismissing whatever motivation they may have as irrelevant. The motivations behind conclusions are quite relevant in the conclusions. Note the litany of "tobacco" science remarks.
The challenge was to explain in YOUR THEORY, how a system WITH a GHG could have a more efficient transfer of heat (therefore a lower ambient mean temperature) than that of a system WITHOUT a GHG.
The challenge is Borg's knowledge force field, not the physics and logic. The comparison concerns changes in the small fraction of a gas with a narrow band IR absorption capability when that same gas has been in much greater concentrations in ancient times when life thrived instead of cooked. Heat transfer in gasses involves the basic mechanisms of ALL THREE: conduction, convection and radiation. In the atmosphere, there are the added dimensions of reflection, precipitation, particulates, and all three phases of water whose characteristics change with altitude. The assumption that rate of change in a system dominated by a great many cycles as something predictable in the long term with short term trend projection to an accuracy of less than 0.16% when most of the data feeding the system didn't even have that kind of accuracy, turns sampling theory upside down. It's a religion based in the profit motive of fear mongering. Just like cycles of global warming and cooling, such cycles of human society fill human history. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 9/4/2008 11:08:46 PM | Now we're politicizing and deifying the whole thing.
That's a lot of posts to go sifting through dave. You wouldn't happen to have your theory in an easy to read bulleted format would you? Then we can look at it, cross check it w/the physics/chemistry we know and in my case what my professors know also.
It would certainly dispel the confusion that results from getting bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.
Also, on account of your e-surance of the veracity of your claims, have you tried sending your manifesto to a magazine to get published? any magazine. MAD would even suffice for me atm.
no pass if you sent it to Teen Beat though... | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
