What Do We Think About Climate Change

What???!! CO2 at 440 ppm in 1825 and 390 ppm in 1857 ??? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!! EXXON! EXXON! EXXON! The 'hole' thing is a Republican Conspiracy!!! ARRRRGH!!!



Jimbo

 

Jimmy: don't yell....

‘‘All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself’’. ‘‘In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one’’ (Hitler, 1933).

Jimmy: don't laugh.....

 

I dare say that you don't need to go all the way back in time to the cretaceous period to witness such 'decoupling; indeed the 20th century will do quite nicely, and with much smaller time scales as well. You know, the shorter time scales Mikey Mann says should show that simple cause and effect relationship.



Jimbo

 

A very good explanation of the pitfalls of over-attribution of the greenhouse potential of CO2 in the atmosphere can be found here:

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

Here you will find that using figures as high as 35% attribution, as some have suggested, yields highly anomalous results and are therefore suspect. A parametric calculator is included on the page for your instruction and entertainment.

Excerpted:

There are claims carbon dioxide is responsible for 35%[!] of the global greenhouse effect (therefore returning 13.9% OLR to Earth). Carbon dioxide is believed to have increased from 280 to 385ppmv (37.5%) since the Industrial Revolution. All things being equal that should add 4.9% to net greenhouse effect, right? Except making greenhouse .446 and leaving the rest of the values at default says the earth should have warmed to 294.32 K (21.17 °C).

Best guesses from NCDC and GISTEMP put the 2007 planetary mean temperature around 287.6/7 K or about 14.5 °C.

A quick test of CO2's effect suggests 35% GHE overstates estimated warming by a factor of at least 7 and that S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264 were likely pretty close to the mark when stating "Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor."

Jimbo

 

funny that nearly every one of the sources provided were industry funded
way to obfuscate guys

given a complete lack of any credible answer to the previous questions
it seems only fare to reiterate Masalai's query along with the others as well

and another good one
why do skeptics insist on using energy industry funded research to try and show that the energy industries waste is not harmful
like when someone tried to debate the water vapor question with data from an oil industry front group
isnt that a lot like the tobacco companies trying to tell us that smoking is safe and not proven to cause any ill effects

why do skeptic constantly waffle from one question to another instead of answer one they are having trouble with

why is there a growing consensus among not only the scientific community but also among the public at large that global warming is both caused by man and is a real threat

have a great one
B

I would also point out how blatantly deceitful some of those sources were
climatescience.net is a front group of industry stooges
climatescience.gov is the real scientific body of contributing researchers

oh and that last bit about 35% water vapor
way to go with the low numbers on the science side
and the highest number on the pseudoscience skeptics side
it proves beautifully what I mean when I say dishonest misrepresentation of the evidence at hand
thanks
makes my task a lot easier when folks use such blatant hucksterism and agnotology

another shining example in the crown of crap is the junk science page

 

here is a great example of the deceitful nature of the detracting arguments

research and experimentation show water vapor to contribute 36% to 66% depending on temperature of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect
for an average of ~51% with clouds contributing another ~25% and greenhouse gasses ~25%
skeptics claim water vapor contributes as much as ~ 98% negating the need to concern ourselves with co2 emissions

In an effort to debate the issue of water vapor's contribution to the greenhouse effect an essay was recently offered by the skeptics
it contained the following paragraphs concerning water vapor
p 735
( I would note that skeptics are not presenting peer reviewed data supporting there claims )
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
author Joel Kauffman





lets begin our consideration of this with a review of the cited articles authors

we have
himself ( Kauffman 004 )
published in the journal of scientific exploration
the journal of scientific exploration sounds good at first read but as it turns out its not exactly a peer reviewed publication dealing with hard science

Kauffman also made Inhofe's climate skeptics debunked list

we have
Richard Lindzen
[QUOTE professor and agriculture consultant who claims that organic food is bad for you and charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3][/QUOTE]

and finally in regards to the water vapor issue also noted is one of my favorite charictors in this hole game
Fred Singer

now if the backgrounds of the players in the game arent already enough
lets move on to what they are saying and how they are saying it

Joel K states that he performed his own study of atmospheric water vapor greenhouse effect one lovely humid Philly day
using a FT-IR and finding
92% obsorbsion was due to water vapor
8% due to CO2
0% due to methane

now a novice might look at this and say wow old Joel really did his homework
but lets look a little closer and ask one simple question that calls into question old Joels methods

how is it he failed to find any contributing factor by any of the other ghg
we know through direct laboratory recreatable experimentation that minority greenhouse gasses ( ghg ) react by reflecting radiant energy
after all reflecting radiant energy is what makes a ghg a ghg
sooooo
if Joel was running a detailed experiment how could he miss something that should account for ~8% of the known reflection by direct experimentation

it goes back to that little bit about how the machine was calibrated
Joel set the device to read the percentage proportional the concentration of the gas present
its far more likely he was reading the humidity at the time
and not the greenhouse gas effect

lets move on to the mean water vapor of the troposphere

first thing he hasnt told us it the humidity at the time the measurements were taken
this ones easy cause he really screwed up when he tried to do some math
he calculates the vapor as volume rather than effect and then adds cloud volume which isnt vapor and proports that total volume as the effect
its not
if you remember from my previous not all molecules are created equal
I could dive into the proportional effects
but a better way to point out the problems with they way Joel calculated his findings is to look at one simple fact
the amount of water vapor held in the tropical troposphere is as much as 500 times greater than at the poles
and he fails to correct for this
so what he is giving us at best is the possible high vapor content ( remember we are talking about effect not content ) of the area with the highest vapor potential and misrepresenting that as the effect
not exactly a fare analysis of water vapor effect on average, globally now is it

lets move on

Joel's claim that Singer Avery both avowed skeptics maintain that water vapor accounts for 60% of the natural greenhouse effect
and that CO2 accounts for about 20%

even though these guys used the high numbers instead of the mean for these agents the article fails to mention that water vapor is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing agent in the system
besides
dont they basically agree with what I said in my previous

now to the nitty gritty
the claim that
Richard Lindzen 1992
reports that water vapor and clouds makes up for 98% of any greenhouse effect

lets take a closer look at that claim and the essay it was made in
( once again I would point out that skeptics are not providing peer reviewed and refered articles as support for there 96% or 98% claim )

the article is published by the Cato institute
who is
you guessed it
funded by Exxon
as well as
the American petroleum institute
Amgen
General Motors
Honda
R J Reynolds tobacco
Toyota
Volkswagen
to name a few
clearly an industry sponsored rag

lets take a look at the research
and lo and behold there isnt any

from Lindzen 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

now any reasonable author of any serious scientific paper would have noted either his sources for the information or his methods for deriving this number
not this guy; he goes on to make; no citations, no references, notes no studies supporting his claims, provides no calculations, no modeling information
and basically ripped this number out of thin air so to speak

his claim of 98% is therefor not based on science nor found through the scientific method
instead
represents industry supported spin at its worst

once again the truth will out my friends
the truth will out

next please

 

Please don't yell.....

It'll only look like you're running out of arguments, and that'll put the load on others, like pretty me....

 

not sure what you mean by yelling
I thought it was a pretty dam good deconstruction of the offending argument
clearly its based on industry diatribe and not in science
printed in industry rags
and representative of the industry view

oh
I am definitely not running out of deconstructive review
hell these guys are making it easy on me
did you read that last ?

 

I'm going for the high ground.

 

I would urge everyone to go read post # 1678 as it poses a difficult review of the skeptics basic sources and style of argument

 

readers please take note

global climate skeptics have once again failed to adequately address the issues presented and instead have generally distracted from them

if the temp is not rising
why is all this ice melting
(skeptics have only speculated that the unquantified element of volcanic activity is to blame rather than consider any of the known forcing agents )

skeptics have failed to admit there is plenty of data supporting tropical tropospheric warming
when they had said categorically there was none
( see post #1660 )

skeptics have failed to admit that water vapor makes up only ~50% of the greenhouse effect and not the 60%, 96%, 98% they have so far claimed
( a complete deconstruction of there claims can be found at post # 1678)

any ideas on why
why is it skeptics fail to admit or address these points and instead post cartoons to distract us

and the most self incriminating and damaging evidence presented by the skeptics is there continued use of avowed industry stooges as sources for there beliefs

I would present the following examples from post # 1678


we have a essay from
Joel M Kauffman 004
published in the journal of scientific exploration
I would note the journal of scientific exploration is not exactly a peer reviewed publication dealing with hard science

Kauffman also made Inhofe's climate skeptics debunked list

Quote:
193. Joel M. Kauffman,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia,
U.S. Retired. Doesn't have any discernable climate experience.
http://www.usp.edu/chemistry/faculty...aphy.asp?id=43

in which Kauffman quotes

Richard Lindzen

[QUOTE professor and agriculture consultant who claims that organic food is bad for you and charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3][/quote]

and
Fred Singer

together these essays skeptics present contain no pertinent peer reviewed work
and in defense of the skeptics claim that water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse gas effect there noted source is found out to be industry spin written by known industry stooges in mostly industry funded rags

the truth will out again friends
the truth will out

regards
B

 

Boston, YELLING, is using BIG letters, COLOURS, or CAPITALS, and is quite unnecessary in "serious" debate.....

Meanz, a well taken high ground case...

 

oops !!

this is serious ?
cant be
its so pathetically easy to just demolish all the silly arguments and horrifically bad sources not to mention the pseudoscientist's and there industry affiliations
hell its like shooting fish in a bucket as someone pointed out earlier
the skeptics have proven themselves to basically not even know how the science is conducted let alone what the findings are
even lacking a basic understanding in the terminology of the science
cant be serious
no way
were just egging one another on here
there is no way this would ever be considered a serious debate
firstly
you would have to require that only refereed peer reviewed work be presented in defense of a position
then there would be a moderator that was actively involved in awarding positions properly defended
no way this is serious
hell we got people presenting cartoons as evidence around here
i'm just killing time and a few badly defended skeptics views

I just use the big red letters so that the ocational reader who drops in doesnt get tricked by any of the ridiculous pseudoscience that gets regurgitated by the climate skeptics
not trying to yell at anyone

best
B

 

Shhhhh you may spoil a bit of entertainment..... When Oil & food run out and space on land this debate will become irrelevant? no? - at least with the Global warming postulation there was another population reduction mechanism (drowning?)

 

thats bloody hilarious man

ah the greenhouse effect and the food problem are running about neck and neck in terms of timing
oil isnt far behind but I cant see it catching up to the previous two
food production is directly tied to weather patterns
soooooo
thus they are related
change the climate
and you change the food production
most of the world lives off rice and fish
the fish are nearly gone
and the rice aint doing so well either
hell the maldives government has purchased land to relocate the hole nation if I remember
what are they, one millimeter above sea level ;-)
the last four years in the arctic have been show stoppers
not much denying that

I say eat drink and be merry
for tomorrow
we're screwed