Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

[Old Rocks]

The warming has subsided, but of the previous 13 years, 11 of them are the warmest recorded in the last 100 years? And the year that you fellows herald as so cold, was the eighth warmest on record. That was last year, 2008. This year looks to be among the top ten also, possibly among the top five. With an El Nino on the way, 2010 may exceed 1998 and 2005. That with the sun still in a quiescent phase. Now what does that do to your denial of warming?

.... and the back pedaling begins ...

OK. I made two solid predictions.

1. That this year, 2009, will rank in the top ten warmest on record.

2. That 2010 will also be very warm, and may exceed 1998 and 2005.

Now Navy and the rest of you are betting on cooling, in spite of the fact we have yet to see any.

 

[Old Rocks]

Both June and July had record ocean temperatures for the respective months. And the El Nino is just starting. Going to be a very interesting winter.

 

[code1211]

Until every scientist agrees what the cause is, it's still just a hoax and con, at least a majority of scientists (not counting only the peer pressured ones).

A majority of scientists does agree that CO2 emissions at least contribute to global warming. You won't find anyone outside the crackpot arena who says otherwise.

5% of the air is GHG. 4 or 5 % of GHG is Co2. 3% of CO2 enitted annually comes from anthorpogenic sources.

Do the math.

"At least contribute" can mean anything and in this case, almost nothing.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Until every scientist agrees what the cause is, it's still just a hoax and con, at least a majority of scientists (not counting only the peer pressured ones).

A majority of scientists does agree that CO2 emissions at least contribute to global warming. You won't find anyone outside the crackpot arena who says otherwise.

5% of the air is GHG. 4 or 5 % of GHG is Co2. 3% of CO2 enitted annually comes from anthorpogenic sources.

Do the math.

"At least contribute" can mean anything and in this case, almost nothing.

I'll grant that how much CO2 emissions contribute to climate change is open to question. That's not enough reason to dismiss them completely as you're so eager to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Until every scientist agrees what the cause is, it's still just a hoax and con, at least a majority of scientists (not counting only the peer pressured ones).

A majority of scientists does agree that CO2 emissions at least contribute to global warming. You won't find anyone outside the crackpot arena who says otherwise.

5% of the air is GHG. 4 or 5 % of GHG is Co2. 3% of CO2 enitted annually comes from anthorpogenic sources.

Do the math.

"At least contribute" can mean anything and in this case, almost nothing.

The math was done in 1896 by Svante Arnnhenius, as you well know.

One can find information on how the greenhouse effect works here;

Greenhouse: questions and answers

One might note that this little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere is enough to differance of 33 degrees, Celsius. Were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, the average temperature on the surface of the earth would be -18 degrees Celsius, instead of the present 15 degrees Celsius. That is what the physicists say.

 

[Old Rocks]

Centrism, here is where you can find the history of the investigation of the role of GHGs in our atmosphere. It is an American Institute of Physics site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[KittenKoder]

Until every scientist agrees what the cause is, it's still just a hoax and con, at least a majority of scientists (not counting only the peer pressured ones).

A majority of scientists does agree that CO2 emissions at least contribute to global warming. You won't find anyone outside the crackpot arena who says otherwise.

We exhale CO2 ... every animal does ... plants use CO2 in photosynthesis and produce O2 as a result ... so really, there are a lot more possibilities than just "man did it", which are ignored because they are put out by scientists who are not peer pressured to endorse specific products.

 

[Navy1960]

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

When we can all stop debating this marketing scheme to promote a narrow band of technologies that do nothing but enrich those that are actually in the Global Warming Business i.e. Carbon Trading companies G.E., etc. etc. etc. and the list is endless. Then we can all get back to the real work of protecting the environment along with focusing on this nations energy needs and do so in a manner that not only is respectful to the environment but also recognizes this nation(s) vast number of resources that are at this moment being untapped because of this side debate on man made global warming. You do realize that even if the cap and trade bill passes it will have ZERO impact on climate change, so in the end what does it accomplish other than enriching a limited number of companies and further putting this nation in a position where it cannot meet it's own energy needs when it has capability to do so. If this bill passes and this nation see's itself still sucking off OPEC in 15 years for it's energy it only has itself to blame for allowing this narrowly focused debate to cover limit our possibilites. I will end with this, science is at it's core the ability to question one's universe and ask the hard questions to seek answers to them. When people begin to make statements like "the science is settled" or "these scientists are crackpots" they fail to understand the base nature of science and seem to forget at one times those that advocated that the sun was the center of the galaxy, or the earth was round instead of flat were thought of as heretics and going against settled science.

 

[Old Rocks]

It would seem that most physicists feel that Gerlich's arguements are invalid.

arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph] 29 Feb 2008
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without
an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
PACS numbers: 92.60.Vb,05.90.+m
I. INTRODUCTION
The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately
respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the
standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more
detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion.
First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for
a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved.
Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved, including one presented
by Gerlich and Tscheuschner1, and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint.
A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature
constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

 

[KittenKoder]

Plain and simple, environuts want monopolies for their "special" corporations and want all competition for products destroyed, that's all they are pushing for.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now who should I trust, Gerhard, or MIT?


Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Link to full document (1084 kB PDF)
MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... how about look at all the evidence for once Rocks instead of supporting only one corporation ... you know ... instead of giving all the money to one or two people, spread the wealth for once.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Hmm ... how about look at all the evidence for once Rocks instead of supporting only one corporation ... you know ... instead of giving all the money to one or two people, spread the wealth for once.

Yeah. Damn those greedy polluters at MIT!

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... how about look at all the evidence for once Rocks instead of supporting only one corporation ... you know ... instead of giving all the money to one or two people, spread the wealth for once.

Yeah. Damn those greedy polluters at MIT!

Wow ... you are short sighted in matters.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Hmm ... how about look at all the evidence for once Rocks instead of supporting only one corporation ... you know ... instead of giving all the money to one or two people, spread the wealth for once.

Yeah. Damn those greedy polluters at MIT!

Wow ... you are short sighted in matters.

I knew what you meant, KK: the way you phrased it just sounded bizarre to me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cap and trade worked pretty well with sulphate and particulate emmissions.

We had a very quiet solar minimum, perhaps the quietest since the little ice age. And we had a strong and persistant La Nina at the same time. But both 2007 and 2008 were in the top ten warmest years on record.

If CO2 has nothing to do with the warming we are experiancing, then what is driving the warming we are experiancing right now? The sun, no, the TOI is down. So, if not GHGs, then what?

Now we are moving into a medium to strong El Nino. With low solar activity. Now, if 2009 and 2010 prove to be very warm, where is Gerlich's hypothesis? Falsified by reality.

The ten warmest years;

The 10 Warmest Years on Record By Rank
1. 1998
2. 2005
3. 2003
4. 2002
5. 2004
6. 2006
7. 2007
8. 2001
9. 1997
10. 2008
Statistically Speaking: 2008’s Place in Warmest Years Sweepstakes — The Green Grok

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah. Damn those greedy polluters at MIT!

Wow ... you are short sighted in matters.

I knew what you meant, KK: the way you phrased it just sounded bizarre to me.

Meh, I am not that good at putting my thoughts into words without a lot of analogy, poetry, etc.. English may be my primary language, but I still don't use it well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, sweet little kitty, here is an item from the other coast;

Caltech Joins National Global-Warming Teach-In - Caltech

Caltech Joins National Global-Warming Teach-In
PASADENA, Calif.--Did you know that it takes about the energy found in 1.4 liters of gasoline to make a cheese pizza? The energy cost of producing food is one focus the California Institute of Technology will take as it participates in a nationwide effort to engage schools in global-warming solutions.
On Wednesday and Thursday, January 30–31, Caltech will join more than 1,100 universities across the country for an unprecedented teach-in organized by Focus the Nation.

Focus the Nation is an initiative to draw attention to global warming through a teach-in that will engage faculty, students, staff, and community members. It is centered on what they consider to be the three most essential pillars needed for today's youth to embrace solutions to global warming: education, civic engagement, and leadership. Organizers chose the January date because it coincides with the beginning of the 2008 primary election season. They intend to stir a nonpartisan national discussion about confronting the challenge of climate stabilization.

Among the coordinators for Caltech's participation are graduate students Morgan Putnam and Asa Hopkins and undergraduate Aryan Safaie. Hopkins was inspired to host the event after hearing a speech by Focus the Nation project director Eban Goodstein at a campus sustainability conference at UC Santa Barbara last summer. Goodstein is an economics professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who took a two-year hiatus from teaching to champion this cause.

 

[KittenKoder]

Rocks ... you are still ignoring the big picture. Explain why it is that everything legislated to be "green" has bad consequences for us and the environment and puts all the money into the hands of so very few rich people.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rocks ... you are still ignoring the big picture. Explain why it is that everything legislated to be "green" has bad consequences for us and the environment and puts all the money into the hands of so very few rich people.

Kitten, the top one percent of the top one percent recieve 6% of the total before tax income in the US. The top one percent accounts for essentially 50 percent of all before income tax in the US. The other 50 percent is divided up between the remaining 99 percent of us.

What do you mean, putting all the money in the hands of the rich people? Mission accomplished.