Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

When water is heated it holds less CO2. A well known fact which accounts for the increase in atmospheric CO2 when the oceans heated in the past.

But, that doesn't stop CO2 from absorbing IR. It only means in the past that CO2 wasn't the initial driver of temperature increases simply because there was no source of CO2 other than from heating the ocean. Once the oceans released CO2 the temperature continued to increase until some other variable caused cooling. Today we have a another source, human activity.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

1.) What evidence do you have to support this? Yes, there could be something but it isn't likely without evidence. The simple measurement of w/m^2 from the sun works to discount this.
2.) What evidence do you have that the amount of water vapor has changed? It might be possible but there is no evidence.
3.) The amount of energy from the sun is capable of being measured. Energy to temperature can be calculated. There are two ways to change temperature, increase energy in or decrease energy out. We can measure the energy from the sun. We can measure the temperature. The energy from the sun isn't enough to account for the temperature increase. That means there are 2 possible explanations.
1. The heat sink is getting warmer so less energy can flow. I don't believe space is getting warmer, do you?
2. The heat transfer coefficient is changing. We know the atmospheric composition is changing which would in turn change the heat transfer coefficient.

I don't know how you think one side has presented a stronger case when you constantly claim you "don't have a clue" about the science.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But would you say that somebody COULD and possibly even WOULD tweak a number here and there to produce a desired result if there was sufficient motivaton to do so? And can I conclude from your explanation that it would be very difficult for somebody just reviewing the methodology in a peer review to pick up on that tweak? And even if it was an inadvertent error?

If you read the scientific literature you would see that most disagreements are about just what you said can't be seen by reviewing the methodology.

A prime example is the discussion about the "hockey stick". The arguments were about minuscule amounts that accounted for very small changes when the corrections were finally made. Another example are the corrections for satellite orbit changes. Someone argues that the very small number isn't included and a discussion occurs before corrections are made.

For you to argue that no one would pick up on a tweak shows me you don't follow any of the science of climatology.

0 Replies

Fine Parados. Just keep on keeping on. But until you can show credible evidence from a reputable source that disputes my opinion with anything more than more opinion, my opinion is just as good as yours.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Did you not read any of the links I posted about the science of CO2 absorption?

Claiming it is "my opinion" may make you feel superior but it isn't looking at the science.

1 Reply

@parados,

I glanced at them. I noted the sources. I didn't see how they had a single thing to do with tweaking or presenting scientific data in a way to result in a desired conclusion.

I've read tons of stuff on CO2 absorption, ocean sinks, ice cores, greenhouse effect, etc. etc. etc. and I've read very convincing arguments for why increased CO2, especially manmade CO2, is the driving force behind global warming.

But I've also ready very convincing arguments for why it is not.

So far the arguments for why it is not have been more convincing to me.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But I've also ready very convincing arguments for why it is not.

So far the arguments for why it is not have been more convincing to me.

What other than CO2 trailing warming have you found convincing?

1 Reply

@parados,

Well you didn't want to hunt up all those links back over the years and neither do I. But I do find Tim Ball convincing. He writes in a way that I can understand and I have heard him speak and I find him credible. You obviously don't. So I don't see that there is anything to be gained by rehashing it all yet again. There's also a lot of names listed here that I also am familiar with and find credible: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Of course, the most credible people are always ones that don't do any research on a topic. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, you mention something that has always puzzled me. The global warmers take one parameter, CO2, and model it, as if it alone must be the most important climatic factor ever discovered it seems, meanwhile another of several parameters that has many times more effect upon climate than CO2 if you just consider greenhouse gases, water vapor, they know very little about in terms of concentrations, trends, and predictions, and apparently assume it stays constant, I don't really know because very little is publicized or apparently studied in its regard. I find this truly amazing, and revealing. For example, how many competent scientists would tackle a problem by devoting 99% of their time studying and modeling one of the least important factors affecting a problem?

And we are only talking about greenhouse gases here, not even considering the multitudes of other possible factors affecting climate.

2 Replies

@okie,

But Okie, the CO2 factor is the only one they can realistically control. By controlling CO2 emissions they can control most sources of practical energy, transportation, commerce, industry, construction, and umpteen other factors. That's why I am so passionate about not buying into a theory that more and more looks like a global socialization project to give a very few people an extraordinary amount of power.

It isn't conclusive that this is the motive, of course, but we should be darn sure before we hand over any of our freedoms, choices, opportunities, or quality of life.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Foxfyre, you mention something that has always puzzled me. The global warmers take one parameter, CO2, and model it, as if it alone must be the most important climatic factor ever discovered it seems, meanwhile another of several parameters that has many times more effect upon climate than CO2 if you just consider greenhouse gases, water vapor, they know very little about in terms of concentrations,

It puzzle me why Fox thinks that. It also puzzles me why you think that.
The model does NOT take CO2 as the only parameter. CO2 however is the only parameter that has increased by 30% in the last 50 years.

Are you seriously suggesting that no one is aware of the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere okie? Ignorance on your part is simply amazing.

Quote:

And we are only talking about greenhouse gases here, not even considering the multitudes of other possible factors affecting climate.

It looks to me like you are talking about how uninformed you are rather than about what science does and doesn't do.

2 Replies

@parados,

Really? Could you please refer me to a few of the many charts and graphs and other illustrations of 'models' that you have posted in defense of global warming that are not related to CO2?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The model does NOT take CO2 as the only parameter.

If you would care to reword your question based on what I said, I might be inclined to answer it.

Every model includes solar forcings. Even the IPCC report lists the solar forcings as one of the causes of the increase but the TSI increase can't account for all the increase in temperature.

1 Reply

@parados,

I take that as your admission that you generally do post charts and graphs that illustrate your opinion that manmade CO2 is the primary culprit in global warming and that has been your consistent position in this debate?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

How did you get that tortured statement out of what I said?

1 Reply

@parados,

I didn't intend to. You seemed to be making an argument that the models don't include just CO2 levels, but it seems to me that manmade CO2 has been your focus throughout this entire . So when you jumped on Okie for making a statement related essentially to the demonization of CO2, I simply asked if you had posted charts and graphs other than CO2 levels to support your arguments re global warming.

(I acknowledge that you've posted a whole lot of numbers trying to rebut Ican, but that is a different subject.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

GISS and HADCRUT3 are NOT Co2 numbers.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, what are you alleging about global warming?

1 Reply

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

241
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D'Aleo founded a new website and organization skeptical of man-made global warming fears called International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project at Icecap.us on April 9, 2007. D'Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist (CCM) and he was elected a Fellow and a councilor with the AMS. D'Aleo's new website states the affiliated scientists "believe that local problems with the station data and natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon." D'Aleo wrote on May 17, 2007, "When I started really looking at the data I saw the signatures of urbanization and local land use factor in global temperatures. I also saw that temperatures cycled over time and those cycles correlated far better with the cycles in the sun and ocean temperatures than with greenhouse gases, which would argue for a parallel increase not cyclical warming and cooling." "I have recently done extensive correlative studies that convince me that the sun and oceans are the real drivers and carbon dioxide is a bit player in the scheme of things. I also believe the cyclical warming has peaked as the factors are changing and a cooling has started or will soon do so, depending on what measure you use," he added. Other scientists affiliated with D'Aleo on his Icecap.us website include: Astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Deputy Director of Mount Wilson Observatory; Hurricane expert Dr. William Gray, Associate Professor head of the Tropical Research Project at Colorado State University; Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor of Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences; Marine Biologist Dr. Gary D. Sharp of the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; former radiochemist Alan Siddons, Florida State Climatologist Dr. James O'Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Climate scientist Dr. Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

This is what I also believe to be true about the major causes of global warming/cooling.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know