What Do We Think About Climate Change

So lets see how this works. If you don't' agree with Boston you haven't read the posts and assertions, oops, I meant evidence, I really did. If after reading his ummm, whatever, you still don't agree as it flys in the face of numerous other data, you are stupid or an oil industry shill. He is not a radical, we who refuse to swallow the KoolAid are. This coming from a man who wants to ban commercial fishing, production of plastics,and tax the capitalist system to death over an AGW theory based on carbon that is bogus. It is interesting that he calls opposition to AGW theories paranoia, while he sees Exxon-Mobil behind every skeptic. He claims to uphold the purity of the scientific process while accepting distorted data from ground based weather stations and then throws out his permeation theory that even the IPCC doesn't agree with. When you give him evidence, little things like the world slipped into an ice age when it had a quantum level more CO2 than we do now, it's just that we don't understand. Guess I need a refresher on Newspeak, hmmmm, where did I leave that copy of 1984.

There is little point in continuing to a discussion with a person who never fails to take the most extreme position on any social engineering issue. AGW is about social engineering, not climate change. He knows it, we know it.

 

Then explain why the Beer-Lambert equation does not describe the absorptive behavior of atmospheric CO2 WRT sunlight. If it does describe it, it's game over for AGW, as you well know.

Now one of your old heroes, Mikey Mann concocts (pulls out of his ***, really) the explanation that it only applies in the troposphere where gases are well mixed and there's plenty of water vapor, and that the stratosphere being cold and dry is wide open! Of course if you accept this explanation (apparently you do, as you posted a link to this 'explanation' before), then you would have to concede two things. First, the radiative 'budget' would necessarily change to reflect the 'Mikey Mann Virgin Stratosphere' (MMVS) idea, and second, that we should be able to observe this alleged stratospheric warming quite easily with satellite and balloon data.

If you read the IPCC AR4 section which lays out the basics, you will see a careful analysis of the heat budget WRT the direct effect of atmospheric CO2. Yet this section MAKES NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the MMVS idea and there's not even a fraction of a watt per M^2 attributed to the MMVS, only the 385ppm in the 'well-mixed' portion of the atmosphere!

The AR4 admits a relatively trivial 1.7 Watts/M^2 from the direct effect of CO2; everybody, including skeptics agrees on this figure; it was never in question.

But this is arrived at using Beer-Lambert and ignoring the MMVS!

So the IPCC apparently put NO STOCK WHATEVER in the MMVS idea, so why should we?

And 1.7 watts /M^2 certainly does not seem like a lot of heat to worry over......BECUASE IT'S NOT!

All the extra, scary alarm bells scenarios come from a supposed coupling with water vapor, NOT some silly MMVS red herring!

On the second point, try to find some data ANYWHERE which shows the stratosphere WARMING, as predicted by the MMVS. Warmers have been busy touting the observed stratospheric cooling as the ghost of the missing 'hot spot' (which they now say was never very important except that they have only started saying this when they could not find it )

Do you see the problem here?? The stratosphere is not warming, as the MMVS predicts. Warmers are all trying to shoehorn the predicted 'hotspot' idea into observed stratospheric cooling. Admitting the stratosphere is cooling means that MMVS is pure ********, which gets us back to the original question:

Explain why the Beer-Lambert equation does not fully describe the absorptive behavior of atmospheric CO2 WRT sunlight.


When you've admitted that the MMVS idea is a red herring, then we can move on to this silly idea about water vapor being the destabilizing agent of the climate

Jimbo

 

I love science fiction
how about if I take the one second it will to debunk the previous

obviously inaccurate
its rapid climate change that is the topic of this thread
some for it some against
reducing it to one mans opinion is childish to say the least

admittedly this could cover some large number of deniers but which ones is not really my call
I do try and point out if a source or study was industry funded influenced or simply spin

just for the record
commercial fishing is already done in many historically productive areas
I would recommend we halt fishing in the areas where fish stocks may still have a chance of recovery and reduce fishing to sustainable levels in areas were it is viable to do so. Certainly more areas of sanctuary must be created and certain species who's numbers are in imminent danger of commercial collapse ( like blue fin tuna ) should go on a moratorium list.
none of that is likely to happen with what is most likely being a continuation of the fish to extinction policy we have in place now
in the end its stop now or stop later, forever
take your pick cause either is a grim choice

just for the record
plastics as we know them today will soon as the industry get sued into it be replaced by bioplastics
a settlement is likely in the near future in an attempt a clean up plastic pollution and a ban on petroleum based plastics may be needed in order to illicit meaningful change
I would love to see petroleum based plastics phased out as soon as possible
yes I have used the word "banned" before but it would be far more accurate to suggest replaced with bio plastics
course since were trying to pin horns and a tail on my *** you may try and place me in the dimmest light possible but its certainly not gaining you any ground in regards to the deniers use of industry spin in nearly all of there arguments
at least this one is remotely accurate
as apposed to this next


just for the record
you are deluded
I never said anything about taxes other than in a sarcastic post some time ago and that was in a negative light
if you have some burning need to hear my position on this issue
here it is
I do not believe that a carbon credit system will do anything but bilk more money from an already burdened public
and I have not previously stated this position

again you are deluded
at no point did I make statements regarding social engineering and have made efforts to not only keep the climate change thread to the climate change thread but also to keep the thread on track with only the rare break from the topic at hand. Obviously you have an agenda when you attempt to label 150 years of scientific research as anything but that
scientific research

climate change is science pure and simple

I notice no one had the courage to mention that the faith based phony institute that produced that list of ( some dead ) so called scientists ( anyone with a degree of any kind ) was synonymous with that all aggravating factoid 97% of scientists who did find merit in the theory of rapid climate change

once again
ignoring a soundly debunked source of spin
and admitting nothing
just moving on to another failed attempt to quell the science

I must admit
I to am endlessly entertained by the mass paranoia exhibited by the deniers camp
yup I said it
I see signs of paranoia in a people who when presented with overwhelming evidence continually revert to the argument
"its a government plot"
when the science is a solid 150 years in the making and we have accurate predictions based on the theory

 

Jim we went over the gas laws earlier
go read up on it please

your insistence on some prediction of tropospheric warming is classic as I mentioned just a post or two ago

your review of Bear Lambert is pedestrian at best
and your attack on the IPCC models is shallow in the face of so much raw data concluding that warming and co2 have gone hand in hand

I notice in response to all the data concerning temp you claim the stations were all placed on top of heating ducts
in response to all the data concerning ice melt you cry foul about the satellite data drift and ignore all the other date sets confirming this finding
in responce to all the data concerning glacial retreat you say so what its always been shrinking and advancing although at present what 90+% of all glaciers measured are in rapid retreat and have been for at least the last 30 years or so
sounds like warming to me pall
funny thing is the sun is in a period of less intensity
so
shouldnt we be cooling instead of so obviously warming
face it Jim
things are getting hotter when they should be getting cooler
and the only viable reason is an alteration in the atmospheric chemistry
and guess who is responsible for that
people

 

Just a point...

Raw data concludes nothing! Data is just that data, using it you build models and draw conclusions and they can be incorrect if the data, god forbid, is misinterpreted.

Then you can always end up constructing a model to explain the data and end up missing the point completely, all the while being supported by the data. I fear that the data is being used more as a crutch than a search light here!

Only "viable" why, because you say it is? Call me a skeptic but we are a long way from proof... but don't worry China and India are not listening to a word of this argument and are ploughing ahead regardless. They should pump enough crap into the air to prove or disprove any theory! Why we can build a case for the west to close down all CO2 emissions and not feel we have the right to seriously pressure the emerging world I don't know. In a decade we can save all we want and it will not make any difference at all if Asia is not on board.

 

thats why theories are called on to make predictions
which the theory of global climate change has done admirably
to show that the data has been assembled in a viable manor encompassing known science incorperating the majority of data and lending evidence to its credibility by virtue of prediction

once again science seldom provides "proof" it mainly deals with preponderance of evidence a consensus of opinion and the ever important prediction test of any good theory.

that last bit quoted above is the political **** I try and avoid
I prefer to remain on the scientific fence regarding this one
I dont really think anyone is going to be able to illicit change fast enough to make any difference on co2
but that said Ild love to be able to scream "what did I tell you eh *******" at one of you deniers just a second or two before the planet bursts into flames

I ovoid the political agendas of the climate change political sharks
it is they and industry who has contaminated a perfectly good scientific theory with just enough BS to prevent meaningful change

 

Deniers? Always sounds like the Spanish Inquisition to me, like some how a proven truth is being denied, not a reasoned debate is being had! I love the way the high ground is assumed on this one! So much has been pumped out there on this and much of it has been proven wrong, sayings about **** and walls come to mind, always the language shifts and the argument shifts and still it completely misses the point that it is actually an irrelevant debate while we ignore the bigger issues. You can trust a two scientists to argue about why a ship is sinking all the while doing nothing practical about the fact that it will happen anyway!

If you could cut CO2 emissions by 90% tomorrow do you actually think it will alter the outcome given what you understand about exponential growth and what it means for human life on this planet?

Cut the crap, face the real issue and lets get on with a solution.

 

Boston you goofball!

The IPCC uses Beer-Lambert just as I've said they do. As 'pedestrian' as it is, they seem to be OK with it. That's how they get the 1.7 Watts/M^2 radiative budget attributable to atmospheric CO2. They make no mention of your hero's blogosphere fable. That's not where they get their scary warming scenarios at all! They get these from an assumption of a strongly positive feedback with water vapor.

'Michael Mann's Virgin Stratosphere' postulate is just a red herring that he concocted in order to quell dissenters. It has no scientific merit and directly contradicts observed data. Not one single paper has been published in support of it; it really just exists as a page from his blog, realclimate.org. It contradicts admissions by the 'mainstream' warmer camp who admit that the stratosphere is cooling, not warming.

So was Mann's 'Virgin Stratosphere' just a contingency plan, a hedged bet? If there was actual warming there, they could say it was from all the extra CO2, even though model predictions said the 'hot spot' would be located several miles closer to the surface. But if the 'MMVS' is bogus, then Beer-Lambert rules, making the entire AGW alarm scenarios totally implausible.

Even if the alleged water vapor feedback existed (and it does not exist), with this red herring dispatched then we are experiencing all the warming that we will ever get from CO2; doubling, tripling or whatever will have almost no effect on global climate.

Once again (third time, but hey who's counting ), you have proven yourself ignorant of the mechanisms that your own camp is saying are responsible for the specter of catastrophic climate change. I'm the one who schooled you in what the warmers are really saying, because you did not bother to find out on your own.

Let's review Boston's errors in thinking according to AGW orthodoxy:

• CO2 by itself is an important greenhouse gas
  (warmers admit that ALL CO2 is responsible for only 1.7 Watts M^2 of the radiative budget which is 1.7/240= .00708 or .7% which is decidedly NOT important)
  
  
• The climate exhibits a stable equilibrium state, dominated by negative feedbacks
  (This is true, but it's not what warmers are arguing; Hansen and others argue that the climate is an unstable equilibrium)
  
  
• Scary warming scenarios can be cobbled together with only the trace gases like CO2 and CH4
  (Warmer scientists admit that scary scenarios come only from positive feedback coupling between these trace gases and water vapor)

Jimbo

 

I

given the life span of 200 or so years of co2 in the atmosphere the answer is no
I dont think there is jack we can do at this point to stop what is obviously a deviation from the norm its already happened and continues to get worse by the day
what I would propose is that we try to limit the damage we do from here on out
Im not much on giving up as you may have guessed
I help out bouncing at some of the clubs I hang out at on weekends and I can assure you
its not the size of the dog in the fight
its the size of the fight in the dog
I say we fight even the inevitable to the bitter end
giving up is not an option

thats kinda the funny part
the debate at least among scientists is over
there is no viable alternative argument
there is no coherent alternative theory
and there is no consensus among deniers as to whats exactly is wrong with the present theory
you want to talk about arguing I heard the not NIPCC meeting broke down into chaos with people storming out and others refusing to speak behind others of whom they disagree. None of them actually developing a unity of sorts with any comprehensive scientific work.
there is a small group of scientist who's work was tossed as the highs or the lows of data anomaly and thats about it
there is no viable debate to be had

what there is is a huge industry effort to delay the inevitable, alternative fuels that would force them to retool.

its the industry funded spin that is fueling this fire
not any kind of lack of consensus among scientists

I live in the midst of a whole pile of universities and I see and talk to these researchers and there colleagues almost daily, just last week I stayed as a guest for several days in a home owned by one of phd professors of chemistry as csu. I work ( sorta ) in an scientific community of mostly PHD's and research scientists ( just got a grant for my expenses and am hoping to get on permanently ) My last room mate was a professional student with several PHD's and he lived off grant money, and no he seldom did what he was supposed to do with it and wrote whatever he felt like with no concern or interest in the political positions of the fund holder. I just realized Ild have to go look it up if I even cared to know who exactly gave me the grant.

its not some big ugly conspiracy
climate change is real and its far more likely than not to be caused by fossil co2
far more likely
the easy way out is to look at the consensus
in this case 97% to 3%
pretty dam convincing in that world you spoke of were scientists are typically all on there own fence

no I dont think there is much hope for it
but that doesnt mean you just give up
or at least I wont be
I say fight every screw up that can be identified and fix it
fast
cause we are running out of time
that whole exponential thing you mentioned

and ya
we are bound to loose a lot of people
ever read the Drezden codex
that whole Mayan thing 2012 and all that
looks like they may have nailed it again

 

Jim we have been over all of that before
you are misrepresenting and filling in with half truths again
not sure who's benefit that last was for but once again I am not going to go over this whole thread again
we covered what percentage of the greenhouse gasses co2 is
we covered feed backs and it was you who had to be grilled before you even realized what a feedback was
we covered the "fact" that 50 or so years ago rapid climate change made predictions concerning were warming would occur most dramatically and by how much more than the average
your still clinging to your tropical troposphere bs and obviously have some memory loss probably associated with an all meet diet
so Im going to let that one slide

I also am going to agree with Guillo as you call him
this whole thing is endlessly entertaining
were in the world do you guys come up with this crap
oh wait
it was already discussed and shown to be the industry spin pages

Im writing all this with a big grin going cause the worming and squirming is just priceless
I remember it was virtually the first thing I noticed when I started writing on this thread

someone a while back suggested you guys work of a list of bs you found somewhere or something cause its the same old tired arguments coming up all the time. Cant you please come up with something that at least requires rubbing a few brain cells together.

I do sincerely say thanks cause today I could have done a few things but instead I sat down and laughed at nearly every post
thanks guys
was a great pick me up

best
B

 

Even if that was correct, that by default means that the pro argument is correct? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Those who are saying it ain't so are saying that the case has not been proven, therefore it is what it is ---> nothing to prove! Its the the pro camp that are proffering the theories and are in need of proof. They would have the world turning inside out to try an attain a politically unachievable goal on a time line that renders the attempt useless anyway! Current oil flows will be around 50% of today's flows on current decline rates in around 5 years. That is stunning and far out strips any CO2 reduction targets, that problem will solve itself before you can prove its the issue... therefore the issue becomes how do we survive such a rapid and what will be stressful transition that we are not prepared for! Stop arguing about the ship sinking, that debate is the one that is over, it is what it is, we now need to focus on the more immediate problem of replacement. The market will soon drive prices high again and if we can keep government from fecking the process up the market will deliver answers. Do you realise that your evil oil companies that supposedly fund this climate change denying science are among the leading investors in alternates. They see themselves as energy companies and believe me when they see an viable alternate they will move to exploit it. The only demon oil companies are the NOC's, and surprise, surprise we have government running market breaking political agendas here! Anyway there is an energy crisis dead ahead thanks to our insane political systems and this diversionary BS.

 

thats why we call you guys deniers
cuase you ignore all teaching and blither on while making the same old mistakes

proof
is an absolute
science seldom deals with absolutes
its all about what is most likely to be true and what is less likely to be true
the simplest thing Ive tried to explain here yet
and you still dont get it

I do however hope you are right on the money when it comes to oil availability in the near future
the difficulties Detroit faces today I hope will lead to a disassociation between the oil and gas giants and the automobile industry
one leading to the advent of a viable electric vehicle

 

Don't be so condescending ---> I get it but you need to get this ! Even if you are right its irrelevant, so why waste time on it --> solve the energy issue and you solve the climate issue. Strangle the economy in the name of the climate issue and you solve nothing! I'm afraid that your the one that don't get it! Science is wanking on about the ship sinking and arguing the cause while all we really need is something else that floats. Divert the effort to something positive that will help regardless of which side of this stinking pile of political BS is right.

 

P.S.

Once an economically wounded population starts to understand what "cap in trade" etc means to them, I'd not be yelling the green message to loudly! They are going to turn on you and nail the greenies to the wall, at this point the greens don't realise how much damage they have done by over claiming and over playing their hand. It will not be fair but mobs rarely are, it will be a savage backlash that will set the movement back further than if it trod a smarter path in the first place. Sadly you can see this one coming.

 

actually its not science thats doing the arguing
the science is in
debates over
there is an extremely high likely hood that petroleum based co2 has significantly altered the atmospheric chemistry with a net result of there being an alteration in the climate norm

debates over
has been for a while
thats why Im laughing so hard and having such a great time while a few late comers jump up and down that they missed the boat on this one
they got one cheer leader and its industry that is guarding its profits

the political bs is what came in after the science was decided not before
thing is the politicians didnt like the science so they formed a few comity's, finally ending up in the IPCC which as fate would have it "didnt" follow there funding and concluded that the theory of rapid global climate change is most likely to be true with additional research confirming there original report

thats another reason its so funny to hear deniers claiming that the IPCC is just saying what it is cause thats what there funders wanted em to. Its exactly not what there founders wanted em to say. Reorge the idiot Bush hated the idea of actually taking action to slow the damage done by so much co2 in the atmosphere. Clinton wasnt exactly to high on the idea either.

then industry grabbed up the same fools who defended the tobacco clowns and began a serious campaign to confuse the science. Just look at all the deniers pages. My god man its a free for all of bs out there, hell its a free for all of bs in here.
the science is in
the debate is long over
and the class has taken the test and 97 out of 100 or em were most likely to have it right
yet the worming and squirming goes on indefinitely while oil and gas industry laughs its way to the bank

your right we should all just admit that the science was in nearly 50 years ago when it was able to make solid predictions as to what and where the effects of co2 would be in the atmosphere and move on

its that moving on part that has the fucktard politicians hopping stupid over what changes to make
so rather than make any and alter there self aggrandizing status quo they pretend there is still more research that needs doing

you want to move on to an overpopulation thread Ild be happy to lend my two cents but this ones about climate change mate
so its what we do over here
myself and a few phd's have come in from time to time and made efforts to explain as best we can the theory and why it has been so widely accepted
then there are the deniers
ya cant tell or teach em anything
they blatantly refuse even the simplest most well established aspects of science
and they go round and round with the same old tired arguments basically proving that they just fail to comprehend the rebuttals to those arguments which the vast majority of scientists were able to conclude in most cases years and years ago.
its one of the funniest things I have ever had the pleasure to be involved in,
I swear my face hurts from grinning sometime at the bizarre responses and ridiculous assertions