Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

Providing evidence that things other than human activity can affect climate does not prove that human activity does not affect climate.

Any more than proving that people die of cancer proves a person wasn't murdered.

There is plenty of research showing how human activity affects climate, over and above the yet unrefuted "greenhouse effect" theory. Until some one can demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature, the common idea of AGW stands. Until someone can show that massive deforestation, other land use change, contrails, black carbon, etc all have no effect on climate (particularly warming) then the wider theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (of which AGW is just a part) stands.

You can post all the research you like showing that solar activity causes warming/cooling. But it does not prove that research showing land use change also causes warming/cooling is wrong.

For a sceptical view on the subject, I suggest checking out Roger Pielke Sr

Of course, as well as warming, human activity is causing precipitation pattern changes, leading to increased risk of drought

Are humans responsible or not? Maybe it's easier to pretend we're not and hope it's all go away or the space aliens will save us?

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin

Errm, yeah, whatever.
...
I know you've been fisked as well, jdub. If you post inane rubbish, it can happen. It tends to pay to have some understanding of the science, sorry.

1st, inane rubbish is a non sequitur response to legitimate argument, such as "Errm, yeah, whatever."
2nd, you know nothing about me, or about "having been fisked," which is another ad-hominem, non-reponse.

If you had an understanding of any science, you wouldn't have to blindly quote your AGW gurus and could post cogent arguments in your own words (but, you don't have any of your own).

"The science," if you are halfway honest, is far from settled. Models and assumptions are easily manipulated, but citing factual data is open to independent confirmation or refutation.

And, critique of data can be accomplished without reference to the opponents or your perception of them.

Anything else betrays a lack of support or conviction.

jw

As well as a distinct lack of tact and common courtesy. I am not sure whom he is trying to convince, but by coming off as 'holier-than-thou' and producing little more than snide comments, I don't think he is generating alot of traction for his argument. Well said. Star for you.

Chrono

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I do have to wonder why you are still being allowed around here with the manner you respond to people with nothing more than insults. I have already gotten a couple of members sending me u2us about you responding to them with nothing more than insults, like you always do and have done for years. Anyone else would have been banned a long time ago.

Oh, I see. You want me banned, lol.

I respond with a lot more than insults. Indeed, I rarely even post explicit insults - think I've been botty-smacked once. The evidence is there for anyone to see for content. You might also take things like a comparison to 'creationist' as a slur, your perogative.

You still have nothing, muaddib. You had nothing 2 years ago, you had nothing when you were resurrected and swiftly rebanned, and you have have nothing now.

Sad really. I can see I have the crack ninja attack squad on me. Funny actually. Little old me worth all that effort?

reply to post by Essan


Heh, there's a pile on Essan! Run for your life, they'll want you banned as well.

I thought the funniest post was where Bill Gray was used, he accepts AGW, but just moderates with a magic trick.

Probably the only post that was actually relevant to the main topic issue. I actually don't mind Pielke Sr either, he skates close to the thin ice, but he's taken the place of Lindzen as my fave contrarian. Lindzen's just a denialist shill now.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BS. Wilson's research, as well as others which I linked in here show that the Sun's activity had been increasing after the 1940s and 1950s until at least 2002 as Wilson's research shows TSI had been still increasing in the 24 years he studied.

Well, his data just shows increases for the minima. So it's not overall TSI. But anyway, neither here nor there. Again, Willson is very open with the fact that even if we accept his data (which I don't for good reasons which we went over 2 years ago), the effect is negligible.

You see, there are other datasets that show something different. Then we are left to either cherrypick because we like the implications, or we actually look at the data and assess them on their merits.

I did that for you in this golden oldie:

Originally posted by melatonin
No, it doesn't.

You need to read closely.

It says 0.05% between minima. Important distinction. Plus, they are not representing the data in the same way anyway - one is their actual numbers, the other is a running mean which removes the natural 11 year cycle and extracts the trends (Lockwood & Frolich, 2007).

Furthermore, their data is a composite of various different satellite data, another study which used the same data, Frolich & Lean (1998, 2004; Frolich, 2006), finds no trend in the minima. They each use different methods of 'sewing' the data from the different satellites together. So, which is correct? If you check the greenwich sunspot comparison on the same page as their TSI data (bottom figure), then we can start to see which is likely correct.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The only way to know is to compare to other data...which also show no significant upward trend over the last few decades, and actually show a downward trend. Lockwood & Frolich contains more than just the direct TSI data, but also other measures which cross-validate. Thus, the sunspot data shows a similar downward trend (peak is approximately 1985, 5 yr divisions):

So does the solar flux data (same idea, peak at 1985'ish, 5 yr divisions):

Other measures show exactly the same thing, a downward trend in solar activity.

Even if we accept that the Willson data is reliable, you likely missed that they accept that it is unlikely to have contributed in an important way to current warming. They claim that if such a trend is maintained for decades, it would be though - which is true.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]

I guess the fact that the Sun had been emitting the largest sunspots starting from 1998 until about 2006 or so to you means the Sun's activity had decreased by then?.... Let me anwser in the manner you do....

Just one. I find that three makes people think I'm a tad unhinged. Same for exclamation marks.

And let's not mention the fact that I even posted the AA index from 1868 -2007 which shows, despite your continuing lies, that the Sun's magnetic activity had continue to increase until at least 2006 means to "melatonin" that the sun's activity, including TSI, had stopped increasing in the 1940s or 1950s...

Did it? I'm looking at a Lief Svalgaard article that suggests otherwise.

Page 5, figure 8.

www.leif.org...

aa Observations show increases up to about 1950/60. Then never reaches that level again up to at least data's end at 2000. Not sure about up to 2006. Leif's paper's good, it contains aa, am, and ap data. If you pick out the aa index data for me from all your chaff, I'll takes a look.

Peer Reviewed Scinetific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More

Your thread title is misleading, there's no refuting of AGW. Only examples of other causes for climate change.

By the way, I fell asleep during "An Inconvenient Truth", I despise Al Gore, and I'm on the fence when it comes to global warming so please don't stone me. I just think this thread doesn't live up to its promise.

Originally posted by Essan
Providing evidence that things other than human activity can affect climate does not prove that human activity does not affect climate.

Any more than proving that people die of cancer proves a person wasn't murdered.

There is plenty of research showing how human activity affects climate, over and above the yet unrefuted "greenhouse effect" theory. Until some one can demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature, the common idea of AGW stands. Until someone can show that massive deforestation, other land use change, contrails, black carbon, etc all have no effect on climate (particularly warming) then the wider theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (of which AGW is just a part) stands.

You can post all the research you like showing that solar activity causes warming/cooling. But it does not prove that research showing land use change also causes warming/cooling is wrong.

For a sceptical view on the subject, I suggest checking out Roger Pielke Sr

Of course, as well as warming, human activity is causing precipitation pattern changes, leading to increased risk of drought

Are humans responsible or not? Maybe it's easier to pretend we're not and hope it's all go away or the space aliens will save us?

Oh, yeah. After three pages of tripe you know when you hit a sweet spot.
So good you just have to have it again.
And there it is, because OP, you need to read that twice.

Melo, I don't know where you get your energy from, its obviously renewable, lol.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I do have to wonder why you are still being allowed around here with the manner you respond to people with nothing more than insults. I have already gotten a couple of members sending me u2us about you responding to them with nothing more than insults, like you always do and have done for years. Anyone else would have been banned a long time ago.

Oh, I see. You want me banned, lol.

I respond with a lot more than insults. Indeed, I rarely even post explicit insults - think I've been botty-smacked once. The evidence is there for anyone to see for content. You might also take things like a comparison to 'creationist' as a slur, your perogative.

You still have nothing, muaddib. You had nothing 2 years ago, you had nothing when you were resurrected and swiftly rebanned, and you have have nothing now.

Sad really. I can see I have the crack ninja attack squad on me. Funny actually. Little old me worth all that effort?

I looked up this thread in rage - seeing the original poster at it again, however was not able to see his posts, nor his original thread - was a bit confused then I realised this is the only member on ATS i have ever used the ignore button on.

I admire your persistence, however there are better battles.

The rest of the world simply doesn't even bother responding to this type of argument any more - it is without doubt one step below creationism.......

Moderators it is clearly trolling - there is not doubt about it and I think it is completely beyond the pale that electricuniverse can continue to simply bait and bait - never responing to anything except inane personal insults - you even tend to censure the person who has been insulted and antagonised - really is beyond the pale for what this website is MEANT to be all about -
You are losing the good people in droves and for pathetic trolls like electricuniverse - for your own websites success and the surfing pleasure of your users enough is enough.

Originally posted by audas
I admire your persistence, however there are better battles.

We have a long history, and I was very interested in the aim of the thread. It become obvious in time.

This is entirely relevant, as it shows potential purpose of the thread and conspiracy in its making and unfolding, lol. The thread was never what it said on the tin anyway.

First, we start with my old friend. He's recently been posting some volcano rubbish everywhere, I showed it for the obvious tripe it was. He didn't like that.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
I decided to post a compendium of peer-reviewed scientific research, at the request of a member, which refutes the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or, and gives evidence that there are other natural factors causing the ongoing Climate Change.

People like Melatonin, who are proponents of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hoax, claim that GCMs take in consideration all natural factors, when this is not true in the least, and I will post evidence to corroborate my statement instead of just making claims, and laugh it out.

So baits me at the start with a blatent misrepresentation, and also suggests that it was more than his idea. Then starts posting reams of inane claims which are all but completely unrelated to the main thread topic, I'm calling him out repeatedly with decent enough posts. Then very quickly, the first:

Posted by smack
Wow! I guess ElectricU was right.
I don't see any refutation here, only a lot of gainsay and ridicule. Typical fare for the true believers.

Only gainsay and ridicule. Obviously didn't read my posts. Then after Smack comes back with some random spout about his bogeymen...

Posted by ElectricUniverse
Let's actually stay away from insults, I am going to try and see what certain members do.

I'm sure.

I'm still actually giving decent direct responses in my normal playful style.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
But hey, that's how melatonin discuss topics, by insulting people, and denying all the evidence he is shown.

Not only that, but you present even more red herrings by making comments about other topics, which have nothing to do with this topic, and you make wild acusations trying to derail this thread....

Nice try..

Yes, that's right I apparently just deny stuff and insult people. Thread continues, more inane unrelated tripe, which I'm responding to.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
Yet again another example of melatonin trying to dismiss, degrade, and belittle "scientists" who know better than "melatonin" about this topic....

Give it up, your farce has been shown for what it is.

Again, focusing on trying to represent my posting style as an issue. All I said was that Willson had been caught trolling wikipedia, and the evidence suggests he has. Never dismissed him, degraded him, or belittled him. Indeed, in my response I raise the dude from "scientist" to scientist. Trolling wiki is a fine hobby.

So on we go, more inane tripe completely unrelated to the main claim of the thread. I'm responding and picking out the issues, and eventually note clearly 'are we there yet', as nothing had really been posted on the actual main claim. Indeed, EU actually posted something that accepted human activity having an influence on climate. Contradicting the main claim of the thread, lol.

Thread carries on:

Posted by jdub297
And, critique of data can be accomplished without reference to the opponents or your perception of them.

In a thread that's based on misrepresenting me from the very start. Oh, the horror. Then new user:

Posted by Curious and Concerned
I'm yet to see you provide anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. You have dismissed all the information as irrelevant, yet provide no relevant information yourself? I'm intrigued in the subject of global warming (well, climate change)...

Again, all I'm apparently posting is insults and attacks, yet I've been posting decent posts throughout the thread. He was so intrigued, he didn't even bother to read my posts, so I gave him some directions.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
The main purpose of this thread, as i said in the original post, was to put together as many links, with excerpts which refute the AGW claim, but like always melatonin has to stick his nose where it doesn't belong and starts insulting, making red-herrings and trying to derail the thread.

I made this thread because another member asked me for these links, and since they are too many for a u2u, I posted them here for everyone.

Yes, I've heard it a number of times now, all I do insult, post red-herrings (what? Like the thread?), and derail. Whilst I'm predominately on-topic and pointing out that the claim of the thread has not been met at any point.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
BS melatonin, there is no point arguing with you at all, your responses are always the same, you dismiss every evidence you don't want to admit to, and then claim, like you just did "nothing was posted to refute your claims"....

Yes, I dismiss everything by relating it to the main claim of the thread and showing its vacuity.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
BS, the claims of noone but yourself. Give it up Melatonin. You won't be able to have me banned again by laughing it off and calling in whoever your friendly staff member is.

Oh, OK. As if I'd even be bothered to. I'm not sure I really have a 'friendly staff member', I'm sure some don't mind me and others despise me - Ash is my ex-foeful friend, she doesn't know, though - shhhh! They are nice enough to throw me an applause now and again, but I don't really talk to any.

Posted by ElectricUniverse
I do have to wonder why you are still being allowed around here with the manner you respond to people with nothing more than insults. I have already gotten a couple of members sending me u2us about you responding to them with nothing more than insults, like you always do and have done for years. Anyone else would have been banned a long time ago.

Hmm, not working? Couple of members saying all I do is respond with insults, like always and forever, lol. Oh, I see, a number of people say all I do is post insults, yet I've been posting entirely relevant information in a thread that appears to have been baiting me and 'seeing what certain members do'

Apparently I should be banned. TPTB can if they want - the banstick, oh noes, lol.

Then Lance, I'll leave yours out, but same again. Trying to find insults were none exist, but at least focuses on my post as well. Which gets another decent answer. Just insults though, huh?

Posted by Chronogoblin
As well as a distinct lack of tact and common courtesy. I am not sure whom he is trying to convince, but by coming off as 'holier-than-thou' and producing little more than snide comments, I don't think he is generating alot of traction for his argument. Well said. Star for you.

Yeah, I'm a bitch. Completely untactful and rude. Anything about my actual arguments...no? Yeah, figures I'm getting used to it by now...

All I apparently post are insults and ad homs which are lacking in tact and are rude. I tend to think direct and playful, but in the main with substance. Oh well. I think at the minimum the signal to noise was rather more substantial than that post. Thanks for the posting tips.

And, finally, a few more rational people awake and can see through the smoke and mirrors of the thread topic and its poster's content. So a conspiracy to have me banned by baiting and misrepresenting my posts involving at least, apparently, a small number of users? The thread certainly wasn't what it was meant to be.

Cool, I like it. The fact that my presence and highly targeted direct arguments seems to bother these people makes me very happy - they really want me gone: gagged and removed. I'm sure others do as well. However, many lulz have been picked in this thread and it shall be remembered fondly.

So, audas, of course it looks like you are right about the thread generally. But I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

*gazes around for banstick*

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


"Scinetific","Anbthropogenic"? If you expect anyone to even read your post, let alone lend it any credibility - how about learning to spell first? For gods sake - its the title of your post.

Posts like this just make the entire ATS forum community look like retards, smarten up - or stop posting.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by melatonin

It does mean they are suffering from anti-science syndrome.

i've read that so many times in this thread, i'll have to adress it somehow. disagreement is not a syndrome, is it? f-ex. medical issues are far more controversial (first ban speed, then shove it down 25% of schoolchildren's throats under a different brand name and call it sound practice) and disagreement with such practice is imho a sign of sanity, not the other way around.

i think the early 20th century is reason enough to be weary of scientific autocracy. disagreement is healthy, not a disease.

You needed to be clearer here. I guess you mean CO2?

what else? apprently, that's the only thing which counts, 'cause last time i checked literally everything done in response to the AGW issue revolves only around fuel.

if CO2 was such deadly issue, people would look into sequestration (which iirc would be a commercially viable operation under Kyoto - not that i agree with it in any shape or form), but they don't which shows me they don't believe in its harmfulness.

you said half of these emissions are consumed or stored within the biosphere. do you expect consumption to increase with concentration?

i suggest a casual look at www.gepower.com...

The world was still here. Didn't melt.

We have enough carbon to do that and it looks like we are releasing it faster. However, it was probably CH4 for the PETM, which breaks down into CO2 and hangs around.

that's would be true if CO2 was the real and only cause. which is exactly the point of contention, isn't it?

There are. We switch to more sustainable forms of energy. Then we can use 'fuels' for making plastic bags and cheap pharmaceuticals, lol.

lol, tbh, and I'm generally very open with it

why don't they advertise it as such, then?

But why is wind-power ineffectual?

Seems to be doing well enough...

since it's mostly done on land: in short, wind power vs. total energy production now and wind power now vs. full potential. ie it will never be able to offer a substantial amount of energy, its peaks and valleys in production need to be compensated by other means. on the flip side, wind doesn't run out, which is a big plus.

Aye, so push for better options.

ok, you don't mind me pushing these posts here, do you?

They aren't, they try to speak for themselves, but then get gagged and whined at, attacked for doing their job, and even sacked in NZ for speaking out.

But I know many people incidentally dance for industry interests through ideology.

that's something which is imho hard to fathom, i mean doesn't firing someone for talking give the person extra credibility? noone's obliged to follow any advice anyway.

=============================

Originally posted by munkey66


So with all this extra CO2 being released as well as the constant clearing of land in places like the Amazon.
How come temperatures have remained static and not increased exponentially over the last decade?

that one's easy: there's always a time delay, maybe even several decades. problem solved, then, right? exponential increase was never predicted anyway.

[edit on 2009.5.1 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Essan


everything will have a certain influence, the question is how much. unfortunatley, you are lumping true environmental concerns together with the greenhouse gas based GW issue.

so, if you had to choose, would you rather reduce CO2 emissions or save the rainforest in Brazil? under the current paradigm, these two are competing goals.

reply to post by Long Lance


Burning rainforests produces an estimated 20% of annual anthropogenically produced CO2 - about 10 times that of the UK from all sources. So I guess the answer is easy

I think it's unfortunate that the media and politicians have chosen to emphasis the CO2 issue to the expense of other factors, but I also agree that cutting emissions will be a good thing even if it has no effect on climate. And the easiest way to do that is stop destroying rain forests. Though I think we also need to wean ourselves off oil as soon as we can.

If we have to tax people to discourage them from wasting fossil fuels, let's use that money to help 3rd world countries avoid chopping down any more trees And maybe if we did that, folk would be less scathing about such 'green' taxes?


[edit on 1-5-2009 by Essan]

Originally posted by Long Lance
i've read that so many times in this thread, i'll have to adress it somehow. disagreement is not a syndrome, is it? f-ex. medical issues are far more controversial (first ban speed, then shove it down 25% of schoolchildren's throats under a different brand name and call it sound practice) and disagreement with such practice is imho a sign of sanity, not the other way around.

Of course not! But it's not just about disagreement. The 'syndrome' is in the method!

DSM haven't classified it yet though, lol.

Think it was the only time I used it in this thread, lots of times elsewhere...

i think the early 20th century is reason enough to be weary of scientific autocracy. disagreement is healthy, not a disease.

Pseudoscepticism is not scepticism. There is a difference between denialism and honest disagreement. Saying that CO2 only accounts for 30% of warming rather than say 50% is a disagreement that could well be based on slightly different perspectives on the data, similarly, that climate sensitivity is 2'C rather than 4.5'C is disagreement and potentially readily supported by data. Saying that we might well have overestimated the influence of CO2 somewhat and underestimated some other variable, such as land use, is easily seen as different perspectives. Essan has a slightly different perspective than myself from what I see, but he's not gone all Ostrich-like. I like to listen to sceptics, Pielke's generally OK, Leif Svalgaard is another I like. Both have differing perspective without the wacky denialism. Although, Pielke does like to push the data a bit far at times.

Saying that AGW doesn't exist is not based in reality, and believing you have refuted it by posting completely unrelated and vacuous evidence is wishful-thinking.

It's not a disease yet. It would probably be personality disorder-like anyway. Completely resistent to anything science can throw at it, lol.

what else? apprently, that's the only thing which counts, 'cause last time i checked literally everything done in response to the AGW issue revolves only around fuel.

It's the biggest and most obvious problem. Reducing methane or CFC emissions isn't going to help much.

if CO2 was such deadly issue, people would look into sequestration (which iirc would be a commercially viable operation under Kyoto - not that i agree with it in any shape or form), but they don't which shows me they don't believe in its harmfulness.

I heard something about turning CO2 into methane t'other day. Harmful in what way? I wouldn't want to be in a room of 10,000ppm, and it's still a GHG. You can't wish that away. It's basic physics.

you said half of these emissions are consumed or stored within the biosphere. do you expect consumption to increase with concentration?

You mean will the biosphere carbon sink absorption mirror our emissions? Not likely. There's some evidence that the sinks are weakening, and as ocean temps warm, they hold less CO2.

i suggest a casual look at www.gepower.com...

So we pump emitted CO2 into greenhouses? Will they handle almost 30 billion tonnes per year?

I don't think that's what you I was meant to take from that, no?

that's would be true if CO2 was the real and only cause. which is exactly the point of contention, isn't it?

A real cause? As certain as anything can be. Only cause, nope.

The point is that if a few thousand GtC can result in such events, it does sort of suggest we might like to watch our emissions. It fits what we know about GHGs. They just do what they say they do - so, errmm, not like this thread, lol.

why don't they advertise it as such, then?

What? Sustainable or renewable energy?

Not too sure what you mean, sorry.

since it's mostly done on land: in short, wind power vs. total energy production now and wind power now vs. full potential. ie it will never be able to offer a substantial amount of energy, its peaks and valleys in production need to be compensated by other means. on the flip side, wind doesn't run out, which is a big plus.

So it's not really ineffectual, just not the sole answer?

ok, you don't mind me pushing these posts here, do you?

Heh, not my thread. You might have to put up with people accusing me of derailing the thread if you do, though.

that's something which is imho hard to fathom, i mean doesn't firing someone for talking give the person extra credibility? noone's obliged to follow any advice anyway.

It was a very senior researcher who headed a NZ government science institute. He said something about floods when he wasn't meant to.

NZ have headed down the path of Bush era tactics.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
By the way, I fell asleep during "An Inconvenient Truth", I despise Al Gore, and I'm on the fence when it comes to global warming so please don't stone me. I just think this thread doesn't live up to its promise.

Would it be more interesting or promising if one could show that Global Warming is not only a scam, but big business, as well as being ruled as a religion?

reply to post by Seekerof


Hate to take the thread OT, but in my experience it's the deniers who are religiously motivated - God said humans had dominion over the Earth so how can we possibly be doing anything that He has not ordained or is not part of His plan?

Do you really think burning down the Amazon rainforest has no consequence?

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
By the way, I fell asleep during "An Inconvenient Truth", I despise Al Gore, and I'm on the fence when it comes to global warming so please don't stone me. I just think this thread doesn't live up to its promise.

Would it be more interesting or promising if one could show that Global Warming is not only a scam, but big business, as well as being ruled as a religion?

That would be nice, but that article doesn't show it is a scam or a big business, it only shows that a judge ruled one person's belief system was akin to a religion. That's all folks. Still waiting for this promised "refuting".

Originally posted by Essan

Burning rainforests produces an estimated 20% of annual anthropogenically produced CO2 - about 10 times that of the UK from all sources. So I guess the answer is easy

..
And maybe if we did that, folk would be less scathing about such 'green' taxes?

yes it is, but that really isn't what we are seeing, is it?

======================================

Originally posted by melatonin

I heard something about turning CO2 into methane t'other day. Harmful in what way? I wouldn't want to be in a room of 10,000ppm, and it's still a GHG. You can't wish that away. It's basic physics.

1%? not nearly dangerous, 10% would be worrying, though. i'd expect to see 1% in crowded, badly ventilated rooms.

You mean will the biosphere carbon sink absorption mirror our emissions? Not likely. There's some evidence that the sinks are weakening, and as ocean temps warm, they hold less CO2.

So we pump emitted CO2 into greenhouses? Will they handle almost 30 billion tonnes per year?

I don't think that's what you I was meant to take from that, no?

no, i'd find it a bit complicated, what i meant is that plants tend to grow better with higher CO2 content, probably never enough to offset CO2 emissions, it's just what i'd perceive as a benefit.

A real cause? As certain as anything can be. Only cause, nope.

The point is that if a few thousand GtC can result in such events, it does sort of suggest we might like to watch our emissions.

if reducing CO2 emissions was an easy task without massive immediate downsides, we wouldn't be having this conversation, obviously. we'd simply say why not, it ain't gonna hurt.

the problem starts when you consider that there was a time when firewood, sun and wind was the only real source of energy, before the industrial revolution. entire forests were cut down and burnt to make glasswares. i'd very much prefer natgas in that application, because overall, it's by far more environmentally friendly, convenient and simply better overall, which i think is hard to deny, isn't it?


iow, effectively curbing fuel use to an extent outline under Kyoto would likely have more desastrous consequences for more people than even high estimates in terms of warming would have.

why don't they advertise it as such, then?

What? Sustainable or renewable energy?



bingo. oil will become cost prohibitive with time, coal is dirty and unwieldly, etc use less pay less, don't finance certain regimes... enough plus points in my book, at least enough to convinve many people. thinking of it, when CO2 is adressed directly they get shy and defensive, so they really don't seem too concerned about it, so i even expect coal power with appropriate filters to increase in the future, seeing as peak coal isn't even close. Germany and China are of course vigorously pursuing that option, although there's still the issue of what to do with the ash and toxic filter residue.

So it's not really ineffectual, just not the sole answer?

it's a matter of scale, at sea things would look very differently.



===========================================

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Still waiting for this promised "refuting".

negative proof is always tricky but i can see why you'd like to see something which at least makes it look plausible that thousands of prestigious people are wrong. the following threads/posts may help.

A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

Emissions irrelevant to future climate change?

No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

there' also saturation to take into account, ie. a little trace gas can effectively block its characterisitc wavelength (->absorption spectrum) at very low concentrations and adding more will only have an effect on the remaining part which passes, which leads to diminishing returns. so, if at 200ppm, f-ex. 90% of a wavelength is blocked, doubling it will get it to 99%, but the difference is a tenth, not a 100%.increase as linear extrapolation would suggest.

www.aip.org...

this effect is valid, although if you read on you'll notice, they will claim that that 1% change will matter a lot (overly sensitive model to compensate), because only upper layers of the atmosphere are supposed to matter.

visible light reaches the surface, though (d'uh) and trapping IR is what it's supposedly about so, as you can see, i'm not at all content with that explanation.

note that the part about 1% change isn't even denied!

he assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)






Angstrom
Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(8a) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Originally posted by Long Lance
1%? not nearly dangerous, 10% would be worrying, though. i'd expect to see 1% in crowded, badly ventilated rooms.

I was really pointing out the ambiguity of saying 'harmful', i.e., in what way? CO2 is a gas that can kill in sufficient quantity. It is also a GHG. Is it harmful as a GHG? Depends...it helps keep the planet nice and warm, but too much of a good thing can be less than helpful.

So harmful? If CO2 at 1000ppm is up at 5'-6'C warmer, is that harmful? To who? Me? You? Society? Which society? At the minimum, the Bolivians won't be chuffed. I'm sure massive numbers of people depend on himalayan glaciers as well, at that sort of level greenland and antarctica is on its last legs with massive sea level rises, ocean chemistry is seriously messed up.

I think it has the potential to be pretty dreadful. Adapt to such extensive warming? lol

We can do it in less than 100 years. Lets go Team Myopia!

no, i'd find it a bit complicated, what i meant is that plants tend to grow better with higher CO2 content, probably never enough to offset CO2 emissions, it's just what i'd perceive as a benefit.

Aye, the PETM agrees. Plant growth isn't just restricted by CO2 levels. If you use hydroponics and stuff, CO2 is great. All that water and nutrients plugged right into the roots and CO2 flowing into the leaf.

Our green friends aren't gonna save the day.

if reducing CO2 emissions was an easy task without massive immediate downsides, we wouldn't be having this conversation, obviously. we'd simply say why not, it ain't gonna hurt.

Why does it have to have massive immediate downsides?

Again, I think you're misrepresenting the issue. It will not be cost-free. But massive downsides? Immediate?

But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.

www.nytimes.com...

As I said, I'm not well-read on the economics and mitigation issues. Not my forte. But 'massive and immediate downsides' does not appear to have to be the case.

It's just more FUD.

the problem starts when you consider that there was a time when firewood, sun and wind was the only real source of energy, before the industrial revolution. entire forests were cut down and burnt to make glasswares. i'd very much prefer natgas in that application, because overall, it's by far more environmentally friendly, convenient and simply better overall, which i think is hard to deny, isn't it?

I do prefer to have fMRIs and computers, but I suppose it was quaint. Thing is, you're not really pushing for gas, but for coal until we fit it with bells and whistles.

Indeed, if we could grow the trees sufficiently and then burn them, at one level it wouldn't be so bad cf. burning carbon locked out of the climate system for millions of years. Pretty obvious why.

iow, effectively curbing fuel use to an extent outline under Kyoto would likely have more desastrous consequences for more people than even high estimates in terms of warming would have.

No, that doesn't have to be the case. As Krugman points out, the free marketeers are fine with limiting flow of oil, water etc, but CO2? Oh noes, the world's economy will collapse, lol. Oil can vary massively in cost, no problem, just suck it up the market does the work, lol.

Except for CO2 emissions.

bingo. oil will become cost prohibitive with time, coal is dirty and unwieldly, etc use less pay less, don't finance certain regimes... enough plus points in my book, at least enough to convinve many people. thinking of it, when CO2 is adressed directly they get shy and defensive, so they really don't seem too concerned about it, so i even expect coal power with appropriate filters to increase in the future, seeing as peak coal isn't even close. Germany and China are of course vigorously pursuing that option, although there's still the issue of what to do with the ash and toxic filter residue.

OK, so you'd rather burn cheap coal until sometime in the future when we eventually get to the zero-emission level for coal power via some barely tested mechanism of unknown cost which is somewhat wasteful and has storage issues, than make a push for renewables which would give us a sustainable future.

It would do the job, hope the technology comes quick. Rather aim for nuclear and renewables myself.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0633fbbc43a4.jpg[/atsimg]

it's a matter of scale, at sea things would look very differently.

But it's still not ineffectual? Just not a panacea?


===========================================

there' also saturation to take into account, ie. a little trace gas can effectively block its characterisitc wavelength

But you do know it doesn't refute AGW? Glad you found Spencer Weart's site, it's a goodun. The saturation issue is well accounted for in climate sensitivity. Each doubling @ ca. 3'C warming. So 280ppm to 560ppm = 3'C; 560 to 1120ppm = 3'C. So 280ppm to 1120ppm = 6'C.

It's great that it takes another 560ppm to get the second 3'C. Should make sure that on current paths we don't get there for another 90 years or so, lol. Not the best destination, of course.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Long Lance

negative proof is always tricky but i can see why you'd like to see something which at least makes it look plausible that thousands of prestigious people are wrong. the following threads/posts may help.

A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

Emissions irrelevant to future climate change?

No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Thanks Long Lance, I'll read all of them.