|
|
|
|
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 1:51:47 PM |
Read the post again. If you were honest, you would admit you skipped my comments about both sides of this issue while accusing me of being on one particular side. Perhaps your eyes were already glazed over and you could only see what you wanted to see. The whole point that zipped above your head concerns the lack of reasoning in the polarization of the issue. Pointing out the use of language to imply a singular cause is part of that point. Clearly lost to you in your use of the term "conspiracy" indicates a closed mind unable to see beyond his own religious beliefs in CO2 global warming hype. The term "green house gas" is an intentionally deceptive term apparently designed to link the well known warmth of a green house to global warming when CO2 has nothing to do with the warmth of a green house. The use of such terms is a departure from science into politics and religion. I am guessing you are confused thinking I am talking about classic organized religion when I am talking about ecodogma. Science is open minded and you clearly are not. As for the science, I work with IR as well as the visual light spectrum. I deal with light transmission and with cooling issues involved with electronic systems including those that must hide from heat seeking missiles. I deal with military night vision systems that employ IR. This is not a science of coincidences and patterns that make up most of the science of climatology. The fact that you deny human impact on humidity levels is yet another demonstration of your preference for dismissal over research.
Ad hominoms: 9
Unsupported asertions: 2
Red herrings: 1
Corroborating evidence: 0
You accuse me of of lack of reasoning, while at the same time making numerous fundamental logical fallacies? Your claim is the CO2 doesn't affect global temperatures. Since this is at odds with the position of every major scientific organization on the planet, the burden of proof is yours.
As to the water effects, I explained why I think we haven't done much to humidity levels. No matter how much land we irrigate, we can't come close to the amount of water that the ocean puts into the atmosphere, and it precipitates out too fast for there to be a significant buildup.
There has been a hate for oil companies for a very long time and the coincidental linking of fossil fuel byproduct to a perceived trend of warming feeds that very same hate. What I point out that there is a lot of other explanations, some natural, some man made. You demonstrate you are unwilling to consider them preferring instead to resort to more polarizing language such as "conspiracy". I mention profits to be made by the process of hyping "green house gas" and one has to look no farther than Al Gore making millions, flying wasteful private jets to highly paid global warming speeches and selling "carbon credits".
Unsupported asertions: 2
Red herrings: 1
I just remember the last time we engaged in what passes for debate here. There are many effects that cause warming, and none of them individually account for the observed changes. As for the one being most responsible for the observed changes, well, that's CO2...at least, according to the mainstream science you reject in this specific case.
Al Gores behavior has no relevance to the scientific debate.
As you smoke your dope and pet your bird killing cat, consider that I had received awards and recognition for environmental efforts well before you soiled your disposable diapers now resting in some landfill. By the time I was in high school, I was making money collecting a wide variety of recyclable items in an environmental club. I had demonstrated a home built electronic fuel injection system for gas engines that used ultrasonic stimulation to improve the combustion, reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions. Yes, I got awards for that one too. In college, I was involved in several alternate energy projects, super efficient batteries, and fuel cells. The batteries ended up being classified for military use and still are today. Before the conspiracy cries begin, they are extremely dangerous and I doubt could be made safe. All this before you were born yet if I had actually stopped there, I would guess my record then would compare favorably to your personal efforts for the environment in total. I would suggest you try to be more honest with yourself.
And here, you devolve to personal attacks and make a whole bunch of "my environmental efforts are bigger than yours" comparisons. It doesn't make you right. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 2:18:20 PM |
I worked with a novel solar array concept that used water itself as the absorber colored with dye. I would suggest as an experiment you take a bucket of water with light colored suspended particulates and a second bucket of water with dark colored suspended particulates and place them in the sun.
Which lets you do in 10cm what takes some 10m of seawater. Most of the ocean is deep enough that light doesn't reach the bottom, therefore, all the light got absorbed. The ocean is slightly deeper than your bucket.
Those that are absorbers of IR, as touted about CO2, actually heat more slowly as they radiate mor IR.
Heating as it emits energy... doesn't that violate the first law of thermodynamics? The logical extreme of that statement is a near infinite energy emission with an imperceptible warming....
It pays to pick your "peers" carefully. Kind of like the jury selection process. So who selects your "peers"? Is it some random selection from a cross section of society, or does it narrow down to interest groups?
So, you criticize the peer review process when it's used in climatology...is this true for, say, physics? Should a paper on the formation of black holes be reviewed by some random guy off the street, or should the selection process be limited to people with at least a BSc in a relevant discipline?
If you are genuinely asking how the peer review process works, why haven't you done even the most basic research? Part of the peer review process is anonymity. There is no name on the paper that is being reviewed, and the author is not told who reviews the paper. Perhaps if you were to do something like read the article about peer review on wikipedia you would have a better understanding of the process. There is an explicit bias against any friends, colleagues, or your students.
Do these climate "peers" stand to get recognition, money, or influence from supporting the politically correct ideas and risk being ostracised if they dissent?
No. The only person who actually knows who all the reviewers are...the editor..keeps such information to themselves. It's anonymous and unpaid. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 4:08:55 PM | You have to ask yourself, what makes things popular? Why did VHS outsell betamax when the video recorder was invented. Even though the betamax format was more compact and better quailty?
Simple really, they had better advertising from the offset which got the ball rolling and once the ball is rolling it gets bigger and bigger.
Now take this scenerio and equate it to CO2. If everyone around you, especially the media are telling you that CO2 is causing global warming then the chances are you'll start to believe it yourself and the more you hear it the more you'll look for vindication. Just pulling out the facts that suit you and discounting other points of view to be happy with yourself that you are right.....its part of human nature. Hell, I do it myself and the chances are that the climate scientists that you base your opinions on start off by trying to vindicate their own point of view.
Here are the irrifutable points that sway my opinion.
The sun is the major factor that influances the climate so lets look there first.
Water vapour..... Many times more greenhouse effective than CO2 is more abundant than CO2 so it has have a bigger influance over global temperature.
I've heard the arguments about the carbon cycle but lets look at that.
When we burn gas, oil, coal we are reintruducing carbon into the atmosphere that has been buried for millions of years but all these are hydrocarbons so when you burn them in oxygen you mainly get.
H2O
CO2
Looking at those chemical compounds & you can see you'll get twices as much water as you do CO2. This water comes out of power stations, cars, heating systems etc etc as watervapour and this too has been locked away for millions of years.
Now for irrigation. Let me ask you, if you had a puddle of water on your driveway, how would you dicipate it?
Well I would take a sweeping brush and spread it out so as to increase its surface area which makes it evaporate quicker.
Man has increased the amount of water her irrigates 3 fold since the 1950s and 40% of this water is evaporated so it stands to reason that man is adding water vapour into the atmosphere on a massive scale.
Lets look at colour. I'm sure we all know that the most light absorbant colour is black.
Now what do we have a hell of a lot of thats black?
How about million upon millions of sq miles of tarmac on land that should be green.
How much heat is this absorbing I wonder? Where have you heard any calculations showing what effect this might have?
Are you so sure of your facts about CO2 that you can so readily discount all other influences?
Lets look at the amount of CO2 we're talking about in perspective.
Take a look at the back of your hand and imagine that is the total atmosphere. Now pick out one hair folicle and that would equate to the amount of CO2.
Do you really think that hair folicle is influencing the whole of your hand? 
I suppose what I'm trying to say is, you can never be 100% sure of the facts you read or hear, no matter how many people are telling you so you can never be 100% certain that you are right.
I know I'm not 100%
In fact, I hope I'm not and CO2 is the major factor influencing climate change because then we might be able to control our own destiny. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 5:31:58 PM | Beta vs VHS?
Nope. Irrelevant. Debunked. Pro-manmade climate change people are the ones asking everybody to go the real peer-reviewed stuff and not the other way around. Popular blogs are the usual sources cut-and-pasted by deniers.
CO2 concentration?
Better read up how it really works. It’s not quite as simple as just looking at the concentrations relative to water vapor. This has been debunked many times on these threads and practically everywhere except those Exxon sites. Try this link…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Tarmac?
Probably doesn’t help, but that’s neither here nor there unless you have some study to show that it’s a factor as big as atmospheric CO2.
CO2 concentration again?
Debunked and debunked and debunked. That’s not how it works. Try to imagine how little a lethal dose of Polonium is compared to the mass of your hand. It’s so small, how is it killing you? (don’t try this for real though)
Can’t be sure about the facts?
Yup. That’s why the guys who understand manmade climate change factors ALWAYS point people to the peer-reviewed stuff.
Hope it’s not true?
You and me both my man, but the real science tells us not. Not knocking you, a bit more research of the peer-reviewed stuff really helps. I agree, don’t read the junk from the media. Go to the scientific sources.
 | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 8:21:28 PM | I've been to dozens of 'real science' web sites and every one, I mean every one of them offers speculation, assumtions and conjecture about their figures, even the one you posted.
I rarely post links because it turns into a game of tit-for-tat and on most there is something that will tweek your logic a little but here's one that sounds credible and the sources seem to be qualified enough to know what they are talking about.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
I'm sure the experts in the 70's who forcast a global cooling were well qualified and got all their maths right but the truth of the matter is that there are a speculated 5million variables that govern our climate so no one is qualified enough.
I'm not debating that CO2 doesn't have an effect on global temperature it's just the level of the effect.
However, no matter what I type your mind is already made up that you are on the right side because you listen to the peer reviewed stuff. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 8:22:11 PM | I've been to dozens of 'real science' web sites and every one, I mean every one of them offers speculation, assumtions and conjecture about their figures, even the one you posted.
I rarely post links because it turns into a game of tit-for-tat and on most there is something that will tweek your logic a little but here's one that sounds credible and the sources seem to be qualified enough to know what they are talking about.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
I'm sure the experts in the 70's who forcast a global cooling were well qualified and got all their maths right but the truth of the matter is that there are a speculated 5million variables that govern our climate so no one is qualified enough.
I'm not debating that CO2 doesn't have an effect on global temperature it's just the level of the effect.
However, no matter what I type your mind is already made up that you are on the right side because you listen to the peer reviewed stuff. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 9:30:10 PM | F.d.a. sold smoking as okay in the 50's. The catholic church and the rest of the world sold the earth as flatland, and everyday science changes it's position on the healthy/negative effects of booze. Depends on WHO IT BENEFITS.
As far as science not being left or right: Who does the funding!?!?! That ALWAYS dictates the bottom line. It's an old saying yet still true today: MONEY TALKS!
And heres another fun fact. had bush signed the kyoto treaty we would be gettin fined up the yazoo. Who's gonna pay for that?The rich? Al Gore in his swanky mansion and jet he uses to fly around the world to spread the "truth"? Leonard dicaprio? No it'll be me and the rest of the middle class. We could go back to living in caves people, between china and india this alleged "situation" would be/is still going to be out of hand. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 9:39:16 PM |
Which lets you do in 10cm what takes some 10m of seawater. Most of the ocean is deep enough that light doesn't reach the bottom, therefore, all the light got absorbed. The ocean is slightly deeper than your bucket.
Odd how your argument could be applied to CO2 in the atmosphere since its effect is played out in a very small fraction of the depth of the atmosphere.
In the bucket experiment, what would be demonstrated is the energy absorption of the suspended particulates. The depth is not important as it is particulates that absorb or reflect the short wave light producing heat.
Perhaps if you were to do something like read the article about peer review on wikipedia you would have a better understanding of the process
OK, Wikipedia:
In addition, some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.
I guess "sociologists of science" are evil conspirators working with oil companies. Peer review serves academics in the publish or parish environment.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Is this supposed to be unbiased?
First some basics. Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere.
Frost will often form on surfaces at night when ambient temperatures are as high as 50F. That is because of radiant cooling. This does not occur with cloud cover due to REFLECTED IR by the clouds. What happened to all the "green house" gas effects? We humans have diverted so much water that some former deserts are now agricultural areas but the arguments in the article assume relative humidity is constant. Deserts are pretty much formed by geography yet climate models have very poor models of geography. To some extent, the cite uses anecdotal evidence of model predictions as "proof". The problem is that the models are predicting the climate that produced the statistical data the models are built on. Pretty much circular logic. True believers love such pedantic presentation. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/16/2008 9:56:40 PM | ^^^^^ good word mate. "pedantic. haven't heard that one in awhile. cheers. 
(i'm dead serious i play scrabble all the time so....) | |
|
| The religion of global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 12:07:04 AM | If you separate people in this thread into two camps: people who believe and people who don't you'll notice the ones that don't claim a religous affiliation and the ones that do claim no religous affiliation.
There was a thesis published recently that pointed out if the environmental movement is to gain more traction some way must be found to explain to these people that spiritulity will not fix the earth.
As for "The great global warming swindle" it's been debunked as rubbish; you only have to look as far as Wikipedia to find that.
The internet is full of really bad and misleading psuedo-science on websites and movies. Look at that stupid Loose Change movie that changes every time it's debunked. Not one of their "facts" actually is.
When you try to prove a point and find a website that supports your position, try to fnd one that breaks it then see which one has the better argument.
| |
|
| The religion of global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:50:00 AM |
If you separate people in this thread into two camps: people who believe and people who don't you'll notice the ones that don't claim a religous affiliation and the ones that do claim no religous affiliation.
I wonder where that would put me? My concern is over the science being religously considered as some proof ("people who believe ") when the detailed physics don't seem to support it and the so called proof boils down to statistical coincedence that could just as well "prove" a wide range of causes. Science always seeks to disprove itself while religion shuns such exercise. Kind of like implying critics have some faith based religious motive to discount the individuals instead of their arguments.
In a project some years back, engineers were attempting to develope artificial intelligence to build smarter weapons. They created a system to identify enemy tanks on sight so as to make a decision to destroy them before a human could and thereby gain a tactical advantage. They used a library of pictures of both friendly tanks and unfriendly tanks for the system to learn the difference. When the test system was then put in the field, it appeared to be completely random. With extensive analysis, they finally found the issue was with the data used to teach the system. The enemy tank pictures had clouds while the friendly tank pictures didn't. If the system saw a cloud, it concluded the tank was unfriendly. That is the problem with making conclusions based on statistical analysis and coincidence.
When you try to prove a point and find a website that supports your position, try to find one that breaks it then see which one has the better argument.
What constitutes a better argument? I would suggest it is a value judgement based on the individual. When one claims anything in science is fixed and therefor proof, you have crossed over to personal "religious" beliefs. In science, one should always doubt what they "know".
The problem, as I see it, is the seperation into two camps. Each camp incapable of doubting their own "science". Some are incapable of dealing with the complexities while the other not realizing they aren't capable either. The reality is, both camps are the same with the same long term goals. Where they differ is how to get there and that is where political values come into play. Should one side impose their "religious" beliefs on the other? | |
|
| The religion of global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 8:09:22 AM | "If you separate people in this thread into two camps: people who believe and people who don't you'll notice the ones that don't claim a religous affiliation and the ones that do claim no religous affiliation."
Science isn't a religion?
I always thought were one puts their faith is where ones "religion" lies. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 11:28:36 AM | Post 58
I've been to dozens of 'real science' web sites and every one, I mean every one of them offers speculation, assumtions and conjecture about their figures, even the one you posted.
Great. Remember that the link was given to give some understanding about how atmospheric CO2 actually acts. It’s not meant to be the be-all end-all. Keep digging and you will get to the peer-reviewed stuff. They are online. Some guys here like to cherry-pick bits out of everything and slam it. Taking things out of context on purpose is a typical trick. Is there data or conclusion showing how holding some variables constant is wrong for the calcs given? Let’s see the evidence.
I rarely post links because it turns into a game of tit-for-tat and on most there is something that will tweek your logic a little but here's one that sounds credible and the sources seem to be qualified enough to know what they are talking about.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
That’s a good weblink too. Trouble is some guys take the strawman title and run with it. Don’t think that everyone was saying that coming out ice-ages was due to atmospheric CO2 rise. It’s the usual, “Will you stop beating your dog… yes or no?” routine. Answer yes and admit you were beating your dog. Answer no and admit that you still will. Yet, you don’t have a dog and you wouldn’t beat one… See what I mean?
The researcher himself says that this isn’t meant to deny the CO2 effect. Keep digging and find the actual documents from that scientist. It’s only tit-for-tat cause those that throw up biased unqualified editorials to counter peer-reviewed papers want to make it seem like there’s equal weight on both sides. There isn’t. It’s like throwing up photos of Fred Flintstone with Dino every time someone says that dinosaurs disappeared long before man. It’s tit-for-tat but meaningless.
I'm sure the experts in the 70's who forcast a global cooling were well qualified and got all their maths right but the truth of the matter is that there are a speculated 5million variables that govern our climate so no one is qualified enough.
Uh-huh. No one is saying that the ice-age predictions of the 1970s was wrong. It’s a matter of time scales and the difference between what the popular media says compared to scientists. Think of it this way. You are standing in an intersection and the ice-age is a semi about 5 miles away coming at 6 mph (and the popular media has a big billboard that says “OMG there’s a big truck coming!!!”. Man-made climate change is a Honda about 2 blocks away coming at 60. Neither is wrong. They are still coming, they don’t cancel out, and if you stay put, you will feel it when it arrives. No ones saying the Honda won’t get hit by a Buick first, but guys that wanna stay healthy step aside to be sure. Deniers are the guys standing there saying “This Gore guy said it was a blue Honda and that one is green and moving slightly slower than 60 so I ain’t moving”.
The “no one is qualified” excuse is just a cop-out. If people didn’t delegate responsibility a lot of direction wouldn’t happen at all. A research scientist doesn’t have to be qualified to build a multimeter, the guy only has to know how to use it correctly. Most equations don’t have to account for every single variable, they only have to account for the ones that count. You can say that the jury is out about which variables that count, but you can’t say that unless every single factor, even the really minor ones, has to be accounted for in order for a model to work.
I'm not debating that CO2 doesn't have an effect on global temperature it's just the level of the effect.
Yup. There’s a lot of real documentation all about that. Real science is looking to get a more accurate number. Others are just trying to say that it’s really nothing at all.
However, no matter what I type your mind is already made up that you are on the right side because you listen to the peer reviewed stuff.
Nope. This is really another straw-man argument. Reading and understanding the peer-reviewed stuff doesn’t make one right or wrong. It just makes one better informed. Saying that it’s stubbornness that someone isn’t buying conclusions based on cherry-picked arguments is just a red herring. Show me the reasoning if you think I’m not seeing “the truth”.
Relying on biased popular media or debunked myths to find a reason after one has made up their minds is the cart-before-the-horse. You see this all the time. When people are jumping from one “excuse” to another after the latest one is debunked, it sure sounds fishy. It’s like asking a perp where he was Saturday night and he gives you another alibi after you have two robo-cams showing he wasn’t at the first two places. Don’t know about you, but I’m haulin his sorry a$$ in.
Some guys here are slamming peer-review because it’s just a way to discredit what they can’t argue against.
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 1:01:23 PM |
Odd how your argument could be applied to CO2 in the atmosphere since its effect is played out in a very small fraction of the depth of the atmosphere.
Not all IR comes from the surface, where there is close to 100% absorption along certain bands. But this has wandered far from the original point about "darker" water absorbing better when there's enough "light" water to get to 100% anyway. Lead is great for stopping radiation, but you can use anything if you use enough of it.
Perhaps if you were to do something like read the article about peer review on wikipedia you would have a better understanding of the process OK, Wikipedia: (clip clip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) I guess "sociologists of science" are evil conspirators working with oil companies. Peer review serves academics in the publish or parish environment.
No, those sociologists have a valid point. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the peer review process? Your "pick someone completely at random" process would be a disaster.
Now, did you actually read the entire article and gain a superficial understanding of the peer review process, or did you just skip to the criticisms? This entire line of your argument seems to be poisoning the well of peer review.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Is this supposed to be unbiased?
Not that I made the argument, but did you read the article? Since the site is actually run by active climatologists, I doubt that they're unbiased when it comes to distortion of science. We all have our biases, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. Given our prior exchanges, I think it's clear to most observers as to which of us is the most rational and informed about the subject. Gavin works on coupled climate models for NASA, among other things. He's far more informed than I am. If you were genuinely interested on the role of water vapor as to global warming as opposed to demonstrating how uninformed your position is, you would be asking questions there.
Frost will often form on surfaces at night when ambient temperatures are as high as 50F. That is because of radiant cooling. This does not occur with cloud cover due to REFLECTED IR by the clouds. What happened to all the "green house" gas effects?
Local, temporary, and large effect vs global, long term, small yet cumulative effect. Don't confuse the two.
We humans have diverted so much water that some former deserts are now agricultural areas but the arguments in the article assume relative humidity is constant.
Lets see the numbers compared to the amount of water vapor that comes from the ocean. You won't, of course. It seems that you believe that the burden of proof is something for others since you're so great or something....
Oh...and all that additional vaporization just leads to more rain with a different distribution pattern.
Deserts are pretty much formed by geography yet climate models have very poor models of geography. To some extent, the cite uses anecdotal evidence of model predictions as "proof". The problem is that the models are predicting the climate that produced the statistical data the models are built on. Pretty much circular logic. True believers love such pedantic presentation.
Dave, your ignorance shines through again. Climate models are regularly tested against the real world results, and have a pretty good track record when used properly. The statistical data the models use comes from direct measurements, not the models themselves. If there is a branch of hard science or engineering that doesn't regularly use models, I haven't heard of it. Again, you're poisoning the well. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 2:14:26 PM |
Some guys here are slamming peer-review because it’s just a way to discredit what they can’t argue against.
As I stated before, peer review is for the publish or parish academic environment and my concern over the process is echoed even within those who are part of the process. As was mentioned by a local disciple of peer review, why not check wikipedia? Is that "slamming" the process or simply pointing out its flaws? If you prefer to treat the process as some holy santified error free religion I appologise for my lack of reverence and respect.
Debunking a point is not accomplished through arbitrary dismissal or citing biased articles that also dismiss without consideration. So far, I have suggest two viable candidates to explain polar ice receding not related to CO2 and both have been dismissed without the slightest effort to actually argue either case.
Glacial ice was developed over thousands of years during which dust from a variety of sources was also deposited but little concentration of the dust is on the surface exposed to sunlight as the ice grows. Over time, as the ice begins to sublimate and melt, the dust begins to concentrate on the surface and darken the surface. As it does, more heat accelerates sublimation and melt. I would suggest you find your own links describing the most rapid receding glaciers and find visual descriptions of them. Simple experiments can demonstrate the effect.
Another suggested cause of polar ice receding is ocean currents either accelerating and/or increasing in volume. The expected results would be more rapid receding of the polar ice shelf. Another would be less than expected tropical storms normally fed by hot water. I note the earlier posts claimed such things as ocean currents were well measured. I suppose there is some giant array of flow meters set up all over the oceans at all depths. Ocean currents are assumed to be powered by heat and fresh water changing the density and thus generating motion. Normally, hot water would stay high and cold water deep but fresh water is lighter than even hot salt water. It should be pointed out again that normal river flows have been changed by man as a possible contributing factor. The accelerating melt of polar and near polar ice injects more fresh water that is considerably less dense also feeding the ocean current engine. Is this a cyclic system that tends to continue to accelerate until little polar ice is available to feed the engine and the currents then slow or possibly even stop? That would be the beginning of an "ice age" where rebuilding ice would not be feeding ocean currents to repress the polar ice build up. Using this model, the cycle would hardly resemble a sinusoid but more of a rapid climate change with an accelerating rise in temperature followed by a very rapid fall. I had read somewhere that fossil recods of past ice ages indicate a very rapid onset. In summary, we have accelerating heating, diminishing glaciers and ice shelfs and less than predicted tropical storms. Add this to a fossil record indicating rapid ice age onset. Since you guys like spoon fed links:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html ( I wonder of it was peer reviewed?)
If there is man induced global warming for whatever reason, it would seem this could hasten an ice age under this concept, not delay it as some would argue. This line of reasoning is not the same as the previous aerosol induced ice age fad of the 70's. That one is more like the CO2 global warming fad of today. There seems to be a market out there for personal bill boards announcing the end is near. Since this thread seems to be full of potential buyers, what would be a good price? Now do invest in airconditioners or heaters? Perhaps I could seel "carbon credits" like Al Gore and if I do it right, my marketing will make money by itself through speaking engagements. | |
|
| |
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/17/2008 10:32:28 PM | Global warming has been noticed by scientists to be happening to near by planets. For a long time. Pictures of receding ice caps where once they were and now are'nt testify to those planets experiencing global warming.
Someone explain the co2 emmissions that are happening there to cause the ice to melt.
Oh! Stupid me, how could I have forgotten! There is no LIVING organisms on those planets!
Once again I didn't listen to all the facts that explain that the earth is the only planet experiencing global warming and no other planets are experiencing this so that is the factual basis for why we can blame humans and cow farts for our earth's global warming problem.
  | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 8:37:18 AM | One blend that was great!!!!!!
I know it's humorous but that has been my point with direct regard to these CLOWNS who go around in mass fuel consumption devices to regale us with their learned "knowledge" of global warming. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 11:53:30 AM |
Global warming has been noticed by scientists to be happening to near by planets. For a long time. Pictures of receding ice caps where once they were and now are'nt testify to those planets experiencing global warming.
This was covered earlier in the thread. Pluto is warming, but the cause seems to be its own greenhouse effect...it's got about 3 times the atmosphere than the last time we checked. IIRC, Pluto is just cracking over into late summer. As for Mars, the largest climatological effect there is dust storms. When you add to this the fact that solar output has been decreasing for the past 5 years or so (winding down from the last solar cycle) and temperatures have still been increasing here.
As to the direct observations of other planets warming...
Pluto: 2 photos, 14 years apart....a bit under 10% of a year. Saying that Pluto is warming is a bit like determining climate trends here based on two data points; one in July, one in August.
Mars: A series of photographs of the southern ice cap over a period of 1 Martian year.
Earth: Thousands of land and ocean based temperature stations, decent record keeping for more than a century, proxy records going back millions of years, direct observation by satellite for more than 30 years...
Someone explain the co2 emmissions that are happening there to cause the ice to melt.
Our CO2 emissions have nothing to do with Mars. It will probably suprise you to learn that sometimes planets can undergo climate change without human intervention at all. The thing about the change that has been observed to date is that, here, it falls way outside any known natural cause.
Oh! Stupid me, how could I have forgotten! There is no LIVING organisms on those planets!
Once again I didn't listen to all the facts that explain that the earth is the only planet experiencing global warming and no other planets are experiencing this so that is the factual basis for why we can blame humans and cow farts for our earth's global warming problem.
Nobody ever claimed that other planets didn't have natural warming and cooling cycles. Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles as well. This isn't one of them.
Joe Laguardi sums up global warming:
Joe Laguardi seems to believe that his city in winter is representative of the entire planet throughout the entire year. It's the usual ignorance I've come to expect from the "it's not our fault" crowd. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 12:40:36 PM |
Global warming has been noticed by scientists to be happening to near by planets. For a long time. Pictures of receding ice caps where once they were and now are'nt testify to those planets experiencing global warming.
Someone explain the co2 emmissions that are happening there to cause the ice to melt.
Oh! Stupid me, how could I have forgotten! There is no LIVING organisms on those planets!
Once again I didn't listen to all the facts that explain that the earth is the only planet experiencing global warming and no other planets are experiencing this so that is the factual basis for why we can blame humans and cow farts for our earth's global warming problem.
This is the usual half-truth junk-science that deniers rely on.
EDIT: yup. I agree with what the Beltaine guy says about this in messag 71.
The same old debunked excuses come up over and over again. Oh yah… it comes complete with the making fun of people when you can’t come up with real facts too. Just watch, the next will be another debunked excuse followed by name-calling and jeering.
I know it's humorous but that has been my point with direct regard to these CLOWNS who go around in mass fuel consumption devices to regale us with their learned "knowledge" of global warming.
Irrelevant. Come up with some real “knowledge” that proves there is no man-made cause. There’s that name-calling again instead of real fact. Yup… real convincing…
…Is that "slamming" the process or simply pointing out its flaws? If you prefer to treat the process as some holy santified error free religion I appologise for my lack of reverence and respect.
Nobody said that peer-review was perfect. But that’s not the same as saying it’s so flawed that it’s unreliable. Big difference there, huh? Exaggeratin with “holy” and “religion”?… yah… that would be “slamming”.
Glacial ice was developed over thousands of years during which dust from a variety of sources was also deposited but little concentration of the dust is on the surface exposed to sunlight as the ice grows…
Yah, like it never snows on top of glaciers. The amount of reflection on top of glaciers is tied into snow cover and that is tied into sea temperatures and the atmosphere. Besides, if it was mostly due to steady increasing dirt cover then you’d think you’d see that in the data… and you don’t. Glacier melt is caused by many things including the color of the ice surface. One of those things is increased Greenhouse Effect. Find my own sources? Yup. I went straight to the peer-reviewed stuff. Red herring and just another “try this alibi, if it doesn’t work, I’ll come up with another”. That Beltaine guy is right on. Why don’t you come up with some real proof? Let me guess… there isn’t any.
Another suggested cause of polar ice receding is ocean currents either accelerating and/or increasing in volume. The expected results would be more rapid receding of the polar ice shelf…
Over inflating that Bryden report on the thermohaline? Now who is clutching at straws?
If there is man induced global warming for whatever reason, it would seem this could hasten an ice age under this concept, not delay it as some would argue.
The BBC report back in 2003 “Britain could be heading for a climate like Alaska" was just media hype and talks about a local condition (which may not even be enough to cover for overall increased temperatures). It’s just hype and not about GLOBAL conditions. Hardly a GLOBAL ice age and not even an “ice age” at all. Nice try, but yet another half-truth filled rant.
Best to read up on how the Thermohaline works and how it relates or doesn’t relate to the whole world, ice melt, and stuff.
“Spoon” fed? Yup. Just making fun of people when there aren’t any facts (well at least ones that aren’t made up).
And there we go (again and again and again). Debunked excuse, name-calling. Debunked excuse, name-calling. Deniers are the only thing more predictable than climate change due to manmade causes…
 | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 1:34:45 PM | The following information was gathered from the NASA site and it's links.
Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined
Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet
Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years
Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes
Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps
Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds
Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator
Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity
Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness
Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun
The above mentioned are being directly influenced by the continued higher temp out puts of solar flares by the sun in recent times then at any previous recorded times. According to the recorded histories of the sun's solar flare activities it's solar flare activities are and have been on the increase.
Regarding Mars and glacial melt, our own scientific community of mainly geologists in examining the photos of Mars have seen the "receeding" track marks left by the receeding glaciers on Mars. These geological time marks are way beyond the areas of where it snows and are footsteps to show how far out the glaciers once were. They didn't gather this info to prove or not prove global warming. They saw on Mars what they knew about on Earth concerning "receeding" track marks that glaciers leave that are melting or have melted.
You can split hairs all you want about this topic. The growing and being accepted train of thought due to more and more facts being provided by more and more research data of the scientific community at large on earth is that our solar system has been warming up for quite some time in spite of what some groups with agendas would like to believe and or prove other wise. About 40 years ago lets not forget how the enviormental extremists then were offering up all their "scientific facts" (as it is being done again now but by a new generation of enviormentalists) of how the world was going to become a virtual "ball of snow and ice" and it was all the fault of humans!
What is really lame is that we have a bunch of people that are so ready to blame humans and cow farts on earth for all the global warming that is happening and so will not address the facts established before the global warming issue that the sun was warming up and is responsible for all the strange activity happening on earth and on other planets.
The obvious was never easy to accept. Humans always look to a difficult answer for being the answer. It matters not that science has shown we have had warm and cold periods on this earth since it's birth. Enviormentalists do not want to talk about how these warm and cold spells happened BEFORE humans were apart of this earth. Before co2 or any other human made pollutant came to be to be a factor as they claim it is now for the melting of the icecaps. The easy explanation.....humans. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 1:35:45 PM | How is it irrelevant that the purveyors of this twisted science don't follow their own rules of engagement?
That would be like your dentist telling you candy is bad while running M n M mars.
I KNOW two things sir: You and I can twist facts like panties to make our respective points.
Second, unless your in the same stratosphere as the Gore's and such we'll be paying for it through the nose.
I'm on board with this Global warming HYPOTHESIS as long as you and your friends want to foot the bill.
You want to make everything "green" energy efficient? Come over to my house and install the appropriate equipment free of charge and it's a done deal.
By the way what kind of car do you drive? A prius? The car that takes more energy to make then resolve. Do you use ethanol? The fuel that takes more energy to produce then save.
I could go on for days.
I use mass transit myself. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 4:06:19 PM |
Some guys here are slamming peer-review because it’s just a way to discredit what they can’t argue against. As I stated before, peer review is for the publish or parish academic environment and my concern over the process is echoed even within those who are part of the process. As was mentioned by a local disciple of peer review, why not check wikipedia? Is that "slamming" the process or simply pointing out its flaws? If you prefer to treat the process as some holy santified error free religion I appologise for my lack of reverence and respect.
Disciple of peer review....I assume you mean me. When did I ever claim that the peer review process was perfect? I did ask you what you think could be done to improve the process...not that you had any suggestions. The point I was making was that you were asking questions about the peer review process in such a way to try and discredit it because it isn't perfect, while still having to ask the most basic questions about the system. It demonstrates a basic ignorance of the subject, which does tend to exclude someone from criticizing the system.
An analogy you should understand. If your work was being criticized by someone who was, among other things, pointing out that the resistors are in backwards....would you take their criticisms seriously? You wouldn't, and neither would I. They would have shown a lack of basic understanding that leaves them unqualified to make any judgments of your work.
Debunking a point is not accomplished through arbitrary dismissal or citing biased articles that also dismiss without consideration.
That's rich, coming from someone who as arbitrarily dismissed the consensus of the top people in the field because climatological research gets reviewed by active climatologists instead of some guy off the street.
So far, I have suggest two viable candidates to explain polar ice receding not related to CO2 and both have been dismissed without the slightest effort to actually argue either case.
Thus far, you haven't backed your position, provided any evidence, or addressed any of the flaws that have been raised.
Glacial ice was developed over thousands of years during which dust from a variety of sources was also deposited but little concentration of the dust is on the surface exposed to sunlight as the ice grows. Over time, as the ice begins to sublimate and melt, the dust begins to concentrate on the surface and darken the surface. As it does, more heat accelerates sublimation and melt. I would suggest you find your own links describing the most rapid receding glaciers and find visual descriptions of them. Simple experiments can demonstrate the effect.
Do you have any theories as to why all the ice is melting _now_? The process you are describing, while can be accelerated by human particulate emission (which would qualify as anthropic, wouldn't you agree?), there are a few things that don't add up. If the dust is well circulated, than you would expect places to warm at a rate relative to the cosine of the latitude...curvature of the earth and all that.....when the opposite is happening.
You would also expect such a phenomena to be "concentrated" in areas with a normally high albedo, such as ice, but not so in permafrost and tundra (much lower albedo means the change caused by dust would be minimal).
On to the next hypothesis....
Another suggested cause of polar ice receding is ocean currents either accelerating and/or increasing in volume.
That is very likely the mechanism by which it is happening....now, why is that mechanism showing the behavior that it is? It does contradict your first hypothesis, you know.
The expected results would be more rapid receding of the polar ice shelf.
No argument there...
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/01/15/science-beaufort-ice.html
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?id=11892&Lang=eng
And please keep in mind that it's midwinter....
Another would be less than expected tropical storms normally fed by hot water
Is that why they ran out of tropical storm names a few years ago, and had to start calling them "alpha", "beta", and so on?
I note the earlier posts claimed such things as ocean currents were well measured. I suppose there is some giant array of flow meters set up all over the oceans at all depths.
This isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy. Appeal to ignorance, to be specific. You are essentially asking for a ludicrous level of sensor resolution, and then claiming that because we aren't measuring the ocean to a degree that would require inclusion of the effects of the measurement on the data set that people don't know approximately how fast the gulf stream is moving.
Ocean currents are assumed to be powered by heat and fresh water changing the density and thus generating motion. Normally, hot water would stay high and cold water deep but fresh water is lighter than even hot salt water.
Care to back that claim? Some basic research would show that the real world THC (thermohaline circulation) works in the opposite way that you imply. Surface currents are warmer and less saline (and becoming progressively cooler and more saline due to evaporation) than the returning deep water current. The effects of temperature outweighs the effects of salinity in the ocean.
There is an overturning in the Indian Ocean, where the layers are reversed, but that's more exception than rule.
It should be pointed out again that normal river flows have been changed by man as a possible contributing factor.
Why don't you provide some numbers to back your claim. I think the effect here is a few orders of magnitude too small to explain the observations. Feel free to prove me wrong though.
The accelerating melt of polar and near polar ice injects more fresh water that is considerably less dense also feeding the ocean current engine.
Considerably, in this case, is about 3%...but enough with the holes in your hypothesis...
Using this model, the cycle would hardly resemble a sinusoid but more of a rapid climate change with an accelerating rise in temperature followed by a very rapid fall.
I thought you didn't like climate models...Something about believing there to be insufficient data and them being designed to give specific outputs? Your exact term was "anecdotal evidence", which is nearly the same as "useless evidence".
But I guess when _you_ use a model, the results constitute proof...after all, you have a pile of claimed credentials that have nothing to do with climatological research.
Add this to a fossil record indicating rapid ice age onset. Since you guys like spoon fed links:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html ( I wonder of it was peer reviewed?)
You shouldn't have to wonder of it's peer reviewed or not. The article itself was not published in a peer reviewed journal, but it does make many references to many peer reviewed papers which you seem to hold with such contempt.
Reading over it, I don't think it supports your theory anyway. Since there is a record of 24 of these short term warming spells, if the observed changes were simply another one of those warming spells, then there should be at least a partial match. If it was another "warming then cold snap" events, then there should be a match to that as well. The burden of proof in this case is yours.
It should also be noted that the page hasn't been updated in about a decade (last update: Dec 2/97)
f there is man induced global warming for whatever reason, it would seem this could hasten an ice age under this concept, not delay it as some would argue. This line of reasoning is not the same as the previous aerosol induced ice age fad of the 70's. That one is more like the CO2 global warming fad of today. There seems to be a market out there for personal bill boards announcing the end is near. Since this thread seems to be full of potential buyers, what would be a good price? Now do invest in airconditioners or heaters? Perhaps I could seel "carbon credits" like Al Gore and if I do it right, my marketing will make money by itself through speaking engagements.
Red herrings, non sequiturs, unsupported assertions, ad hominems, begging the question, hasty generalizations....will you PLEASE learn to construct a logical argument... | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 5:12:12 PM |
The following information was gathered from the NASA site and it's links.
Some may consider it polite to provide references so the data could be verified, instead of making me hunt down each and every claim.
Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined
This is known, and solar increases are responsible for about 1/3 of the effect we are seeing today at best....but only about 1/2 of the warming from 1860...the human share is going up.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95GL03093.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009753.shtml
Two studies, using two different methods performed by two different groups...coming to similar conclusions....what are the odds...
Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet
Relevance? We're learning new things about our solar system all the time. I didn't know they found ice caps, but after looking into the reason, it makes sense. Mercury has nearly no axial tilt, so areas near the poles will consistently receive little energy...planetary curve and all that.
Water is the second most common molecule in the universe, and has even been found as vapor in some sunspots. How relevant is this to what's happening on Earth? It isn't.
Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years
And this is relevant to our climate here for what reason? 2500% is far, far more than could be expected from solar changes, so the cause for this effect is localized to Venus.
It was this far into the list when I found where you got it from. I found this entire list here...
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?s=9382305264b285c00e394a42db604ad4&showtopic=10879&pid=62791&st=60&#entry62791
and here...
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=40925288
and here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555298/posts
and here...
http://earthstar.tripod.com/TSB_dir/JKoven1006.html
and here...(this is a real gem)
http://yowbooks.com/html/part1.htm
" Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide"
The term Planet X is a generic term used by astronomers to denote an, as yet undiscovered planet. ...
... In fact, the Planet X discussed in this book is well documented in ancient folklore and wisdom texts from all across the globe, and it is known by many different names.
According to noted author and researcher Zecharia Sitchin, the ancient Sumerians called it Nibiru. Likewise, The Kolbrin Bible offers extensive historical accounts regarding previous flybys of Planet X, and its books were authored by the Egyptians after the Exodus and by the Celts after the death of Jesus. ...
You didn't even change the wording in most cases, but simply clipped the more outlandish (and entertaining, I suppose) claims...Such as the Moon getting the beginnings of an natrium atmosphere to an altitude of 9000km (a quick check shows that "natrium" is just latin for sodium ...the Na symbol makes much more sense now), the hexagon shaped poles on Saturn being some structure rather than a lab-reproducible consequence of fluid dynamics, the Sun shrinking by 16% over the past half century...and the whole world ending in 2012 BS.....
Montanan...I think you just lost whatever credibility you thought you had. "Gathered from NASA and its links"...I call bullshit on that claim. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/18/2008 5:26:32 PM | The following information was gathered from the NASA site and it's links….Saturn… Pluto
It sure IS bull sheet.
When quotations from Richard C. Hoagland stand in for real science you may as well post up the Fred Flintstone and Dino photos. I’m already pulling out the cuffs and reading the rights. Isn’t Hoagland the “scientist” that brought us the “face on Mars” hoax? Even without slamming the source, note that none of the half-truth highlights about the solar system is really directly linked to solar activity.
What did I just say? Debunked arguments leads to new debunked arguments. It’s the same old merry go round
Regarding Mars and glacial melt, our own scientific community of mainly geologists in examining the photos of Mars…
Please reread the part about measuring once in July and then once in August.
You can split hairs all you want about this topic….
Nope. That’s a straw man argument. No non-denier is splitting hairs. It’s the fundamental so-called real science dragged out to defend denial rants that’s getting debunked by big and basic flaws. The so-called 1970s ice-age scare? Again? Re-read the part about media hype versus real science.
What is really lame is that we have a bunch of people that are so ready to blame humans and cow farts on earth for all the global warming that is happening and so will not address the facts established before the global warming issue that the sun was warming up and is responsible for all the strange activity happening on earth and on other planets….
Nope. The non-deniers are the ones asking everyone to do the research and find the real stories. Now… who is quoting Richard C. Hoagland? The solar factor has been looked at and accounted for. Show us the real science that says otherwise. Come on. Guys like Hoagland who have websites with tons of Science Fiction shots don’t really count. Or are we gonna get the next rehashed myth?
How is it irrelevant that the purveyors of this twisted science don't follow their own rules of engagement?
That would be like your dentist telling you candy is bad while running M n M mars.
Right… so if your doctor on meth then it’s a-OK to go for a hit yourself? We are talking about the science. What Al Gore, Al Bundy, your dentist, some guy preaching this or that DOES is irrelevant (oh yah… this is different from preaching JUNK like Hoagland). We just want to see real fact, real data, and real documents.
I KNOW two things sir: You and I can twist facts like panties to make our respective points.
Second, unless your in the same stratosphere as the Gore's and such we'll be paying for it through the nose.
Nope. That’s the same old “both sides are twisting facts” routine. Who’s asking for people to read the real science and who is cherry-picking quotes? Read the facts for yourself. I didn’t invent the science and none of the non-deniers are “twisting” anything.
Hey we all pay extra for things that some other guy (royalty, rich, poor, celebrity, etc) should probably pay more for, but how is that changing the facts about the science? I don’t like that as much as the next guy. So… What? We’ll ruin our backyard for all of us cause that will really stick it to those freeloaders?
I'm on board with this Global warming HYPOTHESIS as long as you and your friends want to foot the bill.
You want to make everything "green" energy efficient? Come over to my house and install the appropriate equipment free of charge and it's a done deal.
Don’t fall for that hype. There’s lots of ways to “get greener” without spending a fortune of “green”. Read the part about “relevance” again. How your local authority wants to make laws about it is up to them and it still doesn’t change the facts around the science.
By the way what kind of car do you drive? A prius? The car that takes more energy to make then resolve. Do you use ethanol? The fuel that takes more energy to produce then save.
I could go on for days.
Not really relevant. As yet no real data or fact has been presented to support the deniers view. Watch. You’ll see these deniers just dance from one debunked myth to the next.
I use mass transit myself.
That’s good. It’s efficient and it’s a great way meet office babes. Maybe I telecommute… but it’s not relevant.
| |
|
|
| Page 3 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
