What Do We Think About Climate Change

'Pier' review is about right, since your heroes over on you fav website 'realclimate.org ' have YET (5 YEARS on now) to present the algorithms used to produce Michael Mann's (in)famous hockey stick graph, which you no doubt still point to as the gold standard. Only 'piers' have reviewed them; sadly no peers. Oh what a price to be rid of that pesky 'Medieval warm Period'

Boston, I know this is a long thread, AND it's also essentially a duplicate of another thread that ran last year and the year before. Go look at my older posts and see all the scientific data I presented sourced from NASA, the USGS, numerous universities and leading climatologists. I can't do the super long post thing anymore; I got into big trouble with that a few months back and I've sworn it off.

The thing is there's PLENTY of scientific data that contradicts what you are saying, in fact the preponderance of the EMPIRICAL data cuts against AGW alarmism. The alarmism is based almost solely on THEORY and computer modeling, NOT on the observed data.

 

Boston,
For scientific evidence on the small anthropogenic impact on recent times global warming and the strong possibility of a coming global cooling, as well as the relative small effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas when compared with water vapour, you should scroll along this entire thread and search for the wealth of links and articles posted, before saying not references have been showed. We have been discussing around here for quite a bit now and we cannot post everything again.

On a list of scientists opossing the mainstream assessment on global warming you may find interesting this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

You may be interested in reading also the attached document.

Cheers.

 

Jimbo, if i recollect correctly, some of the earlier temperature data was for measures made over land. I say; screw those data, air is far too changing to be used as a measuring device for this. There will always be variations, more asphalt/ concrete, buildings halting the cooling winds, too many arguments one way or the other....

Earth is covered with approx 70 % water. If we use this, we can chose to ignore the water temperatures, they have increased... To heat 1 m3 of water 1 deg C, earth's diameter is approx 12700 km across (take that with a tblsp of salt, check for yourself...), you'll need about 4100 000 joules to heat up 1 deg. assume that the temp has increased 0,1 deg the last decade, assume that the water dept we're talking about is 100 m... On my first calculations I was wrong with a factor of even 4 (got 25% of what many scientists pretty much agree on now), and even that worried me....

Jimbo, you also state:
Quote:
This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison.
Quote end.

Ok, lets assume this is correct, what about the insulation effect? 1 m3 of carbon will have? It weigh a bit more than 1 m3 of standard air, but still it has an insulation effect of about twict that of air, and for instance, withe emissions from planes, in the athmosphere high up, it'll take up space, less pressure= more volume (not that space, you idjits!), and it'll insulate.... Due to the fact that it weigh more, it will come down, but in that period it will at least cause some effect in the global warming.

Some interesting views here though..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

So, where we're heading, I don't know for certain, but maybe our kids will have a bumpy ride...? I Think we'd be better safe than sorry?

 

The problem is that for the observed warming over the last century to be attributable to the greenhouse effect. It has to happen mostly high up in the atmosphere, not at the surface. Trouble is, we see exactly the opposite; lots of warming near the surface but little at altitude.

The AGW alarmist camp attempts (rather clumsily) to get around these rather incovenient facts by cooking the data. They cooked data on '"corrections"' to the surface measurements (lied and got caught) and on more "'"corrections"'" to the satellite data, which is another set of algorithms they have chose to keep secret. So much for 'peer review'. I think Boston ironically got it right when he called it 'pier review'

Let's try to keep in perspective that CO2 is a mere .03% of the atmosphere and for it's insulating effect to even approach that of air let alone water vapor, it would need to be several orders of magnitude more effective as an insulator, which it is not.

Jimbo

 

Ok, there is actually measured higher water temperatures during the last 30-40 years. I believe that's pretty proven, as they even talk about the NW passage as a trade route now... (add that to problems with the coral reefs outside Australia, large icebergs in the Antarctica area (ok I'll admit it, icebergs do have a "critical" mass...)). That's near the surface.

Ok at high altitude, you say little has happened with the temperature, ok but they report more vapour trails behind planes, more of them. If you heat a gas(air), you also improve the ability for that gas (air) to keep humidity. if you reduce the pressure (read that as pushing a wing at high speed through the gas (air) you'll have an area where there's less pressure on top of the ving, read that as vacuum... Thats why air traffic is succeeding, and not crashing...), less pressure is less ability to keep the humidity in a state of gas. So, in my opinion, an increase in the clouds caused by planes (is it contrails?) is a indication that the temperature at high altitudes has increased, at least some, more humidity in gas form at high altitudes, the planes cause vacuum, the humidity condensates...

CO2 is a mere 0,03% of the earth's atmosphere. True.
Nothing new there, But; If we stick our heads back on the exhaust fumes on a plane at high altitude, I believe we'll measure higher numbers for CO2 there, if not the pilot's probably pretty busy. The weight of 1 m3 CO2 is more than that for 1 m3 of air (with 0,03 CO2), but at higher altitude, the gas willl need to be compressed before going down, it may float a bit on the "surface" of the air below in the atmosphere, before it compresses enough to get down to us (the plants, grass, sea, algeas, us idjits...), in that time, it'll act as an insulator, and then we're talking 100% CO2, not 0,03%CO2. CO2 has close to twice the insulation effect as standard air has. We cannot ignore the fact, that we are able to cause at least some effect on the climate. Not on small scale, not on pretty large scale.

Anybody have a nyumber for air traffic CO2 outlet? pr year, and at what average altitude?:?:

 

CO2 mixes rapidly within the atmosphere so it does not matter where it is released, be it at high altitude or low. High altitude natural sources are (as usual) orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic releases. The entire human contribution to CO2 is within the error bars for the estimates for the total of CO2 in the entire atmosphere. Air transportation is a mere 3% of anthropogenic CO2. We're talking about a totally irrelevant quantity.

Jimbo

 

sorry for the delay kids had work to do
along with a few to many drinks
you would be amazed how many great scientific ideas were originally written out on a cocktail napkin

oh and thanks on the spelling tip
its a constant point of frustration for me as im not good with illogical systems
and spelling the English language is definitely not a logical system
Latin I can do
English not a prayer
its soooooo frustrating


Ill go look through the thread for what I can find
however I did get a chance to read Wikipedia and found that it was in no way a detracting opinion
although it did report that opposing opinions exist
it also clearly stated

( Im surprised any one can read that and not be relatively convinced )
( I think the poll of data was something like 97% in support with 3% anomalous )

sounds like it covers this conversation perfectly
any way Im getting a little board with it all
as we are clearly not going to be able to agree on anything
which I find kinda odd given the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory
the vast majority of scientists agreeing
a statement supported in the article above

Im kinda baffled as to how otherwise intelligent people can some times refuse to believe in the most rudimentary things
hell Im sure some fool even laughed at the idea of toilet paper

there isnt much doubt
the driver for the cascade effect in climate change looks like its been found out
the release of green house gasses from naturally occurring sources like hydrates and ocean co2
its not absolutely certain
but the probability is huge 90% or better
(read that some were in all the drivel I keep looking through)
not to many people are saying its not at least possible
and Ive yet to see any anomalous data on it
so the idea gets more sound every day

Im really curious how gigatons of co2 let alone all the n2o we produce isnt going to have an effect on atmospheric chemistry
we have already driven atmospheric co2 up by 27%
thats huge

any way this is getting long and Im getting board
gotta go get my car
some watron kept pouring drinks down me last night
had no prayer of driving home

hey is there a thread in here some were about properly installing insulation in a wooded yacht
Ive never done that before and I like to learn from the screw ups of others
my theory is some one some were has fouled up just about everything
and all I need to do is find em

thanks kids its been entertaining
B

 

Boston you need ritalin or lithium or valium or,or , or good posts lots of interesting conflicting infoloads of food for thought but I think it can be condensed a little

 

What Do We Think About Climate Change

very, very, disappointing...

 

So world climatic data means nothing to you guys? The mass agreement of mainstream science impresses you not in the least? The fact that the biggest idiot right-wing anti-science administration in history...the one that employs someone (Rice) that had to be removed from her university post because she tried to close down the astronomy/physics department funding under the aspices that "their work violates many premises of the Bible" has RECOGNIZED AGW after filling you guys heads with counterspin (actually they continue to do so) for years? Do you realize that if the subject comes up and you are sitting in a pub in Europe, they will laugh you out the front door? We are the most poorly educated in science in the first world, and it shows. Americans think of data points as being "facts" of equal merit, and rarely look at data in a holistic fashion, or get out of their house and into their local environment enough to tell the difference between one season or another. According to the semi-major and semi-minor axis of our current orbit (ecc.) and with opoapsis and periapsis being as balanced as they are, we should be in a very stable and cool environment right now. The environment SHOULD be warming a bit right now....and continue to do so for the next 25,000 years. NOT the next 5 years. Look at every Earth science. Look to the sedimentary record. Look at fossilized tree records and living tree records going back the last several ice ages. Compare them and you will NOT find a warming event (read by multi-regional tree-ring data) on the order we have today. Except for spike events (lasting 2-10 years due to major volcanic eruptions which stabilize quickly) we have NEVER had change on this scale ...ever! Compare apples to apples. Forget media versions of the psuedo-science pap you digest so easily, and go to decent sourceds to attempt to put the big picture together. It is tiring to see some dumb-*** say "well it sure is snowing here" when talking about GW. People neither understand science, nor geological scale. They can't concieve of what a multi-hundred year timescale means, much less a multi-thousand, multi- hundred thousand, or multi-million, or multi-billion timescale that describes the type of changes we are seeing over a few years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

 

sorry, but that is far to much information

 

Two interesting oponent blogs:

http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/

You choose.

Cheers.

 

well ya know its hard to be thorough and still keep it short
in the end
ild rather be thorough

Im one of those who actually believes in the science
hell its my life
feels like Ive spent eons at the university
my bag is theoretical physics
so the idea that some thing that isnt
could be
is not so far out of the ordinary to me
for instance
most people dont understand that faster than light speed is possible
let alone common
I.E
Newtonian physics wouldnt even remotely work if gravity acted at anything less than a few thousand times the speed of light
( hows that for useless information )

if Im a little on the passionate side about cleaning house
ooops

its just that there is middle ground here
and no one is willing to stand on it
instead
they fight over trivialities
and make no positive change
while we descend into the inevitable tragedy
that need not be

I would contend that with in the scientific community
there is no real debate about this
because no body of data fails to support the theory
oh
as always
anomalous data exists
but
human caused global climate change is for real
its rare that a theory meet with such a consensus as this

what few detractors there are
are unable to support there disagreement with any viable hypothesis of there own
if there is one
bring it on
tens of thousands of scientists would love to her it

if that qualifies me for meds
gimme amitriptiline
and a tall blond
I promise
I wont be on for a while after that

 

never to much info

data is the key to understanding
understanding is the key to survival
survival is the essence of life
and life is a gift best not waisted

live long and prosper my friend
in wisdom and wealth
for all
B

 

lots of dialog but no refereed work here
send me data that is peer reviewed and published with in the community as a hole
industry rags are not acceptable as they virtually always exclude that most precious of prequels
"the author confirms that no competing interests exist"
without which research can only be considered as biased

I am finicky as to what papers I quote or cite
as there is a lot of pseudo science skulking about
feet muddy in an agenda less than honest
snout deep in the corporate trough
B