60
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 07:52 am
@okie,
Quote:
Your logic and reasoning is silly, parados.

I suppose it would be if we completely ignore everything you posted.


Quote:
First of all, inaccurate data that might be a fraction of a degree off is indeed useless to calculating world climate data,
Actually, data that is off by a fraction would have less impact the more data you include in the average. But I suppose math is illogical for you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 07:55 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
You used data you said is inaccurate.
Is the data accurate or not ? Answer the question.

It's immaterial to the current discussion and is only an attempt at a red herring on your part. I have told you that already and you continue to try to change the topic. Perhaps we should discuss why you won't tell us how far your head is up you butt.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:44 am
@parados,
Quote:
Quote:
Is the data accurate or not ? Answer the question.
It's immaterial to the current discussion
????? I think I see where you Global Warming Thuggees go wrong.

Quote:
Perhaps we should discuss why you won't tell us how far your head is up you butt.
If we let you dickheads measure it, it could have a tolerance anywhere from an inch to a mile in either direction. Accuracy is immaterial, right ?

Answer the bloody question...is the data accurate or not ? It is a simple question, dickless.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 07:59 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Thats one impressive photo, isnt it ? But you do know the standard argument for why the sun cant be warming our planet....look at all the planets and how they get colder the further out you go.....hmmm...on second thought...

The energies released by such solar events are calculable but almost beyond comprehension by comparison to anything we can produce on earth. I looked around the NASA and related sites and found estimates for energy release by X-flares (like the one on February 15): about 10^26 joules.

A one-megaton nuclear weapon releases approximately 4×10^15 joules. If I got the calculations right, the largest X-flares release 25 billion megatons of energy, or 25 petatons. This a picture of the same event in ultraviolet http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/potw.php?v=item&id=42
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/gallery/assets/preview/X2_C2_combo.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 11:20 am
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CO2 Density Trend 1958-2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists 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:


410
Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy -- Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board, recently dissented from man-made climate change fears. “It seems fair to believe that this new model (from the UK’s Climate Research Unit) assumes that if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase, temperatures will go up. Since some of us know this is wrong, it seems quite likely that the 2008 forecast will be as badly wrong as the 2007 one was. What will the media do then? Maybe if the Northwest Passage does not open up this summer, as seems quite likely, people may start to realize that AGW (Anthropogenic Global warming) is a myth,” Cripwell wrote to CCNET on January 8, 2008. In a note to CCNET on April 7, 2006, Cripwell explained, “I am reminded of a quite well-known commercial in North America from Wendy’s, ‘Where’s the beef?’ When it comes to the [UN] IPCC claim that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, where’s the science?” Cripwell continued, “Throughout the discussion of doubling the concentration of CO2, there is absolutely no reference to the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over which the increased amount of radiative forcing is supposed to increase linearly when the concentration of CO2 doubles. Presumably if you halved the concentration of CO2, you would decrease the radiative forcing by some linear amount. If you go on halving the CO2 concentration, then as the concentration of CO2 approached zero, it would appear that the CO2 was rapidly cooling the earth!! Clearly any claim that the doubling of the CO2 concentration results in a linear increase in the level of radiative forcing can have no credibility unless the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, over which the relationship is claimed to exist, is clearly established from sound scientific principles.” Cripwell concluded, “If there is no scientific basis for the claim that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing linearly, then any claim to put a numerical value on this increase has no basis in science. Such a number, e.g. 4 Wm-2, is irrelevant and meaningless. I am reminded of a discussion I had many years ago on the differences between astronomy and astrology. Both use the same data of the relative positions and motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; both have long complex calculations; both result in numerical answers. In the case of astronomy, the numbers have a scientific meaning; in the case of astrology, they do not. It seems to me that this claim of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a linear addition to the radiative forcing is more akin to astrology than it is to astronomy.” (LINK) In another interview in 2005, Cripwell said, "Whatever is causing warming, it is not an increase in levels of carbon dioxide. A more plausible theory is that it is water put into high altitudes by aircraft; this would have roughly the same time line,” Cripwell said. (LINK)


parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 12:40 pm
@ican711nm,
And I guess there hasn't been cooling in the last decade, eh ican?
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 07:27 pm
A cut and paste of a email I recieved in Australia... that I agree with.


On 03/03/2011 12:37 PM Warren Hurt wrote:

I am a skeptic (a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual) and as such I am skeptical about the reasons behind a carbon tax.
The following is one way to understand the skepticism involved in Julia's carbon pollution reduction scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We'll have to walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 220 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the one kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just one more metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by mother nature.
Its natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.
I am not sure how important that amount of carbon dioxide is to the atmosphere but I am skeptical that it is the cause of global warming.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:04 pm
ican's sceptical scientist said:
Quote:
it seems quite likely that the 2008 forecast will be as badly wrong as the 2007 one was. What will the media do then? Maybe if the Northwest Passage does not open up this summer, as seems quite likely, people may start to realize that AGW (Anthropogenic Global warming) is a myth,” Cripwell wrote to CCNET


You lost, Cripwell. You lose, ican. He made his prediction in 2007 and it was already dead by that summer. Better update your data, ican, and stop relying uncritically on Mike Morano, a paid flack for Sen.James Inhofe, who is a bought-and-paid- for subsidiary of the oil industry.

The Northwest Passage DID IN FACT OPEN UP in 2008, and not just to a specialized icebreaker, but to a much more fragile regular cargo freighter, in September 2008. Arctic ice continues to diminish, and thick multi-year ice in the ice pack continues to be replaced by thinner new ice which is much more prone to melting. The sceptics' arguments continue to founder on the hard rock of reality.

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:22 pm
tenderfoot, that analogy is completely bogus, just like most emails that people cut-and-paste.

The physics of the greenhouse effect has been known for the better part of a century. It's not controversial. It is the greenhouse effect that keeps the global average temperature 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise--that keeps water liquid and makes life as we know it possible.

Infrared radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth and reradiated upward at a different wavelength, which is absorbed by greenhouse gases and some of it is in turn reradiated back downward, which heats the atmosphere. Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to IR radiation both going and coming, so they have no effect on temperature. In other words, 989
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:42 pm
ur kilometer analogy are completely irrelevanttenderfoot, that analogy is completely bogus, just like most emails that people cut-and-paste.

The physics of the greenhouse effect has been known for the better part of a century. It's not controversial. It is the greenhouse effect that keeps the global average temperature 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise--that keeps water liquid and makes life as we know it possible.

Infrared radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth and reradiated upward at a different wavelength, which is absorbed by greenhouse gases and some of it is in turn reradiated back downward, which heats the atmosphere. Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to IR radiation both going and coming, so they have no effect on temperature. In other words, 989 METERS OF YOUR KILOMETER ANALOGY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE THEY HAVE NO EFFECT ON TEMP.

It's only 11 meters of your kilometer analogy that affect temp. The effect of the pre-industrial mix of water vapor, CO2, methane, NO2 and ozone and the other trace gases, raised global temp about 30 degrees C to about 12 degrees globally. About 2/3 of that raise is due to water vapor.

CO2 in interglacial periods like the one we're in now is subject to cycles and feedback processes which keep it around 280 ppm in the atmosphere. Carbon is part of a CYCLE, which keeps its proportion in the atmosphere relatively constant, until we start mucking about. Carbon leaves the atmosphere and is absorbed into the earth and the oceans and is reemitted to a level around 280ppm. Part of that CO2/carbon is sequestered as part of the feedback process, as vegetation is buried. That sequestration helps keep CO2 concentration in the atmosphere constat. Over millions of years, that sequestered carbon has been converted into fossil fuels--coal and petroleum, which are originally of biological origin. When we burn fossil fuels we rrelease that seuqstered carbon which was removed over millions of years back into the atmosphere in a short time, and feedback processes can't keep it in check--about half of the increase in CO2 is sequestered again in the oceans and the earth, but half is not.

So we in effect introduce new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere eac h year, and it's a fraction of the total,
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:42 pm
ur kilometer analogy are completely irrelevanttenderfoot, that analogy is completely bogus, just like most emails that people cut-and-paste.

The physics of the greenhouse effect has been known for the better part of a century. It's not controversial. It is the greenhouse effect that keeps the global average temperature 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise--that keeps water liquid and makes life as we know it possible.

Infrared radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth and reradiated upward at a different wavelength, which is absorbed by greenhouse gases and some of it is in turn reradiated back downward, which heats the atmosphere. Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to IR radiation both going and coming, so they have no effect on temperature. In other words, 989 METERS OF YOUR KILOMETER ANALOGY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE THEY HAVE NO EFFECT ON TEMP.

It's only 11 meters of your kilometer analogy that affect temp. The effect of the pre-industrial mix of water vapor, CO2, methane, NO2 and ozone and the other trace gases, raised global temp about 30 degrees C to about 12 degrees globally. About 2/3 of that raise is due to water vapor.

CO2 in interglacial periods like the one we're in now is subject to cycles and feedback processes which keep it around 280 ppm in the atmosphere. Carbon is part of a CYCLE, which keeps its proportion in the atmosphere relatively constant, until we start mucking about. Carbon leaves the atmosphere and is absorbed into the earth and the oceans and is reemitted to a level around 280ppm. Part of that CO2/carbon is sequestered as part of the feedback process, as vegetation is buried. That sequestration helps keep CO2 concentration in the atmosphere constat. Over millions of years, that sequestered carbon has been converted into fossil fuels--coal and petroleum, which are originally of biological origin. When we burn fossil fuels we rrelease that seuqstered carbon which was removed over millions of years back into the atmosphere in a short time, and feedback processes can't keep it in check--about half of the increase in CO2 is sequestered again in the oceans and the earth, but half is not.

So we in effect introduce new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere eac h year, and it's a fraction of the total,
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:47 pm
I HIT THE WRONG KEY WHEN I WAS WRITING THE PREVIOUS POSTS AND IT POSTED BEFORE IT WAS COMPLETE, IN TWO PARTS APPARENTLY. EX POST FACTO, PLEASE DISREGARD THE ABOVE POSTS. THE FOLLOWING IS THE COMPLETE ONE


Your kilometer analogy is completely irrelevant, tenderfoot, that analogy is completely bogus, just like most emails that people cut-and-paste.

The physics of the greenhouse effect has been known for the better part of a century. It's not controversial. It is the greenhouse effect that keeps the global average temperature 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise--that keeps water liquid and makes life as we know it possible.

Infrared radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth and reradiated upward at a different wavelength, which is absorbed by greenhouse gases and some of it is in turn reradiated back downward, which heats the atmosphere. Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to IR radiation both going and coming, so they have no effect on temperature. In other words, 989 METERS OF YOUR KILOMETER ANALOGY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE THEY HAVE NO EFFECT ON TEMP.

It's only 11 meters of your kilometer analogy that affect temp. The effect of the pre-industrial mix of water vapor, CO2, methane, NO2 and ozone and the other trace gases, raised global temp about 30 degrees C to about 12 degrees globally. About 2/3 of that raise is due to water vapor.

CO2 in interglacial periods like the one we're in now is subject to cycles and feedback processes which keep it around 280 ppm in the atmosphere. Carbon is part of a CYCLE, which keeps its proportion in the atmosphere relatively constant, until we start mucking about. Carbon leaves the atmosphere and is absorbed into the earth and the oceans and is reemitted to a level around 280ppm. Part of that CO2/carbon is sequestered as part of the feedback process, as vegetation is buried. That sequestration helps keep CO2 concentration in the atmosphere constat. Over millions of years, that sequestered carbon has been converted into fossil fuels--coal and petroleum, which are originally of biological origin. When we burn fossil fuels we rrelease that seuqstered carbon which was removed over millions of years back into the atmosphere in a short time, and feedback processes can't keep it in check--about half of the increase in CO2 is sequestered again in the oceans and the earth, but half is not.

So we in effect introduce new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere eac h year, and it's a fraction of the total, but we do it YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, and isotopic analysis shows that the increased CO2 is mostly anthropogenic--we'
re doing it. So of that 11 meters of your analogy, most of it has gone to keeping the earth livable for us over the last few hundred million years, at around 13 degrees. Increasing CO2, that last meter, is raising the temps above that level, and it's not linear--it's not 1/11 of the total 30 degree greeenhouse effect, but in fact more like 1/3 in total and most of the rise since pre-industrial levels.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 01:03 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are transparent to IR radiation both going and coming, so they have no effect on temperature.
Oh but they do....they have an effect on plant life especially in the oceans where most plants are.....plants absorb carbon but are also reflective themselves . Those gases also conduct and reflect heat not in the infrared .

Quote:
So of that 11 meters of your analogy, most of it has gone to keeping the earth livable for us over the last few hundred million years, at around 13 degrees. Increasing CO2, that last meter, is raising the temps above that level, and it's not linear--it's not 1/11 of the total 30 degree greenhouse effect, but in fact more like 1/3 in total and most of the rise since pre-industrial levels.
So how much is natural ? You are aware of how much the earth has naturally varied in temp, of course, arent you ? Would you rather a kilometer of ice over the northern hemisphere or large areas of Siberia and Canada opened for agriculture ?

Tell me how much the earth's temp will increase if man puts no more carbon into the atmosphere....or will it get colder into another glacial advance ? What will be the future temp, seeing you have a crystal ball.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 04:54 am
@tenderfoot,
tenderfoot wrote:

A cut and paste of a email I recieved in Australia... that I agree with.


On 03/03/2011 12:37 PM Warren Hurt wrote:

I am a skeptic (a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual) and as such I am skeptical about the reasons behind a carbon tax.
The following is one way to understand the skepticism involved in Julia's carbon pollution reduction scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We'll have to walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 220 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the one kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just one more metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by mother nature.
Its natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.
I am not sure how important that amount of carbon dioxide is to the atmosphere but I am skeptical that it is the cause of global warming.



I agree with this especially the last line.

My skepticism starts with politicians. Any time a politician is interested in a topic there is one of two things involved. Religion or money. Other than that they don't care. Since "global warming" has nothing to do with religion it is safe to go with money. The only reason they want to get everyone believing in global warming is so they can invent new ways to tax people on consuming goods. If they really didn't like people using plastics, outlaw them, but they won't do that instead they will just tax the use of plastics. This means they really don't care about the environment, they just want to generate more tax income. The same goes with this whole "carbon tax". They want people to feel guilty for polluting their environment so they will give money to alleviate their guilt. They will just pile it on more and more not realizing that they are hurting businesses and local industries where they will have to abandon producing products in the US, where Americans will lose jobs and go to another country where there is less regulation.

FACT: the earths climate has drastically changed often in the past, going from extremes of cold and warmer temperatures.

It is silly to believe that similar temperature changes won't continue to happen. The problem is we don't know where we actually sit on the earths climate changes. Are we still on a natural warming trend? We simply do not know. But global warming enthusiasts like to think they do know.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 05:57 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Your kilometer analogy is completely irrelevant, tenderfoot, that analogy is completely bogus,

It sounds about right if gasses are measured by volume. If they're measured by contribution to greenhouse effect the numbers work against your argument, not in favor - methane being the most obvious example - and "anthropogenic CO2" practically vanishes as a contributor. Please check the numbers yourself.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 08:08 am
@High Seas,
I guess arsenic can't kill you in small quantities if we rely on the kilometer analogy.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 05:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I guess arsenic can't kill you in small quantities if we rely on the kilometer analogy.
As usual your lack of knowledge gets you into all sorts of difficulties . Arsenic was used as a medicine in small doses, and for some illnesses it might still be a viable medicine in small doses .
parados
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 06:23 pm
@Ionus,
Lead and mercury were also used as medicines. It doesn't change the fact that small quantities of those substances when compared to total body weight can kill. It only points out even more the idiocy of the analogy.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 09:02 pm
@parados,
So exactly what amout of CO2 will "kill" our society ? And what should the temp be right now if there was no Global Warming ?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 04:35 pm
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif


Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
.
.
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

CO2 Density Trend 1958-2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png


It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period, 1910 to 2000, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased.

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased.

These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are likely to be the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/17/2019 at 05:05:39