What Do We Think About Climate Change

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I think those who consider themselves as children of bitches should preach with their own example. Why don't you begin by perishing hard yourself? (No offense intended. Just your own words)

Guillermo, mi amigo, let me tell you why. First, because I do not consider myself to be one of those sons/daughters of bitches. Second, because I am not suicidal. Just because I live surrounded by religious fanatics of every colour doesn't mean that there are not other intelligent people around that I could relate to on a level those bitches' descendants will never be able to reach.

Au contreur, mon ami.

And third, I am spending a lot of money on schools and poor children around my part of America, where anglosaxon criminals have destroyed just about every state with their "capitalist democracy" and left behind millions in absolute poverty. Those scumbags are gone, but the poverty is still here. I am doing something about it, as small my gesture may be, given the magnitude of the problem.

But that is still by far more than everything that chatolic church is doing around, for example.

So, I am not a hypocrite like chatolics, or muslims, or jews, or hindus, etc. etc. I am actually doing SOMETHING about the tragedy that is playing out every single day here.

How about you, mi amigo? What have you done good lately/ever? How many kids have you saved or fed? How many school books have you bought for poor kids? How many have you saved from your fellas catholic priests and other good christians preying on vulnerable kids for their perverse pleasures? I hope many, but I have my doubts. So who would be a better candidate for self-inflicted perishing?


Answer to Troy: neither. If you are indeed a new member, you are already falling into the trap of the general tone of debate in these threads here.

I am as far from hating myself as usa is from being a democratic country. Surely, you will agree that people who are killing each other, and anyone else for that matter, are sons of bitches.

What's to like about these animals? I do not see myself being even remotely similar to those retards.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Another one, if the GW theory supporters say that CO2 increase, increases temperature and therefore increase HO2 vapour and increases greenhouse gases, water has also a limit to it's efficiency as a greenhouse gas since it does something very useful and that is condense into clouds and come back as rain. The time water is in the form of clouds, it does not operate as greenhouse since no light goes through and no heat goes through so it acts as a cover and when it may stop counter radiation it also stops light.

And last, how are we to believe that GW will bring drought?

Ignore where the CO2 may come from? Ok?
The atmosphere has its total mechanical properties with the ability to keep moist, heat capasity, insulation, etc..
CO2 has mechanical properties, like insulation, heat capacity, these are way above the same properties for the preindustrial atmosphere.
The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter. So, it's pretty easy to (well; for me at least) to assume that the "new" properties for the atmosphere will be added insulation, increased heat capacity.

So, if the above seem correct, im my opinion, again, its safe to assume a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. A higher temp will mean more vapour.

The heat input form the sun, (thank God...) far outweights the heat loss, so the vapour will be humidity, but not skies. So the balance in the daytime will be more input from the sun, but not in any significant way (?). On the night time; we'll still have 0,5 m more CO2 that insulate, the water wapour will also, in colder regions, condensate, make skies, rain, snow, that will be more visible in the winter/ night time. Skies will insulate, reduce the heat loss in the night time.

As you do, you're not considering the (slightly) different behavior the atmosphere have during the day versus the night. To balance it completely as you do, is like comparing the Tjernobyl reactor with a camping stove. The sun will give more energy.

So, when the day comes, with another cycle, we're a (tiiiny) tiny fraction of a degree higher...?

Drought... As mentioned; the earth will try to achieve a new equilbrion (correctly speeeld?) with more evaporation, this will be mostly significant at the central band of this earth. And since everything that goes up, must come down, and it'll do that in colder regions, like where I'm living.... Last winter at my cabin in the mountains, I had to dig 2,7 meter down through the snow to get to the water post... I've been about in that area since I was 15 years old, never seen it like that before; That's pretty much, even for me. This november; we had the 2nd most ever recorded amount of rain (a little snow too); 300 mm. It's kinda wet, in my opinion. If we hold that up against lack of rain in some other places of the world, it may seem connected... somehow...

You can still count me in "the better safe than sorry crowd"..

"Au contreur, mon ami." Que significa "contreur", porfas? I study French and, it seems, you would be a good candidate to teach cool words! In your opinion, would it be best to get a tentitive grasp of the language before posing culture or just dive in pell-mell?

Knut, I thin' their getting more precipitation in "dry" places, too. Grass and crawly things in the Sahara, etc.

RE: Climategate.
Apparently sometime in 1992 they, Mann, et. al., decided that computer storage would become MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE and so they had to hit the delete button to save on costs.
"But oh, here -- here are the numbers as we tweaked them. But we can't tell you how they were tweaked as we threw out the records about what we did. Go ahead and run with it at Copenhagen."

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by mark775

[color="DarkRed"]"....., would it be best to get a tentitive grasp of the language before posing culture or just dive in pell-mell?

Just too many foreigners out there.....

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter. So, it's pretty easy to (well; for me at least) to assume that the "new" properties for the atmosphere will be added insulation, increased heat capacity.......
So, if the above seem correct....
On the night time; we'll still have 0,5 m more CO2 that insulate.......

I'm afraid it's not like that at all, Knut. I'm surprised. You're forgotting the absorbing of CO2 by the sea, soils, rocks, plants, etc. The missing carbon thing, you know....

Best regards.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Dave Gudeman

.........
As to the explanation of the different temperature-taking methods, it's curious. Did they really used to just combine two entirely different sets of temperature measurements without worrying about their different error characteristics? And even if they did, this doesn't seem to require a painstaking effort to correct. You just keep the data in distinct sets, normalize them to some standard and graph the results. They ought to be able within a few minutes to see whether the US data alone and the British data alone reflect the dip or not, yet the article says nothing about this.

Just in the nail. Thanks.

[Frosty]

You guys gonna have couple of days off for Christmas?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I'm afraid it's not like that at all, Knut. I'm surprised. You're forgotting the absorbing of CO2 by the sea, soils, rocks, plants, etc. The missing carbon thing, you know....

Best regards.

The measured CO2 increase in the air (~100ppm). It's 50cm CO2 in 1atm and nothing missing ..

[Guillermo]

Knut said: "The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter"

If he wanted to mean the 100 ppm I think he should have said the "balance", "increasing" of athmospheric CO2 or the like. Knut?

Anyway I think he's forgetting the proved negative feedback, not positive, as the satelites data show. Earth certainly tends to reach equilibrium, not run away.


More:
I have found this atonishing statement in Real Climate web pages:

"What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

More at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

I'm with no words....

Cheers.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I have found this atonishing statement in Real Climate web pages.

Thats interesting and I think on the spot.. Thou I'm more intended to believe todays warming being CO2 related, I never believed it ended any of the Ice Ages. It must related to earth orbit and sun influence bcs there's been just too steadily glaciar/interglaciar periods. However as the author said about rest 5/6, we got to remember that all feedbacs etc aren't solved yet..

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Knut said: "The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter"

If he wanted to mean the 100 ppm I think he should have said the "balance", "increasing" of athmospheric CO2 or the like. Knut?

Anyway I think he's forgetting the proved negative feedback, not positive, as the satelites data show. Earth certainly tends to reach equilibrium, not run away.


More:
I have found this atonishing statement in Real Climate web pages:

"What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

More at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

I'm with no words....

Cheers.

Guillermo,

Remember me arguing with the scarecrow and the cowardly lion about this? I told them that the problem with this approach/reasoning is that we are in this 'lag' period, the 1/6, right now!

That same page says that we would expect to observe the "correct" relationship between CO2 and temperature (the one The Team feels is the correct one, which is CO2 leading temperature) on shorter timescales, even though it is absent in longer timescales.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The measured CO2 increase in the air (~100ppm). It's 50cm CO2 in 1atm and nothing missing ..

This is not true; 400ppm is 'missing'. By IPCC calcs, we should be at 800ppm right now! They have yet to explain this error. The error arises from their substitution of the true (short) residence time with a contrived (long) one.

Jimbo

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by troy2000

And here's an interesting article about where that blip probably came from to begin with:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ture-blip.html

Basically, it says that before the war, marine temperature measurements were taken pretty evenly between the UK Navy and the American Navy. But they used different methods: the Brits usually hauled a bucketful of water on deck, and measured the temperature in the bucket. The Americans, on the other hand, usually took their temperature samples from water drawn into the engine room, before it cooled the engines. Obviously, the bucket-on-deck method would give lower temperatures, on average.

This 40's blip has been troublesome to the alarmists for years. They have spent considerable time trying to explain it away or hide it. Finally, after years of searching, they may have come up with an explanation. But the only reason they found this problem with the measurement is because they spent years searching for it. And the only reason they spent years searching for it is because the blip was a problem for their theory.

What if there was a real blip in world temperature that is hidden by a mistake just like the one that supposedly caused this blip? No one is ever going to find that mistake and that real blip because they aren't combing through the data looking for it. As long as the data matches their theory, they pretty much let it slide.

In the article, they talk about how researchers have been going over the data for years, trying to find outside factors (like volcanoes) that will let them smooth out all of the blips. So wherever the line doesn't match theory, they are looking for factors to let them adjust the line. And as soon as they get the line to match their theory, they stop looking for factors. There is no investigation going into finding volcanoes to explain parts of the curve that don't have blips.

In a chaotic system like the atmosphere, with so many random and speculative influences, this sort of approach is absolutely guaranteed to give a curve that comes to match the theory closer and closer over time. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the theory is correct, it has to do with poor methodology.

Some professional statistician (I think it was an economist) said that the climatologists don't understand statistics and proper sampling methods. I'm starting to think that he was right. And with the politics so strongly favoring one side of the debate, there is no corrective measure possible. If anyone tries to publish a paper explaining what is wrong with their sampling methods, they will just label him a "denialist", roll their eyes, and throw it in the trash. No need to publish anything from a denialist.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by masrapido

.... I do not consider myself to be one of those sons/daughters of bitches....... I live surrounded by religious fanatics of every colour ..... a level those bitches' descendants will never be able to reach....... I am spending a lot of money on schools and poor children around my part of America, where anglosaxon criminals have destroyed just about every state with their "capitalist democracy" and left behind millions in absolute poverty. Those scumbags are gone, but the poverty is still here. I am doing something about it, as small my gesture may be, given the magnitude of the problem....I am not a hypocrite like chatolics, or muslims, or jews, or hindus, etc. etc. I am actually doing SOMETHING about the tragedy that is playing out every single day here.

Diego, your ability to abuse others whilst talking yourslef up never ceases to amaze me. I suggest you start another thread entitled. Comunism versus capitalism in Chile, and debate at your hearts content. Start it in a low moderated forum so that you can avoid being banned for eternity, and start insulting the rest of the world ad libitum.
You may even find your soul mate that way.
PS
Shouldn't you be posting comunist propaganda in a chilean forum? Or is it illegal?