Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 11

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

It's Cletter O2, not Czero2. CO2, not C02.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Yes, sorry missed the "majority" part at the start! Doh!



No, to this part of his statement! So I stand by the "all time CO2 record" (We are talking about atmospheric CO2 here, aren't we?) part of my statement if we continue to burn Carbon deposits at ever increasing rates.

But really, we aren't adding any carbon to the Earth (Are we?), we are converting the existing deposits of carbon (i. e. carbon atoms in fossil fuels) through chemical reactions into gaseous CO2, and that the Earth's biosphere/oceans can not absorb this gaseous CO2 increase at an equal rate, thus the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And that fact (I believe) is what most concerns climate scientists.

That is all.

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

CO2 is a stand-in for a variety of greenhouse gases, some of which are (by volume) are up to 20 times stronger in trapping solar radiation (e.g. methane, much of which seems to come from cows and nature).

Of course the use of graphs to show dramatic increases in CO2 conveys one impression. However, note two particular points:

First, we are speaking of parts per million - that is the hair-pulling is over an increase of CO2 from .028% to .038%. The increase of 1/100th % suggests a balance so delicate that the tiniest change in volcanic activity over a short period alone would cause dramatic swings in global temperature. And given that humans only contribute between 3 and 6% of yearly CO2 this seems (on its face) dubious to ascribe it to humans.

Second, GCM's are as much an art as a science. Of the 12 or so major input factors only half are pretty well understood, and big factors such as volcanic output are mere guesses. So what it amounts to is filling in guesses for independent variables until you get the prediction you are seeking, autocorrelated against past data that has, BTW, been adjusted.

I am with Lindzen on this - yes the earth probably is warming, and more likely than not humans have made a significant but unknown contribution to this. The degree of contribution is not really known, nor is the future course of warming or its effect. I suspect real warming will be less than one-half of current conservative estimates...i.e. maybe 1/2 ti to two degrees over 100 years - not much and nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And we're still not contributing significantly to the total CO2 levels. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

But that's NOT what the article says!

It says "OK, so global warming is NOT bunk... but, so what?

I'm pretty sure this is a new tactic for Lindzen.

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

First, we are speaking of parts per million - that is the hair-pulling is over an increase of CO2 from .028% to .038%. The increase of 1/100th % suggests a balance so delicate that the tiniest change in volcanic activity over a short period alone would cause dramatic swings in global temperature.

Second, GCM's are as much an art as a science. Of the 12 or so major input factors only half are pretty well understood, and big factors such as volcanic output are mere guesses. So what it amounts to is filling in guesses for independent variables until you get the prediction you are seeking, autocorrelated against past data that has, BTW, been adjusted.

I am with Lindzen on this - yes the earth probably is warming, and more likely than not humans have made a significant but unknown contribution to this. The degree of contribution is not really known, nor is the future course of warming or its effect. I suspect real warming will be less than one-half of current conservative estimates...i.e. maybe 1/2 ti to two degrees over 100 years - not much and nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by franksargent

I don't dispute your first statement. The flux of human CO2 versus the natural flux is indeed a few percent.

Where I think we differ, is in the causes of past CO2 changes versus the current CO2 changes. Maybe I'm mistaken, and I need to read up on it some more!

Anyway, WRT past histories of CO2, my understanding is the Earth's orbital motions are one natural source of temperature changes, that these temperature changes lead to CO2 changes (lags), but that at some point CO2 feedback causes further temperature changes.

In terms of the recent changes in atmospheric CO2, everything I have read suggests that these are anthropogenic in origin, and not due to changes in Earth's orbital motions or other natural causes. So that now the CO2 increases occurring will act as a feedback mechanism that causes the temperature to increase in a lagged fashion.

So what was a driver in the past, is not the same as the current driver.

Past: Natural causes of temperature increase >> Lagged CO2 increase >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

Present: Anthropogenic emissions cause increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

If I'm totally off base in this please provide some bona fide links from peer reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least some links at RealClimate.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that all the GCM's support these CO2 temperature feedback effects.

That is all.

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

You are not mistaken. CO2 does cause a heat increase. However, to what degree this happens is unknown.

It isn't hugely significant, however, because we've had similar CO2 and heat spikes before. If CO2 causes large heat spikes, since heat spikes also cause CO2 spikes, the world would have ended up stuck in a position of extreme amounts of CO2 and extreme temperatures. Obviously, since we're all here today, this hasn't happened.

CO2 is important to look out for because, if the temperature does increase too much, atmospheric-CO2-reducing methods are a possibility in the future—it's a possible escape from global warming. But it alone cannot possible have caused current global warming.



Everything i have read indicates most scientists feel that it is at least partly anthropogenic in origin. However, I don't think a single scientist ever pointed out that it was ONLY anthropogenic in nature.



This is what I was trying to point out before. Current CO2 is almost entirely because of the Medieval Warm Period, with extra contributions from humans.

The same driver as in the past is driving this time, but now we have an extra turbocharger from humans that's giving it a bit of a boost.

However, we still don't how much temperature is increased due to CO2, and therefore if humans are or are not significant. More importantly, we don't know how much the temperature will increase on its own, which is of more concern to me at the moment. Finally, we don't really know exactly what the full effects of the warming will be.

A lot of people talk about how there's a "global warming conscensus," and there absolutely is: very few people deny temperature increases worldwide.

However, that doesn't mean that every global warming study is correct, and it doesn't mean that there aren't more questions than answers right now.



You're not off base at all, you're just a tad obsessed with placing a blame for global warming when most scientists are hoping to find a solution, or at least a more accurate idea of the effects, regardless of why it's happening

That said, you need to branch out a bit from RealClimate. It's very accurate, well-written, and I haven't found anything there that is flat out wrong; it's also really biased. It's the truth, and nothing but the truth, but it's not the whole truth.

For me, I cherry pick from both sides. ClimateAudit.org is also a very good site, although less well organized. If you see an argument that seems week, check it out on the other site, and see what they have to say. Between the two of them, you'll generally find what you want.

Originally Posted by franksargent

SDW we are talking past each other, or at least you are!

Total CO2 flux from humans IS currently a few percent. Duh!

Buildup of gaseous CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is not insignificant, it has already risen ~ 38% from pre-industrial levels.

See my previous post, the math is very simple, so that even you should be able to understand it!

Originally Posted by MaxParrish


Sorry, a single volcanic eruption that is measured in all of human history is but a very rough estimate specific to time and place. Volcanics vary in flow, content of eruption, dynamics (e.g. underwater), and gasses. Nice try...but another dog that don't hunt.

Pretty graph, again more trickster propoganda. Color the first graph to resemble ice, and the second to resemble greening would be equally valid.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

It is obvious that your graphs convey one impression (as I said) of dramatically increasing rates. However my point is also true...i.e. 2 X trival is still trivial. Unless CO2 is some hyper forcing agent, the conern seems to be misplaced.



Sorry, a single volcanic eruption that is measured in all of human history is but a very rough estimate specific to time and place. Volcanics vary in flow, content of eruption, dynamics (e.g. underwater), and gasses. Nice try...but another dog that don't hunt.

Pretty graph, again more trickster propoganda. Color the first graph to resemble ice, and the second to resemble greening would be equally valid.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And once again, while it may be 38% higher than immediately before the industrial revolution, it was far higher than that at various times in Earth history. You'll counter this, I'm sure, with "the rate of change." Problem is, we don't know what a normal rate of change looks like. Do we?

Originally Posted by lunocrat

There's money in junk!

[Source: Santiago Times, 3/19/07. El Tiempo, 4/7/07. Miami, Santiago]

April 9 (EIRNS)-- Fat Al issued a list of stringent demands to the Chileans who will be hosting him as keynote speaker at the May 11 "Global Warming and Climate Change: Now is the Time to Act," conference in Santiago. According to {The Santiago Times,} Gore's agent has already booked a room for him at a luxury hotel, under an assumed name, and wants it stocked with fruits and nuts (literally raisins and peanuts) plus mineral water. Is Al on a diet?

But Al's honorarium for speaking--$200,000--isn't exactly peanuts. This is what he's charging the companies sponsoring the conference--the daily {El Mercurio} (which helped orchestrate the bloody 1973 Pinochet coup); the Chilevision TV network owned by Sebastian Pinera, the right-wing multibillionaire who invited Gore to Chile, and is already campaigning to be Chile's next President; and the Oikos-Chile environmental NGO, also linked to the fascist Pinera. There are unconfirmed reports that the Canadian Barrick Gold, closely linked to Bush family interests, is another sponsor.

Gore says he'll only offer a few suggestions for "healthy changes" to his Chilean audience: using energy-saving light bulbs, reducing automobile use, more recycling, using less hot water, lowering the thermostat, proper tire pressure, and planting a tree. Fat Al also insists he'll track his trip's carbon emissions, and make a donation so it will be "carbon neutral." Reportedly, he'll only use hybrid vehicles while in Santiago. But some Chilean observers point out there's a discrepancy between what Gore preaches and the gigantic quantities of energy he consumes at his Tennessee mansion.

Originally Posted by franksargent

See my first CO2 plot, we already have 50 years of actual physical CO2 measurements, the curve is very well defined (and ever so slightly concave up), there is no magical climate driver that will suddenly "flatten" or "lower" that curve, short of us all completely stopping our energy usage, and don't ask me why, but somehow I don't see that happening.

And the current rate of change is unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, it is over an order of magnitude higher than the maximum CO2 rate of change coming out of the last ice age! And that most recent ice age warming maximum rate of change occurred during Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea levels rose 6 meters!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

OK, let's assume all of that as a given. So what do we do? Punt?

Originally Posted by addabox

This thread is a testament to that: one denialist after another solemnly putting forth another well worn "but ice cores" or "but water vapor" or "but the hockey stick" caveat, each of which is readily refuted, but in the aggregate are designed to give the impression of a host of "problems" with climate theory.

These distortions, lies and misunderstanding are used "whack-a-mole" style, wherein no matter how many times a given objection is put down, it will always pop up later, in discussions such as this, after a dozen other, equally specious objections have had their turn.

You claim to have once been a climate change believer, but, having reviewed the literature, came to believe that the issue has been overstated and misrepresented.

For my part, I look at the way the denialist program is conducted, constantly reinserting transparently contrived, ascientific gotchas back into the discourse with the apparently deliberate intent of simply muddying the waters enough to maintain the illusion of "controversy" and can't imagine how anyone with a bit of integrity or understanding of how science works could buy it.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Again I will ask:

If we assume global warming is being caused by humans to some degree and choose to do something about it, we might be able to make a change for the better if indeed it is true. If it is not true, what harm will come from less pollution?

Originally Posted by Frank777

People will die. That's the harm.

People died decades ago when the West arbitrarily started banning pesticides out of fear.
There were good reasons for us to do so in our countries, but the effect on some developing nations was severe.

People died when we decided the ozone layer required banning certain refrigerants.
Again, good reasons were behind the shift, but the lack of cheap refrigeration in parts of the Third World means medicines are scarce, food is contaminated and disease causes chaos and economic ruin.

As we debate whether Gore and his pals (and plenty of Republicans too) can rake in billions in the planetary shell game trading of "credits", we need to consider that once again we're going to go for the touchy-feely warmth of 'saving the planet' while millions of people - and one continent in particular - goes to hell in a handbasket.

So if we're willing to collectively pay billions to fix a problem that may not really exist, while assigning brothers and sisters across the globe to famine, disease and death, I say let the planet implode.

As Adama says, it's not enough to exist. We have to deserve to exist.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Again I will ask:

If we assume global warming is being caused by humans to some degree and choose to do something about it, we might be able to make a change for the better if indeed it is true. If it is not true, what harm will come from less pollution?

If we assume global warming is not caused by humans in any way we are fine unless we are wrong, in which case we get screwed in the long run while a few get rich now ("an increase in temps 100 years form now won't affect ME" syndrome).

Which way would you rather go? Which is the path of greater denial?

Well, some people want to get us educated on the matter:

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

Anybody remember SimEarth? It was fun, albeit ungodly slow. Wonder if they will ever bring it back?

Originally Posted by jamac

I got my Prius in 2004. It saves $ 14,000 per 70,000 miles over every other comparable car. I will hit 70k this year.
My solar panels have eliminated my electric bill and cost 14,000 after the CA rebate. This means my gas and maintenance savings have purchased my solar panels. In just 3 years my car has amortized my solar panels which will make my juice for the next 40 years at least. I am now making money by preventing CO2 emissions by the tons for many years to come (at least for the rest of my life).
CO2 prevention is GREAT business!!! But some politically motivated "it wasn't me" people think it's cool to waste their own money on antiquated technology as well as waste their breath on irrelevant discussions about global climate phenomenii that in their own words nobody really understands.
If you do what I did not only you can help eliminate CO2 but make substantial amount of money which you can use to pay scientist to say that you were right.

I no longer care who is right and who caused what, not buying into energy efficiency is idiocy.

Originally Posted by jamac

I got my Prius in 2004. It saves $ 14,000 per 70,000 miles over every other comparable car. I will hit 70k this year.
My solar panels have eliminated my electric bill and cost 14,000 after the CA rebate. This means my gas and maintenance savings have purchased my solar panels. In just 3 years my car has amortized my solar panels which will make my juice for the next 40 years at least. I am now making money by preventing CO2 emissions by the tons for many years to come (at least for the rest of my life).
CO2 prevention is GREAT business!!! But some politically motivated "it wasn't me" people think it's cool to waste their own money on antiquated technology as well as waste their breath on irrelevant discussions about global climate phenomenii that in their own words nobody really understands.
If you do what I did not only you can help eliminate CO2 but make substantial amount of money which you can use to pay scientist to say that you were right.

I no longer care who is right and who caused what, not buying into energy efficiency is idiocy.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So assuming your claim is true, your Prius saves you what...$1500 a year? I hate to tell you, but most hybrids cost $3000-6000 more than their non-hybroid counterparts. You have to drive the vehicle for at least 5 years to see any savings at all. The Toyota Highlander is a good example.

As for "idiocy," well what pray tell can I do as someone who now lives in an apartment? My hot water bill is divided amongst all residents, so I have almost no control of it. My electric bill is about the same every month no matter what I do. My Toyota Camry V6 gets almost the same mileage as my 4 cyl Camry did. What should I do? Install flourescant bulbs to feel good about myself? Not watch my TV as much?

And that's not even considering that there are real tradeoffs that have to be made to "go green." I don't like flourescant light. I hate the Prius. It's small and looks like a Go Kart. I can't fit stuff in it. In an accident, I'll take my Camry any day of the week, no matter what crash data you try and show me. I like my TV too.

It's great that you can feel fuzzy inside and save money. Good for you. But it's not for everyone...either financially or in terms of convenience.

Originally Posted by jamac

This is not about you, SDW2001bc. But you still have the right to show your ignorance.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

First, I don't see why you need to attack me. I took issue with what you said...I didn't call you names. Secondly, you MADE it about me and anyone who you said was an idiot for not doing you're doing. Thirdly, this is a message board. I'll participate in threads as much as I like. Your posts are not immune from criticism or being questioned. How dare I question your Prius!

Shit, you remind me of the South Park "Cloud of Smug" episode, where everyone is covered in hybrid "smug" and smells their own farts out of wine glasses.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Originally Posted by franksargent

There was an article on the web a few weeks ago about the Prius versus Hummer H3 life-cycle costs environmental footprint. So first off I don't know whether to believe it's conclusion or not; that the Hummer is more environmentally friendly then the Prius. If I can find the link again, I'll post it.

Anyway, the basic argument seemed to come down to the battery technologies environmental costs (mining and disposal) and transportation of the components used the manufacture said batteries.

Anyway, after what I considered were some rather dubious economic arguments, they said that the Hummer was more environmentally friendly!

They also concluded that currently the most cost effective transportation was an efficient ICE like like you know a Honda Civic.

Originally Posted by jamac

When I first got my Prius I made it a game to out accelerate Hummers at lights. I always enjoyed the thought that they just spent $ 5 in gas not be completely left in the dust by a Prius..

Originally Posted by Aquafire

Ermm...as they say....the shoe is on the other foot.

Allow me to remind you that the Mann hockey stick which is a central plank of so much of the IPCC's so called consensus science has been found to be utterly flawed.

“The NAS report concluded that the Mann et al study “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.” They find it plausible that “the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.” They note that confidence in the record decreases back in time, especially before A.D. 1600, in agreement with the original conclusions reached by the university researchers. The Academy panel also concluded: “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” says Bradley.

Furthermore, all the so called scientific proof you speak of makes sense only if you (like the IPCC) lie/distort/supress or ignore scientific facts or use selective data to maintain Global Warming hysteria.

If your intention is to discuss real science, then you might start by admitting that the IPCC is nothing more than a political pressure group that is only interesting in what it calls "Consensus Science" but which others call Pseudo or Junk Science.

Or is that a bit too hard for you to admit..?

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And the award for repetitive and unnecessary use of animated images goes to.....

Originally Posted by addabox

.....the same false and easily dismissed talking points keep coming up, over and over again, now matter how many times refuted. As in this case.

Originally Posted by addabox

. Yes, that's what you'll read on so called "skeptic" sites that generally can be traced back to oil industry money and PR. That's why they do it, so people like you can say things like that without the slightest idea of what that might mean.

Originally Posted by addabox

. But surely those egg headed academics are all in it together, cooking the books because they stand to reap huge profits from the notoriously lucrative funding and grant industries.

Originally Posted by addabox

. Unlike the dispassionate oil companies, who are largely unaffected by the debate but just want to make sure that we all understand how corrupt the "science industry" is, as a public service.

Originally Posted by addabox

. My intention is to talk to people who aren't in some kind of fugue state who long for "science" to be overthrown so we can get back to getting our information about how the world works from sturdy institutions like the church, the state, and global corporations.

Originally Posted by addabox

. Friend, we're so not in the same ballpark that the word "admit" doesn't even have any meaning. I find it akin to being confronted by a man on the street who demands I "admit" that the Masons are putting drugs in the money, and when I demur begins shouting that I'm one of them.