What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by mark775

When I stop laughing, may I use this?; "Water vapor does not beget more water vapor in a vicious cycle; water vapor begets rain."

Permission granted. My royalty fees are quite reasonable

[hoytedow]

I BURN all my scrap wood in an effort to stave off an ice age.

CO2 is good for you
It makes your crops grow fine
So don't lock up my CO2
'Cause its not yours, ITS MINE!

[Knut Sand]

Oh, forgotten, until recently...

http://www.epa.gov/foia/docs/2007_Dr...nt_Finding.pdf

[Jimbo1490]

Burning hydrocarbon fuel produces water vapor as an emissions as well as CO2. A first principles analysis shows that these water vapor emissions are greater than that which accrues due to the supposed positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Furthermore as we all know, water vapor is MUCH more effective as a GHG than CO2. The whole AGW argument is in the end really about water vapor, after all.

So why then, is there no movement to regulate water vapor emissions as a greenhouse gas

If the reasoning is that water vapor has a short atmospheric residence time/is self regulating, the question then arises as to why that reasoning only applies when the water vapor is emitted directly, and NOT when accrued from the supposed positive feedback with CO2? How does the water vapor 'know' how it got into the atmosphere, so that it can 'behave itself' in an orderly, self-regulating kind of way when the result of direct emissions, but 'mis-behave' when the result of positive feedback mechanisms?

Does anyone else see the glaring logical fallacy in this?

Could it be that if such a movement took hold, then the average person just might be able to see the 'Alice in Wonderland' absurdity of the whole AGW case, just as happens whenever there is a push to regulate methane?

Jimbo

[hoytedow]

I'm going to burn more wood this weekend, just because I can. Arrest me.

[fasteddy106]

Can't wait for Boston to post a whole bunch of irrelevent minutae, proclaim 97%, the debate is over, everybody knows, I'm smart your not, and if you don't believe you are an oil industry hack.

[hoytedow]

I'll start my wood with oil. Thank you, oil industry.

[Guillermo]

Follow the CO2...




...and temperatures...



And now follow this interesting series:
"Searching the PaleoClimate Record for Estimated Correlations: Temperature, CO2 and Sea Level"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...el/#more-11753

Cheers

[Guillermo]

Surprisingly my Internet Explorer cannot open the site http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/ but Mozilla Firefox does.

Cheers

[Guillermo]

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009.

Reference: Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

Figure: Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

[Guillermo]

The United Nations Environmental Programme just released a major report in advance of the Climate Change Summit to take place in Copenhagen this December. The report is intended to “show how the science has been evolving” since the publication of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in the spring of 2007.

..... the greenhouse effect is expected, on a global average, to lead to higher temperatures (like inside a greenhouse), higher humidity (like inside a greenhouse), more precipitation (like inside a greenhouse), longer growing seasons (like inside a greenhouse), and enhance the fertilization effect of airborne carbon dioxide (just like commercial greenhouses which pump CO2 inside them to increase plant growth and productivity). Taken together, this brings up images of lush tropical foliage, not a dry, lifeless, desert.

Our guess is, a lush green world this isn’t the image that they wanted to conjure up about climate change and UNEP’s art department couldn’t come up with a way to make this seem bad (hint: next time, check with Al Gore).

Read more at:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...over/#more-385

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Time has arrived for me to light my fire. Today; bamboo.

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

... Taken together, this brings up images of lush tropical foliage, not a dry, lifeless, desert...

That would be a lush, flooded world, if a bit more of polar ice melts, as seems likely. Not that the tropics are that great to live in even without the flooding. According to this source at least 60% of the planet’s human population lives within 100 km (62 mi) of the beach:-
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_abel_iss...28188-,00.html

Human populations near the coast tend to concentrate at the mouths of large rivers, which provide navigation into the interior, fresh water (until polluted of course) and generally less extreme seasonal climate variations. The same rivers almost always have large flood plains, good for growing food, flat and not much above sea level. Great places to live.

Arctic ice melting won't effect sea levels since it is already floating. I have to wonder what it will do to the vast currents that pump heat and nutrition around the Altlantic ocean, but let's not worry about that one right now.

Antarctic ice is another matter. So is glacier ice, but there won't be much of that left at the current rate. The seas have risen about 8" or 20 cm in the last 100 years. If 10% of Antarctic ice melts the sea level rise will be about 20 feet or 6 m. Added to the rise of sea level, many major cities are sinking due to a variety of effects such as depletion of ground water due to wells. London UK is a good example of this, but what's happening there is peanuts compared with places like Bangladesh.

As sailors a lot of us on this forum live close to the coast. How far will the coast move towards you? Not a problem if you live 100 ft - 30 m above sea level, perhaps, but what do you think the people who live closer are going to do, simply drown rather than disturb you?

Global warming has slowed down, even stopped for the last few years. A very few years, actually, but already those who don't want to be bothered by the whole thing are crowing and saying I told you so. Hopefully they will be proven right. Problem is, this apparent pause in warming coincides with an unusually long period of low sunspot activity. In past centuries a couple of sunspot minima neatly bracketed a mini-ice age in Europe. Not this time though; a little cooler in some places but by no means a return to the frigid conditions recorded in history. I for one wonder why that is. The two effects could just be cancelling. I have to wonder what is likely to happen when the sunspot rate returns to average. Will the global warming rate resume or even double?

The grand experiment on the Earth continues, watch this space for the next hundred years! (any lesser period will be meaningless)

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

Wether we like it or not; we're heading towards a speed bump, we may as well choose to reduce the speed before that impact. Just bacause we have the possibility and means to do something, it doesnt mean we have the (moral, ( some could maybe look that word up...)) right to do it.

We are perfectly able to pollute the seas in a pretty serious way.
We're also prefectly able to contaminate some land areas far beyond the level where it is habitable.
Why is it a totally difficult idea to grasp, that we may be able to affect the atmosphere in a similar way?

What a typical load of bull dust. High moral ground combined with misinformation and the smokescreen of mixing some truth with boldface lies.

I am still waiting for Castro to get the Nobel price.

Co2 is not "pollution" it is not "poison" can not be compared with pollutants like plastic bags, is not "carbon". CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life, the more the merrier. "The most insulating gas?" it is this grandstanding nonsensical statement that nourishes the media and poisons our kids minds thanks to ignorant teachers that get their knowledge from TV ads.

Supporters of the "carbon" tax can be classified in two categories. Sincere ignoramus, or conspirators to the biggest scam in human history.

The only reason they have been allowed to get this far is democracy itself.

Politicians would sell drugs in primary schools personally if the voters asked for it, and so we have the global warming histeria pumped by media in voters mind, used as a tool to bribe for votes.

It will eventualy get undone. The question is when and how far into destroying the western economy we will put the brakes on.

For now keep on repeating to whoever wants to listen.
CO2 is good for you. Up CO2, up with crops.
Humanity will flourish with a CO2 rich athmosphere and a warmer climate.
Greenland may turn green once more. And that is a good thing even for Norway.

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by Marco1

I am still waiting for Castro to get the Nobel price ...

-not very likely. Unlike Obama, Castro actually achieved something, which if I understand the new Nobel rules for politicians would disqualify him.

Originally Posted by Marco1

... Co2 is not "pollution" it is not "poison" ...

-where in Knut's post was CO2 described as pollution or poison?

Originally Posted by Marco1

... Supporters of the "carbon" tax can be classified in two categories. Sincere ignoramus, or conspirators to the biggest scam in human history ...

-that might be true. Problem is, nothing else will work as well in a democracy to reduce such emissions. It's called motivation, and like taxes on tobacco, it should work, better than that ridiculous Kyoto thing anyway.

I doubt that anyone associated with the movement to reduce CO2 emissions is ignorant of the use plants make of CO2; they're just aware that the volume of plants available to do that has been severely reduced over the same period of time that CO2 emmissions have gone sky-high. And of course, if they are right and are still unable to deal with the problem, while that may not be the end for humanity or civilization, life sure ain't gonna get any easier.

Originally Posted by Marco1

... Politicians would sell drugs in primary schools personally if the voters asked for it, and so we have the global warming histeria pumped by media in voters mind, used as a tool to bribe for votes ...

-and you accuse others of hysteria?

Originally Posted by Marco1

... CO2 is good for you ...

-only if you are a plant! For a human, it starts to get unhealthy at about 13 times the current levels in the atmosphere. The levels measured at Muana Loa in Hawaii have increased by 22% over the last 50 years, and the line on the graph is curving upwards. Lets assume the equivalent rate of increase remains constant, then CO2 levels will reach danger levels in 660 years. It's a simple calculation.

Now consider that most of the CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the oceans. Unlike the atmosphere, water does not have an unlimited capability to absorb CO2, so the rate is far more likely to increase than remain constant or decrease. Of course, over the next few hundred years humanity will be able to erect protective domes over its cities, and as even the plants choke to death, will also be able to create artificial food in factories. Sounds lovely!

It is a strange fact that acceptable levels for substances known to adversely effect humans are usually set at about 1/10 the level at which effects can be detected. For CO2, that would be about 30% higher than the current atmospheric level.