The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

[Old Rocks]

What other option is there other than AGW?

We get our heat from the sun. No other real source. Given the albedo of the earth as a whole, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. Something in the atmosphere is retaining the heat that is reflected. That was established in the 1820's by Fourier.

Tyndall established that the GHGs in the atmosphere absorp and reradiate IR. That is the source of the additional heat needed to keep the earth in it's present state of warmth.

Now for the last 50 years we have had a pretty steady increase in heat in the oceans and the atmosphere. At the same time, we have had a minor decrease in the heat from the sun.

From about 1850 until present, we have increased the CO2 by 40%, the CH4 by 150%+, and added industrial GHGs that have no natural analog and are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2. The total aggregate is the equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

Seems pretty damned obvious where the additional heat is coming from.

 

[Si modo]

OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.

So, have these scientists demonstrated that man made CO2 is contributing to warming the Earth with any significance?

Let's see the science that demonstrates that.

To dumb down my request: You can piss in the ocean and it is a fact that you have added both volume and alkalinity to the ocean, but the significance of both the change in both of those properties is zilch.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really fucking dumb statement on your part, Sis.

And virtually all the physicists in the world disagree with you;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Talking about soiling science. You don't have to dumb down you request, the dumbing down is only something you need.

 

[Si modo]

OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.

So, have these scientists demonstrated that man made CO2 is contributing to warming the Earth with any significance?

Let's see the science that demonstrates that.

To dumb down my request: You can piss in the ocean and it is a fact that you have added both volume and alkalinity to the ocean, but the significance of both the change in both of those properties is zilch.

Really fucking dumb statement on your part, Sis.

And virtually all the physicists in the world disagree with you;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Talking about soiling science. You don't have to dumb down you request, the dumbing down is only something you need.

Damn, you didn't even understand my question.



And, posting about the existence of the 'greenhouse' effect does nothing to answer my question.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I understood your question. And the dishonesty behind you asking it. You apparently believe that an old milwright would not know anything about the measured effect of CO2 increases.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I understood your question.

....

Your 'answer' clearly indicates you did not.

.... And the dishonesty behind you asking it.

....

Somehow, I am not surprised that someone asking for science to support a hypothesis strikes you as dishonest.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

 

[Si modo]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

Of course I have no evidence that there is no science that supports the AGW hypothesis because, well, there is none.

That's rather obvious.

Or, do you expect folks to prove negatives?

 

[flacaltenn]

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?

They keep telling you, but you're too deaf to hear......


"German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated here), in which he said that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Mr. Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland."

I ask this not to be combative at this point, but as an honest question: Is that all you've got?

Is that single Frankensteined marriage of two sentences out of a much broader interview the entire reason that you dedicate your existence here to AGW denial?

For the record, you're doing a great disservice to the man you're quoting. The conversation was about the axiom between economic growth and the production of GHG's. Mr. Edenhofer is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an AGW denier...

More on Ottmar here: Rabett Run: Ottmar Edenhofer says it again

So, while you're happy to disregard the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, you see nothing wrong with disingenuously quoting a single snippet of an interview from a guy who isn't even a denier, and touting it as proof positive that the rest of the world is lying?

No, I'm not moved by that quote. It's intellectually dishonest and the man is not even 'on your side.' Honestly, is there anything else you would like me to look at?

Cuyo::

You're missing the point here. It's not whether the IPCC is on our side or the other side. It's not even about the facts or lack of proof for AGW theory. This quote is about "THE PURPOSE" of pushing AGW into the political arena and perhaps exaggerating the effects. All to achieve POLITICAL goals similiar to the class war we're now enjoying at home.

One can't ignore THAT motivation anymore than one could ignore sponsorship of anti-AGW propaganda by the energy corps... And CLEARLY that motivation to USE AGW as a means of global redistribution is quite virulent among the IPCC community. The entire proceedings of their last conference devolved into an attempt to define the methods and channels of redistribution. You can't ignore it. Just like you can't ignore motivation in a criminal trial..

 

[IanC]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

Of course I have no evidence that there is no science that supports the AGW hypothesis because, well, there is none.

That's rather obvious.

Or, do you expect folks to prove negatives?

actually there is lots of evidence that 'supports' AGW but none that proves it. it all boils down to what opinion you start with and then you accent the info that props it up and discount the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.

CO2 doesnt warm the earth directly by back radiation, it just slows the cooling in certain bands. throw a knapsack on a powered up piece of electrical equipment and it will heat up. same input of power different equilibrium temp. if it has an internal fan that reacts to change in temp the heat will be blown off, perhaps even lower than the original until the fan reacts again and turns off. the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

attributing the last 50 years of temperature gains to CO2 just because it is the easiest factor to measure and (sort of) understand is a bad joke.

 

[Si modo]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

Of course I have no evidence that there is no science that supports the AGW hypothesis because, well, there is none.

That's rather obvious.

Or, do you expect folks to prove negatives?

actually there is lots of evidence that 'supports' AGW but none that proves it. it all boils down to what opinion you start with and then you accent the info that props it up and discount the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.

CO2 doesnt warm the earth directly by back radiation, it just slows the cooling in certain bands. throw a knapsack on a powered up piece of electrical equipment and it will heat up. same input of power different equilibrium temp. if it has an internal fan that reacts to change in temp the heat will be blown off, perhaps even lower than the original until the fan reacts again and turns off. the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

attributing the last 50 years of temperature gains to CO2 just because it is the easiest factor to measure and (sort of) understand is a bad joke.

Just a technicality, nothing is proven in science - only hypotheses are supported. I have yet to see any science (peer-reviewed) that demonstrates - with and using science - that man-made CO2 is the cause of any warming. I've looked over quite a few papers on the subject.

That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have not seen it. I have asked for it from those who claim it, I've even had peer-reviewed papers presented in response to my requests, but they don't demonstrate anything of the sort.

I've been looking and asking for years now. Nothing. As you alluded, there is a good amount of correlation presented, but correlation is not causation.

That doesn't mean I am writing off the hypothesis. That would not be prudent nor conducive to the expansion of science and knowledge. When there is some that demonstrates the significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on any warming, I will be pleased to accept it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Quoted From IanC above::

the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

THAT --- is the very kernal of the skepticism on CO2 being the major contributor. To emphasize this overwhelming effect of the greatest GH gas (water vapor), you find that CO2 cycles from NATURAL sources just SWAMPS the man-made contributions. And the argument from the climate scientists is NOT that the VOLUME of man-caused CO2 is tremendous, but that it represents "a tipping point" in the CO2 cycle with forms of positive feedback that would ACCELERATE NATURAL CO2 release.

That weak AlGorean concept of a "tipping point" in a cycle of CO2 release/sequestration that's thousands of times larger than what man is contributing makes this less understandable to the lay person who believes it's the absolute volume of man is contributing that matters.

What is predicted by the absolute amount of man-made CO2 is not shocking. It's the extrapolations to this THEORETICAL tipping point that folks are skeptical about.

 

[westwall]

OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.

Ok, personal observations based on 47 years of observation all over the planet working in the Earth Sciences, everything you reference has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again, absent an asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruption (of which we are overdue BTW).


Your winter analogy fails in the Sierra Nevada. Your winter analogy fails in Northern Europe. Your winter analogy fails in South America for the most part. It fails in New Zealand, it fails in Australia. In other words it fails in most areas of the globe.

I thought your claim was the warming was global? Better get your facts straight.

 

[westwall]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

HOW TRUE! That's why there has been such a concerted effort to deny scientists with data that doesn't support the AGW fraud a voice. Denial of publication in peer review Journals, falsification of data, etc. etc. etc. boy you have NAILED those AGW proponents man.

 

[westwall]

LOL. When you have absolutely no evidence for your position, do you best to cast doubt on the other person's position. Works in criminal trials. Not so much where science is concerned.

Of course I have no evidence that there is no science that supports the AGW hypothesis because, well, there is none.

That's rather obvious.

Or, do you expect folks to prove negatives?

actually there is lots of evidence that 'supports' AGW but none that proves it. it all boils down to what opinion you start with and then you accent the info that props it up and discount the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.

CO2 doesnt warm the earth directly by back radiation, it just slows the cooling in certain bands. throw a knapsack on a powered up piece of electrical equipment and it will heat up. same input of power different equilibrium temp. if it has an internal fan that reacts to change in temp the heat will be blown off, perhaps even lower than the original until the fan reacts again and turns off. the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

attributing the last 50 years of temperature gains to CO2 just because it is the easiest factor to measure and (sort of) understand is a bad joke.

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

 

[asterism]

What other option is there other than AGW?

Natural feedback loops, solar activity, changes in the earth's orbit around the sun, GHGs other than CO2, water vapor, cloud and ice reflection impact, etc...

There is nothing unprecedented about the current warming trend (if it exists), before man ever had any measurable CO2 output palm trees grew in Michigan and ice sheets melted.

We get our heat from the sun. No other real source. Given the albedo of the earth as a whole, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. Something in the atmosphere is retaining the heat that is reflected. That was established in the 1820's by Fourier.

So you're saying something other than man prevented the oceans from freezing before?

Tyndall established that the GHGs in the atmosphere absorp and reradiate IR. That is the source of the additional heat needed to keep the earth in it's present state of warmth.

Now for the last 50 years we have had a pretty steady increase in heat in the oceans and the atmosphere. At the same time, we have had a minor decrease in the heat from the sun.

From about 1850 until present, we have increased the CO2 by 40%, the CH4 by 150%+, and added industrial GHGs that have no natural analog and are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2. The total aggregate is the equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

Seems pretty damned obvious where the additional heat is coming from.

Correlation does not mean causation. Without man (and those high CO2 and CH4 levels) somehow Michigan went from frozen solid to today's climate in 10,000 years. Before that, Michigan was warm enough for palm trees to grow.

Maybe the same factors that caused the heating before are causing it now (assuming it is getting warmer).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What other option is there other than AGW?

We get our heat from the sun. No other real source. Given the albedo of the earth as a whole, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. Something in the atmosphere is retaining the heat that is reflected. That was established in the 1820's by Fourier.

Tyndall established that the GHGs in the atmosphere absorp and reradiate IR. That is the source of the additional heat needed to keep the earth in it's present state of warmth.

Now for the last 50 years we have had a pretty steady increase in heat in the oceans and the atmosphere. At the same time, we have had a minor decrease in the heat from the sun.

From about 1850 until present, we have increased the CO2 by 40%, the CH4 by 150%+, and added industrial GHGs that have no natural analog and are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2. The total aggregate is the equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

Seems pretty damned obvious where the additional heat is coming from.

Did the GEICO Caveman melt that?

 

[asterism]

OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.

Ok, personal observations based on 47 years of observation all over the planet working in the Earth Sciences, everything you reference has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again, absent an asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruption (of which we are overdue BTW).


Your winter analogy fails in the Sierra Nevada. Your winter analogy fails in Northern Europe. Your winter analogy fails in South America for the most part. It fails in New Zealand, it fails in Australia. In other words it fails in most areas of the globe.

I thought your claim was the warming was global? Better get your facts straight.

It fails BIG TIME in Florida. The Florida Frost Line is moving south. In the 1800s citrus was grown in massive quantities in the areas around Jacksonville (they've even got "Orange Park," "Mandarin," and "Orange City" up there). Now it's just plain impossible to have a large operation due to colder winters and frost.

In the 1980s the town of "Frostproof" actually was. It's not anymore, it freezes there regularly now.

 

[asterism]

Of course I have no evidence that there is no science that supports the AGW hypothesis because, well, there is none.

That's rather obvious.

Or, do you expect folks to prove negatives?

actually there is lots of evidence that 'supports' AGW but none that proves it. it all boils down to what opinion you start with and then you accent the info that props it up and discount the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.

CO2 doesnt warm the earth directly by back radiation, it just slows the cooling in certain bands. throw a knapsack on a powered up piece of electrical equipment and it will heat up. same input of power different equilibrium temp. if it has an internal fan that reacts to change in temp the heat will be blown off, perhaps even lower than the original until the fan reacts again and turns off. the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

attributing the last 50 years of temperature gains to CO2 just because it is the easiest factor to measure and (sort of) understand is a bad joke.

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

 

[Si modo]

actually there is lots of evidence that 'supports' AGW but none that proves it. it all boils down to what opinion you start with and then you accent the info that props it up and discount the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.

CO2 doesnt warm the earth directly by back radiation, it just slows the cooling in certain bands. throw a knapsack on a powered up piece of electrical equipment and it will heat up. same input of power different equilibrium temp. if it has an internal fan that reacts to change in temp the heat will be blown off, perhaps even lower than the original until the fan reacts again and turns off. the earth has its own fan, the water cycle and clouds. disruptions in one part of the system (open system by the way) cause changes in other parts. even changes in the sun's output are compensated for. a few billion years ago the sun was considerably weaker yet earth temperatures have been remakable stable over looooooooong periods. the last few years has seen a lot of research into clouds and it is obvious that the trivial effect of manmade CO2 is overpowered in just the error bars of the hydrological cycle.

attributing the last 50 years of temperature gains to CO2 just because it is the easiest factor to measure and (sort of) understand is a bad joke.

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.