It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by melatonin
 

Your 2-year-old MIT study of phase 1 of the EU program also noted:
"in April 2006, when the first verified emissions reports came in, actual emissions were far lower than expected, allowances were plentiful, and the carbon price fell by half within a week (see the figure)."

Of course, that study did NOT predict the ACTUAL 2008 and 2009 precipitous collapse of the value of EU credits (a loss of over 70% of value and growing), and the failure under Phase 2 to improve CO2 emissions or value.


Yes, lots of things collapsed over 2008 and 2009. And they had little to do with CO2 cap and trade.

And why did the price fall in 2006? Because emissions were lower than expected? So what was the problem? Poor assessment of the real emissions, which you ignored in your cherrypick:


When the EU system was established, data on actual emissions—installation by installation—were not available, so facilities received allowances based on their estimated emissions. As a result, no one was quite sure how restrictive the cap would turn out to be. That uncertainty pushed up prices—until April 2006, when the first verified emissions reports came in. Actual emissions were far lower than expected, allowances were plentiful, and the carbon price fell by half within a week (see the figure). Communication of information among the market participants has improved, and prices for allowances bought ahead for use in 2008 have been far less erratic.


If it is introduced effectively it will work. Again, the imposition of cap and trade had minimal effect on EU economics. It was only a trial anyway, but it showed real promise, and a promise that has already been shown to come to fruition in other areas (SO2 and NO2).


Even though reducing emissions was not the primary focus of the three-year trial, carbon reductions were in fact achieved, with minimal macroeconomic impact.



Can't dispute the truth of the failure of CO2 cap and trade, can you?


It hasn't failed. Again, the evidence clearly shows that when implemented well, it can work


Do you have a pig in your pants?


lol


Your only 'substantive' reports of the utter failure of cap-and trade is "lol" or "SO2."

(Actually, that's the sum total of your response to any cogent proof of the man-made 'Climate Change', nee 'Global Warming', hoax.)


Yes, of course. Although I demonstrated that both SO2 and NO2 cap and trade has worked well in the US, and CO2 cap and trade had worked in Europe with minimal effect on the economy. And throughout the thread I have presented coherent arguments in the face of a fog of ignorance, irrational thinking, and blatent lies about me.


Doesn't really cover up the AGW/CO2 fraud, though.

The gig truly is just about "up."

jw


Oh. noes. Whatever. Will. I. Do. Now.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
yeah, sure flood & draught aren't fun, so they would result in tensions. what i've had enough of is the latest heatwave being blamed on GW, when it's nothing extraordinary if one bothered to take a look at the records.

but let me rephrase that: what would you deem more likely to cause upheaval? too much and too little water at the wrong time or no water at all?


lol, but that's a pretty naff comparison. The real comparison is between a more reliable source of fresh water and an unpredictable source.

I'll go for the reliable.


you know the standard strategy of GW?

1) claim something is caused by GW, establishing the fact as proof for GW

2) deny any other cause

3) attack people who say it's unproven, because there's factor xy in play

4) when factor xy can no longer be denied claim that it's irrelevant, because it would merely add to GW's burden, which should be adressed first and foremost


Yes, of course. When you show factor xy is in play by using a paper that shows sunscreen can be detrimental, any other factor is still unproven - even though they are just as well, if not moreso, supported by the scientific literature.

Jeez. What a cherrypicked view of the science you have.


the only saving grace is a delay of several weeks or months between each phase, so there will be different people reading different threads so the show can go on. circular logic isn't convincing when you recognize it as such, though.


Yes, of course, it all revolves around what goes on here on ATS threads. Quick, go get more ATS cookie stars! I'm sure that'll sock it to 'em. lol


i do know how a prediction works, much like a bet in fact and if it doesn't come true, you can learn from it, but you still have to pay all the bucks and don't get any.


The models for future scenarios are projections. They say, if solar activity is x, if emissions are y, if a wealth of other variables are a, b, c, and d etc over period n to m. Then this is a range of possible futures that may result due to our emissions.

If solar activity is not as modelled, then the model can't help that. If the biggest volcano evar, followed by a comet hit the earth, the model can't help that. There is no way at the moment to predict future solar activity. It may go up, it may go down, it may stay the same.

If solar activity falls, the forcings from human activity don't disappear. They are still there. They just act from a lower baseline. This is basic stuff.


solar immissions are only one aspect, there could be more, it just seems that glaciers have been melting for three centuries, maybe the pace has increased, maybe not, at any rate, while it's not at all a given, the trend could go on without our help or despite our attempts to stop the A portion of GW. in that case, they would eventually melt off no matter what we do or do not do.


The rate of melt has increased. It's increased over the last 30 years when solar activity has been minimal.

But, of course, if the sun decides to go crazy and increase in activity by 20%, then even if we reduce CO2 emissions and other human influences, not really gonna stop glaciers melting.


so, how again and when again did they arrive at the conclusion that man caused a significant portion of the melting there and how again does the interlude during the 70s play into it? could that be explained with hindsight?


I think it would be hard to definitively say that a particular glacier melt is due human activity. There are regional influences. But if we look at the larger scale over time, then it is easier to say that 'glaciers are melting across the world, this is being influenced by temperature to a large extent (as the various regional influences will be moderated across the sample - simple sample stats), and as human influences are a main influence in temps increase, then...'

Parsimonious and consistent argument. Higher temps will generally help melt glaciers, no? Simple physics I would think.


which observational data? lab experiments with CO2 columns?


It just shows how none of you even bother reading my posts. It's like talking to someone with fingers in their ears. I even mentioned one study earlier about observational studies on climate sensitivity (the data that shows the forcing of each CO2 doubling). It's in the thread, perhaps click on the thread option below and actually read my posts.

Although, perhaps they are just insults and ad homs.


i'll let you in on secret: the real greenouse effect is the result of inhibited convection, which can be seen nicely when you consider that a car's interior will be smoking hot when standing in the sun, while the panes (the greenhouse agent in this case) are still quite cool (air cooled). there's even a lab experiment comparing glass to NaCl (let IR pas, too) panes mentioned in one of Electricuniverse's links. want to know the results?


Yes, the greenhouse effect is really a misnomer. But the radiative forcing of GHGs is real.


Q on a sidenote: why do you think some solar panels (water heater type, not photovoltaic) utilise a vacuum for insulation purposes? because then you can use radiation models.


Okie doke.


you obviously have no idea about the monetary system and how money is created. i can see how this lack of insight could lead one to embrace zero-gain redistribution schemes.


lol

I think I'll leave my economics lessons to an economist. And it won't be of the Austrian class.


i meant the amount, ie. total mass. the unit in use is tons, isn't it? or am i mistaken?


So you mean the cap? That's probably the most important. No point having a projected level that is well above real emissions - as shown by the EU trial. If the aim is to reduce emissions, then we need reliable info on what current emissions are in the relevant domain, and where we want them to go.


let me just add that SO2 emissions can be prevented quite easily (albeit at some cost) and are only a small part of all emitted gas.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]


But, still, the SO2 and NO2 cap and trade system worked?

Yes? Cap and trade has been shown to have promise and actually work, with negligible effect on the economy.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

lol, but that's a pretty naff comparison. The real comparison is between a more reliable source of fresh water and an unpredictable source.

I'll go for the reliable.


i wasn't really talking about the effect of missing glaciers, rather the implications of overconfident and hasty attributions to GW.





Yes, of course. When you show factor xy is in play by using a paper that shows sunscreen can be detrimental, any other factor is still unproven - even though they are just as well, if not moreso, supported by the scientific literature.

Jeez. What a cherrypicked view of the science you have.


one factor in coral bleach is temperature, which coincidentially is very measurable, but hard to compare for the simple reason that mostly snapshots are available. above last year's temperatures will be attributed to GW. now, we know that ocean 'climate' is an entire realm in and by itself and things like El Nino happen regardless (although said to become more severe due to GW...) and local ocean temp need not mirror atmospheric developments, yet it is a theme which is used and re-used year in and year out, while blooms aren't worth mentioning. the entire thing looks like it's not really about coral reefs, just arguments in favor of GW and look, it turns out that when coral destroying factors that are _not_ related to temperature surface, they are only good for a snoozer thread - just as expected.



Yes, of course, it all revolves around what goes on here on ATS threads. Quick, go get more ATS cookie stars! I'm sure that'll sock it to 'em. lol


this thread is apparently important enough for us all to type all that ..... and even weed out the spelling mistakes, so there has to be a perceived benefit somewhere.




The models for future scenarios are projections. They say, if...


sucks, i know, but few people care about the reasons why a prediction failed.



It just shows how none of you even bother reading my posts. It's like talking to someone with fingers in their ears. I even mentioned one study earlier about observational studies on climate sensitivity (the data that shows the forcing of each CO2 doubling). It's in the thread, perhaps click on the thread option below and actually read my posts.


oh, the slight problem here is that the Earth is not a valid experiment, because it isn't reproducible in the orthodox sense, is it? hard to have a control group, too, so it's again either models or attribution of changes to causes which may or may not be valid. will they include studies about philosophical validity in the future? did i miss something?



Yes, the greenhouse effect is really a misnomer. But the radiative forcing of GHGs is real.


ok





lol

I think I'll leave my economics lessons to an economist. And it won't be of the Austrian class.


the Austrian Economy is yet another branch for people who (think they) know it all and can't seem to fathom why nothing works their way and those who embrace it are either opportunistic (use it in justification of the status quo), pessimistic (because they know very well their stuff is a dead article) or desperate (too patient in their convictions or too stubborn to get it).

maybe you should jump to another conclusion, i can take look at the creation of money just because it's a vitally important thing, without being a lib or rand-ist (wait, wasn't Rand equally ignorant in this regard?). while we are at it, why don't you ask your respected economist, how to repay the interest if the money supply is only expanded by the amount of the principal.... the established fraction can be just as bone headed as one on the sidelines, they just tend to refine their stuff more and manage to hide the ugly parts better.





But, still, the SO2 and NO2 cap and trade system worked?

Yes? Cap and trade has been shown to have promise and actually work, with negligible effect on the economy.


from the casual look at the sources i found, you are right, it seems to have worked for SO2 in the West, which helps to alleviate my apprehension somewhat.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Chairman of Gore Climate Hearing Strikes Gavel, Cuts Off All Dissent



Listen to Manbearpig's snide attitude when he cuts off discussion. "I appreciate your invitation, Congressman." JESUS, What a dousche!

Carbon Credit system makes among others, loggers like Temple-Inland, carbon credit producers. So the Manbearpig's solution for global warming is for those who burn the most oil to pay money, after much government skimming off the top, to the people who cut down the most trees? Oversimplification or?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i wasn't really talking about the effect of missing glaciers, rather the implications of overconfident and hasty attributions to GW.


Hasty? lol. Come on, lance, the science has been consolidating since the 19th century. It's been over 100 years in the making.


one factor in coral bleach is temperature, which coincidentially is very measurable, but hard to compare for the simple reason that mostly snapshots are available. above last year's temperatures will be attributed to GW. now, we know that ocean 'climate' is an entire realm in and by itself and things like El Nino happen regardless (although said to become more severe due to GW...) and local ocean temp need not mirror atmospheric developments, yet it is a theme which is used and re-used year in and year out, while blooms aren't worth mentioning. the entire thing looks like it's not really about coral reefs, just arguments in favor of GW and look, it turns out that when coral destroying factors that are _not_ related to temperature surface, they are only good for a snoozer thread - just as expected.


But obviously it was mentioned. It made the grauniad. Again, all you really show is the complexity of the issue, it's not simple making attributions to singular events. But it's not that complex or questionable to say that human influences are real.


this thread is apparently important enough for us all to type all that ..... and even weed out the spelling mistakes, so there has to be a perceived benefit somewhere.


I actually ask myself what the benefit is many times. But I'm not sure we have any great effect here. It helps me hone my knowledge, I learn some things about stuff I never really had time to think about, and hopefully some people learn something off me. But, really, it's just urinating in the tropical monsoon. I'm actually wary of saying urinate, lol. How sad is that.

I've come to the conclusion, though, that I just waste some time and have some fun - mortigo tempo.


sucks, i know, but few people care about the reasons why a prediction failed.


But that's why they are not really predictions, but rather projections. I agree that it could be a problem, but it's really because scientists are pretty naff communicators, lol.


oh, the slight problem here is that the Earth is not a valid experiment, because it isn't reproducible in the orthodox sense, is it? hard to have a control group, too, so it's again either models or attribution of changes to causes which may or may not be valid. will they include studies about philosophical validity in the future? did i miss something?


Annan & Hargreaves 2006, to save you bother looking. And I've posted numerous studies on observations of demonstrating the effects of GHGs on radiative balance.

It's not just models. The physics is actually very very well-established. As I said, over 100 years in the making. Arguing that human influence is non-existent or refuted is a fantasy. We can argue exact details.

As was obvious in this thread, and also in The Avenger's thread you posted in reponse to someone (rapingbats). That's great thread when read through. The inability of even someone like Avenger, an industry PhD physical chemist who signed the OISM petition, to provide anything to show AGW is BS was a compelling demonstration of how vacuous the position is.


maybe you should jump to another conclusion, i can take look at the creation of money just because it's a vitally important thing, without being a lib or rand-ist (wait, wasn't Rand equally ignorant in this regard?). while we are at it, why don't you ask your respected economist, how to repay the interest if the money supply is only expanded by the amount of the principal.... the established fraction can be just as bone headed as one on the sidelines, they just tend to refine their stuff more and manage to hide the ugly parts better.


I don't have a respected economist really. I think Krugman sounds rational. But it's not my area of expertise. We can't be experts in everything so I'll defer to those who do know their game, rather than pretend I have a firm grasp of it - certainly enough to pompously pontificate like I might on areas of science, lol. Much like I'll leave fixing my bioler to someone who knows how to. Krugman has criticism for wishful-thinkers on both sides of the fence - so it sounds like he's in the right spot. The economics of mitigation and adaptation is pretty basic at the moment.

There are libertarians I respect, but they tend to be more classical liberals than what I see around (something more like anarcho-caps). It's become a label associated with a certain group who appear to want to take us back a few hundred if not thousands of years. I apologise if I pigeon-holed you, but normally when I see complaints about the Fed, usually it goes down the route of the evil 'force' of government and jack-booted nazis - I have no time for that, it sounds just like they want something like dark-age Feudalism.


from the casual look at the sources i found, you are right, it seems to have worked for SO2 in the West, which helps to alleviate my apprehension somewhat.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]


That's great. Very noble of you, and you gain respect from me for that. It seems to work, it doesn't appear to have any major effects on the economics. So why not utilise it? It will probably need fine-tuning as it develops - at least we were test subjects, you in the US can learn from our experiences.

We get reductions in CO2 - by increasing efficiency and start a real push towards more sustainable methods.

Doesn't the idea of a real energy sustainable future actually excite you? I'll probably never see it, but starting on the path it is a fantastic gift to our sproglings. But that's a secondary thing, we more pertinently don't pass on the potential hell-hole we are developing.

So, we save the kids from a nasty gift and give them a bunch of flowers and chocolates instead.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I do agree that climate change has always been around, but at the same time with all the other factors that help to change climate change, we all should still consider limiting use of things that release CO2, methane, and so on, that also influence climate, to a minimum or none if possible.. I, for instance, don't have a car, and walk, or use metro transit, if I need to, to go where i need to go for whatever. just my 2 cents..



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Annan & Hargreaves 2006, to save you bother looking. And I've posted numerous studies on observations of demonstrating the effects of GHGs on radiative balance.


funny you mention that, i did find it and the basic issue remains because conditional probablity isn't magic, you still have to be sure of your input

Bayes' Theorem




We get reductions in CO2 - by increasing efficiency and start a real push towards more sustainable methods.


and then we'll be dancing merrily in the clean (and now well tempered) air, right? just believing that you're doing the right thing isn't enough, imho, and i don't see it working out that way without significant modification. emissions trading may well turn out useful, it's not a given, though and has lots of potential for abuse, (although that can probably said about pretty much everything) and the goal of energy independence is desireable without even mentioning emissions, isn't it?

PS: when looking at the planet in a holistic way, atmosphere included, would you agree that all that composition can change boils down to albedo, including invisible light?

[edit on 2009.5.4 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
funny you mention that, i did find it and the basic issue remains because conditional probablity isn't magic, you still have to be sure of your input

Bayes' Theorem


Aye, it's a fine way of assessing probability. You're talking to a Baysian, lol. We are the like the hipsters of statistics/science, brings those who accept it wine, beautiful partners, and a style which cannot be bought on the streets of Paris.

Again, though, there are observations of climate sensitivity, and this study is a sort of meta-analysis using Baysian stats which constrains the disparate data. The results actually fit well with other approaches. Most likely around 3'C, and probably not more than 4.5'C.


and then we'll be dancing merrily in the clean (and now well tempered) air, right? just believing that you're doing the right thing isn't enough, imho, and i don't see it working out that way without significant modification. emissions trading may well turn out useful, it's not a given, though and has lots of potential for abuse, (although that can probably said about pretty much everything) and the goal of energy independence is desireable without even mentioning emissions, isn't it?


Of course, most human phenomena have potential for abuse. But dancing around in the clean air? I doubt it, we should be dancing around that we have saved ourselves from some pretty nasty futures.

And it's not just believing. I thought I'd pretty much outlined that it's more than mere faith-based belief - but is based on science. More studies just out showing that we will be hitting projected 2050 emissions in much less time. The speed of our emissions already well outpaces the estimates for the PETM event - I don't really want to our behaviour risk such an event for our sprogs. As I noted, would be an interesting real-world test of the science. Perhaps Annan & Hargreaves are wrong and 6'C for a doubling is possible - lets find out...rather have a model earth to test it on, though. Oh yeah, lol.


PS: when looking at the planet in a holistic way, atmosphere included, would you agree that all that composition can change boils down to albedo, including invisible light?


It's certainly important. And, for example, melting highly reflective ice isn't helpful in that regard - just cold deserts remember, lol.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
this is going to be my last post here, i presume, unless something entirely new is introduced.


Originally posted by melatonin

It's certainly important. And, for example, melting highly reflective ice isn't helpful in that regard - just cold deserts remember, lol.



i was talking more about the atmosphere itself, for the simple reason that shrinking ice cover is a consequence first and foremost.

what i wanted to stress is that i've already established that changes in CO2 concentration only yield minimal deviations under saturated conditions. (linked again for convenience's sake : www.aip.org...)

therefore, the thermal properties of the planet's atmosphere can at most change by just that amount, because amplification of any kind would require an additional source of energy while throttling does not.

i know you'll disagree with that paragraph, Melatonin and i never indented to convince you about anything, i would have liked to see more participants to direct this writing to and whose comments would surely have helped to clarify potential soft spots and misunderstandings.erties of the planet's atmosphere can at most change by just that amount, because amplification of any kind requires an additional source of energy while throttling does not.

i know you'll disagree with that paragraph, Melatonin and i never indented to convince you about anything, i would have liked to see more participants to direct this writing to and whose comments would surely have helped to clarify potential soft spots and misunderstandings.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
this is going to be my last post here, i presume, unless something entirely new is introduced.


Yeah, no worries. My procrastination must end, and I'll begin turning hours of hard work into soulless judgmental numbers.


i was talking more about the atmosphere itself, for the simple reason that shrinking ice cover is a consequence first and foremost.

what i wanted to stress is that i've already established that changes in CO2 concentration only yield minimal deviations under saturated conditions. (linked again for convenience's sake : www.aip.org...)


But the atmosphere is nowhere near saturated.

I'm glad you're an apparent fan of Spencer Weart now. But he has some good posts on realclimate he wrote with Ray Pierrehumbert you might like.

A saturated gassy argument

A saturated gassy argument II: What Angstrom didn't know


therefore, the thermal properties of the planet's atmosphere can at most change by just that amount, because amplification of any kind would require an additional source of energy while throttling does not.



We see that for the pre-industrial CO2 concentration, it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption. All the red M&M's are already eaten. But waiting in the wings, outside this wavelength region, there's more goodies to be had. In fact, noting that the graph is on a logarithmic axis, the atmosphere still wouldn't be saturated even if we increased the CO2 to ten thousand times the present level.


I doubt we could ever even get near to 10,000xCO2, thankfully.


i know you'll disagree with that paragraph, Melatonin and i never indented to convince you about anything, i would have liked to see more participants to direct this writing to and whose comments would surely have helped to clarify potential soft spots and misunderstandings.


Hard not to disagree with it.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Electric's main point is that since natural factors affect climate he refutes any suggestion that human activity can affect climate.


I think he made it clear that it just doesn't yet, not that it could not.


But that's religion for you


Us sceptics accept that both affect climate. As too do most scientists.


Well i think it's easy for all of us to call someone elses 'scientific' beliefs ( when they don't seem scientific to us) dogmatic or religious but in retrospect i think i have wasted a great deal of my energy trying to interpret motives/beliefs which would have been better applied elsewher.

I just feel that at times like these we should reflect on how not so long ago medical sciences ( and the leading men of it) believed in bleeding out disease and like things. Just because we believe ( as i do) that we have made much progress since very modern 'mistakes' and misrepresentations are still being exposed. 'We' happen to believe that the global cooling/warming/AGCC will in time come to be seen as another such misrepresented ( as the knowledge to the contrary is in our views already in evidence) staged by the same tiny ruling elites that gave us corporate capitalism and the global centralization of control.

Stellar

EDIT:I should add that we also believe that even a worse case 5 degree change up to 2100 does not logically have to lead to any excess deaths, serious regional population displacement or any of the other doomish scenarious that presumes no active management of the results of a warming planet. Global crop yields are still going up and will continue to do so as long as human labor is intelligently applied.

The only thing we have to fear in a warming world is the governmental/corporate abuse of it; we have and will continue to cope with a changing environment.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by StellarX]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Electric's main point is that since natural factors affect climate he refutes any suggestion that human activity can affect climate.

But that's religion for you


Us sceptics accept that both affect climate. As too do most scientists.


No, my main point is that you have no evidence whatsoever, except for claims because of flawed computer models, that anthropogenic CO2 warms the Earth like you people keep claiming, when the geological record tells us a completely different story.

Why did atmospheric CO2 not change much during the Roman Warm, the MEedieval Warm, and the Little Ice Age?

Why have there been times in Earth's geological history when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now, yet temperatures were from either similar to now, or much colder if CO2 causes that much warming?

Why are we seeing "extremes" in both cold and warm events and not just warming events if atmospheric CO2 warms the atmosphere?

Don't give me that lame excuse that warming causes cooling, because you are trying to confuse natural Climate change with the religious idolotry of Global Warming being cause by CO2.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
@muaddib, yes, you are anti-science. Indeed, you have all the components of anti-science syndrome. But you're nothing to worry about, as you are too incoherent and irrational.

2+2=5 tends not to be a convincing argument.


Wow, melatonin, the same member who keeps responding to people by insulting, ad hominem attacks, and derailing threads is trying to claim that I am "anti-scientific", who would have thought?....

The only irrational, incoherent person around here is you, among a couple others, more so when you keep basing your whole belief in flawed computer models, and not on real science...

I am not the one claiming 2+2=5 you are, with your claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the ongoing Climate change....


Stop wasting our time already.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Ah, and melatonin starts posting from Real Climate, the same website where Michael Mann is one of the directors, the same liar that tried to bury the Medieval Warm period, and the LIA, not to mention the end of the Roman Warm period with his rigged Hockey Stick Graph, and the follow up rigged research which disagrees with the geological history of Earth for those periods.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


yeah, it's nice to see that source, especially when you consider that their graphs essentially show that what i'm saying is true:




when you look at that graph, you (should) immediately notice that it starts at 0.4 and the interesting scal is vertical (absorption), while the lines they drew are horizontal (length). their quadrupling exercise is nice but irrelevant and i would have liked to see at least the 2100 projection, the pre-industrial amount and our current amount in there, even though it would have been rather cramped, of course, but that's the whole point here, isn't it? cramped means there's little change.

let me write that graph's results out for you to see what i mean


at 1x (current amount) we have 0.66

at 2x we'd have 0.64

at 4x it's 0.6

so, doubling yields a whoopping 2 percent change in absorption and it's centuries away at the current rate and even if you took projected increases into account.

TWO PERCENT . . .


i think posting the images here is necessary, few will click the links and even fewer will take a closer look.

that is way before going into the spectrum, which would show that the actual numbers would be lower still, because a constant spectrum has a greater energy content thatn one with valleys (think about the area under the curve).

the next graph at 100°C is very telling, too if you bother to think for one second: here, 90% are absorbed at 20cm. 100°C is too high for planetary purposes but it begs the question how high it would be for typical soil at typical temperatures.... these two are completely different animals.



their logarithmic graphs show very little change, too, maybe it's because they turned what are prominent peaks in linear scales into hills to conceal the fact that the area below the curve does not change very much at all at increased CO2 concentrations.



with that out of the way let me adress the text




The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it's the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2. And it's a good thing it does. You can show that if the transmission decayed exponentially, as it would if the absorption factor were independent of wavelength, then doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by about 50 degrees C instead of 2 to 4 degrees


so, now tube length makes a difference in CO2 absorption, interesting.

this is false on its face, total drivel, the real difference here is the spectrum, the first is presumably a flat one from l = 10-22µm as per the text, the second one was created by an loosely specified solid (representing a 'black' body) at 100°C.

that's especially fascinating, 50K increase out of . . 2% change in absorption.

gotta love amplification - in your stereo, in circuitry, not so much in climate models, where you'd have to demonstrate a source of energy to achieve that.

from part 1



What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.


yeah, there can be a qualitative argument for enything, but that does not necessarily make it true, does it?

if the radiation in question is originating at the surface, the densest parts of the atmosphere will have the greatest (radiative) insulating effect, obviously. these people want to have it both ways, upper 'layers' which absorb and let pass at the same time. either that or they believe CO2 piles up like sand.

newsflash: radiation energy will be absorbed and re-emitted multiple times, double concentration will change existing patterns by (at max, using the above data from a proGW site) 2% if CO2's density was average that of air (which it is not but let's keep it simple) yet again, parts of the system are suddenly viewed in isolation when all else fails.


PS: as i said before, the real look you've got to take is from space. how much can albedo (as in reflectivity across al wavelenghts) change, say, by doubling CO2, given all you know from the above. then compare that with the effect of clouds, blooming vegetation and ocean related changes and so on. then it becomes very clear what is (or isn't) going on.

[edit on 2009.5.7 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


yeah, it's nice to see that source


Yes, Spencer Weart and Ray Pierrehumbert. One is the dude you thought was fine a couple of posts back.


especially when you consider that their graphs essentially show that what i'm saying is true:



when you look at that graph, you (should) immediately notice that it starts at 0.4 and the interesting scal is vertical (absorption), while the lines they drew are horizontal (length). their quadrupling exercise is nice but irrelevant and i would have liked to see at least the 2100 projection, the pre-industrial amount and our current amount in there, even though it would have been rather cramped, of course, but that's the whole point here, isn't it? cramped means there's little change.

let me write that graph's results out for you to see what i mean

at 1x (current amount) we have 0.66

at 2x we'd have 0.64

at 4x it's 0.6

so, doubling yields a whoopping 2 percent change in absorption and it's centuries away at the current rate and even if you took projected increases into account.

TWO PERCENT . . .


Yes, it's a small number. So what?

Your incredulity about small numbers means nothing. The obvious question is 2% of what? And then how would it apply in the real-world? Seeing you're so adept at physics (enough to pretend to fisk one well-established physicist and another trained-physicist who is now a historian of science, lol) perhaps you can tell us? Here's some figures which might apply to play with:

Incoming solar radiation: 342wm^-2
Outgoing longwave radiation: 235wm^-2
Energy emitted by atmosphere: 165wm^-2

I think it might be something like 3'C warming = 4wm^-2. 0.75'C = 1wm^-2.

Go on. It's only 2% extra absorption! Which do we apply 2% to in this completely unrealistic and dreadfully simplified model of the atmosphere? I would assume total outgoing longwave wouldn't be a bad choice, considering that's where GHGs like to boogie. So:

0.02 X 235 = 4.7wm^-2 = ~3.5'C

Or maybe energy emitted by atmosphere:

0.02 x 165 = 3.3wm^-2 = ~2.5'C

Your incredulity is ridiculous.

The obvious question would always be

TWO PERCENT . . .
of what?

Some current estimates show a GDP impact of about 1-2% for acting quickly to mitigate AGW - it's only 2% dude.

The real calculation for climate sensitivity (2xCO2) using a number of methods that account for a range of complexities and feedbacks that actually apply in the real-world is between 2-4.5'C, with 3'C being most likely. Of course, it's only 3'C, which is smaller than 100, 99, 98, 97...just like glaciers are only cold deserts.

However, even after all that, it shows what you were saying was wrong. Which was about CO2 and saturation.

And what are you on about? Centuries away? 280ppm to 560ppm? What planet are you on? We're at an accelerating 2-3ppm a year. Even if we were lucky to be able to maintain 3ppm in the future, that's 30ppm a decade and 300ppm in a century. We are already at 385ppm. Just under 60 years. But current estimates are that we could be hitting 1000ppm by 2100, lol.

That's a very sad post, Lance.



i was talking more about the atmosphere itself, for the simple reason that shrinking ice cover is a consequence first and foremost.

what i wanted to stress is that i've already established that changes in CO2 concentration only yield minimal deviations under saturated conditions. (linked again for convenience's sake : www.aip.org...)


But the atmosphere is nowhere near saturated.


I guess it's just a minor thing, lol. You're saying 'blah blah under saturated conditions'. Cool.

Doesn't apply. This does.



The atmosphere is not saturated with CO2 and won't be even at 10,000ppm.


i think posting the images here is necessary, few will click the links and even fewer will take a closer look.


No point half the time. If people can't understand the stuff, why bother?

The posts are a criticism of Koch's experiment. It was an early experiment that was interpreted as showing the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 - which, like you, was wrong.

I ignored the rest as it was laughable. I guess you've also got the 'DeBOT'* bug. For example, this:


that's especially fascinating, 50K increase out of . . 2% change in absorption.

gotta love amplification - in your stereo, in circuitry, not so much in climate models, where you'd have to demonstrate a source of energy to achieve that.


Shows you just did not read that section properly. And just for future reference, the original energy source is the sun. You need to keep up, that's like very basic stuff. Do you even understand the greenhouse effect and radiative balance? As for amplification/feedbacks - do you think that melting ice doesn't alter albedo?

But I liked this...


PS: as i said before, the real look you've got to take is from space.


Yeah, they had a quick look:


Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001


Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).


The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


Should have stuck to your last post idea.


*DEliberately Being ObTuse.
Symptoms: inability to understand simple arguments, missing clear points, shifting goalposts, cherrypicking, extreme obfuscation, foot in mouth, and repeated nonsensical babbling. In its extreme form, perseveration is common. Comorbidity: known to be strongly associated with Denialism and Anti-Science Syndrome. Treatment & Prognosis: tends to be resistant to science-based treatments and is generally terminal in its comorbid forms.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
PLEASE NOTE:

I have noticed some less than stellar remarks from some of the member posting in this thread.

Please note that it stops now. Further personal attacks could result in the entire post's removal.


Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com
Courtesy Is Mandatory

If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Go after the ball not the player.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Yes, it's a small number. So what?


sorry, but change rate is a very real thing. you can't just up sensititvity until it floats your boat.



Incoming solar radiation: 342wm^-2
Outgoing longwave radiation: 235wm^-2
Energy emitted by atmosphere: 165wm^-2

I think it might be something like 3'C warming = 4wm^-2. 0.75'C = 1wm^-2.


Go on. It's only 2% extra absorption! Which do we apply 2% to in this completely unrealistic and dreadfully simplified model of the atmosphere? I would assume total outgoing longwave wouldn't be a bad choice, considering that's where GHGs like to boogie. So:

0.02 X 235 = 4.7wm^-2 = ~3.5'C



so, you now talking about values at the surface, it seems, because solar irradiance ranges from ~1.3 to 1.4kW/m², not 0,34 kW/m² (i'd like to know where the number originated, btw). the more pertinent question would be how the rest is attenuated and if and how atmospheric changes affect this particular value. the difference of ~1kW will be absorbed where? in the atmosphere? what effect might that have? warming? gosh. i guess attributing all warming to surface radiation is considered a >simplification< in this context. (yes i truely hope i'm wrong, but i fear the worst).


if you applied that logic and went for full absorption (starting from 0.6), you'd get a change of 94 W/m² (=0.4*235), which would then correspond to 70°C. funny huh?

even funnier when you use the other extrme - no CO2 at all -> -105°C. i would refrain from using any of that if i were you.

climate sensitivity to this extent really does strain credulity, doesn't it? i don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that a given amount of what's effectively transfer resistance will somehow cause amplified changes, tbh. especially when you consider that radiation isn't really the only way to emit heat from the Earth's surface. given these other mechanisms, changes will have to be smaller - heat wil take the path of least resistance, obviously.




We are already at 385ppm. Just under 60 years. But current estimates are that we could be hitting 1000ppm by 2100, lol.


show me even one sensible source talking about tripled CO2 by 2100, this hyperbole is quite weird, don't you think?






No point half the time. If people can't understand the stuff, why bother?


because that's where it's at, text is prose for the most part.



Shows you just did not read that section properly. And just for future reference, the original energy source is the sun. You need to keep up, that's like very basic stuff. Do you even understand the greenhouse effect and radiative balance? As for amplification/feedbacks - do you think that melting ice doesn't alter albedo?


i think i made myself clear enough that ice is if anything an indirect consequence, not at all about the trace gas itself, which is the whole point.

the sun's power doesn't change, as per convention, therefore there is no additional flow of energy for amplification purposes available from the sun's radiation.


btw, did i read this wrong or were you implicitly admitting there has to be a process of amplification at work to achieve these results?!


PS: i still like to know what test tube length is supposed to do to absorption?? i always thought that taking a shorter tube is like taking a subsample in a longer one at the same distance as the short tube's length. the results obviously differ by a lot and the input spectrum is the reason, as explained in my last post.

albedo should be measured easily enough, don't you think? i still haven't hear a peep in this thread, regarding its effect: isn't it all there is to know about radiative balance? think about it.

[edit on 2009.5.8 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





No, my main point is that you have no evidence whatsoever, except for claims because of flawed computer models, that anthropogenic CO2 warms the Earth like you people keep claiming, when the geological record tells us a completely different story. Why did atmospheric CO2 not change much during the Roman Warm, the MEedieval Warm, and the Little Ice Age? Why have there been times in Earth's geological history when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now, yet temperatures were from either similar to now, or much colder if CO2 causes that much warming? Why are we seeing "extremes" in both cold and warm events and not just warming events if atmospheric CO2 warms the atmosphere? Don't give me that lame excuse that warming causes cooling, because you are trying to confuse natural Climate change with the religious idolotry of Global Warming being cause by CO2.


No climate scientist denies fluctuations in historical climate temperature - this is the very basis of their entire argument. That the current conditions are severely out of sync. The current phase we should be returning to a cooling period, we are not, that is becuase the rapid build up of C02.

There science behind global warming has always been that there will be hot and cold reactions - further that there will be other extreme variations.

The earths temperatures have frequently been significantly hotter than now, the primordial stages were a seething cauldron as were the periods when our atmosphere was primarily C02.

Every point you have raised has clearly not been based on any science currently accepted today, or for that matter yesterday.

All of my answers can be found in through:
"the weather Makers" Tim Flannery
"The Revenge of Gaia" Dr. Janes Lovelock
"Collapse" Jarred Diamond

Once you have read these books and absorbed some actual science you may be able to post some remarks based on the facts rather than this ipse dixit from an ananias.




The only irrational, incoherent person around here is you, among a couple others, more so when you keep basing your whole belief in flawed computer models, and not on real science...


A sophomanic wampus, ironic yet pitiful, but bear with it we shall.

Flawed computed models - how do you know have you been to the future ? Have you studied them all ? Let me see - you read that they are not accurate and have simply written them all off as flawed a cozen little "slight of mind" there......





Ah, and melatonin starts posting from Real Climate, the same website where Michael Mann is one of the directors, the same liar that tried to bury the Medieval Warm period, and the LIA, not to mention the end of the Roman Warm period with his rigged Hockey Stick Graph, and the follow up rigged research which disagrees with the geological history of Earth for those periods.



And finally this one - oooh you famicide. How easily you vilify people - lets have some back up of your claims. Or is this like everything else you posted mere personal speculation -

You are trolling, pure and simple......this is all you do.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by audas]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
sorry, but change rate is a very real thing. you can't just up sensititvity until it floats your boat.


Lance, you didn't even understand what the post said. It didn't say that it would lead to 50'C in reality. It said that if wavelength and absorption wasn't related then it would.

But it is related. It clearly said so in the sentence before.


so, you now talking about values at the surface, it seems, because solar irradiance ranges from ~1.3 to 1.4kW/m², not 0,34 kW/m² (i'd like to know where the number originated, btw). the more pertinent question would be how the rest is attenuated and if and how atmospheric changes affect this particular value. the difference of ~1kW will be absorbed where? in the atmosphere? what effect might that have? warming? gosh. i guess attributing all warming to surface radiation is considered a >simplification< in this context. (yes i truely hope i'm wrong, but i fear the worst).


Total Solar irradiance is about 1360wm^-2. However, the average across the earth is around 342wm^-2. Which is 1/4 TSI. Required due to spherical spinning nature of the earth. Basic physics.


if you applied that logic and went for full absorption (starting from 0.6), you'd get a change of 94 W/m² (=0.4*235), which would then correspond to 70°C. funny huh?

even funnier when you use the other extrme - no CO2 at all -> -105°C. i would refrain from using any of that if i were you.


Suppose it was if that actually applied. But it still shows your incredulity over the number '2%' to be silly.

Why would I refrain from it? I'm really asking you 2% of what?

2% of a dollar is barely worth bothering with. But 2% of a million dollars probably is. 2% alone means nothing. You're just showing incredulity at a small number. We would need some numbers to apply the 2% to.

I already know that it's an unrealistic calculation - the earth isn't a tube full of CO2 and we haven't accounted for numerous relevant factors, lol. The tube expample is just an assessment of CO2 spectroscopy and the specious Koch experiment. That's all! It shows that saturation wouldn't even be reached at 100m tube length if you look at the data - transmittance is still falling. And remember, your contention is about saturation. But the atmosphere is clearly not saturated with CO2.

The real-world numbers for climate sensitivity are between 2-4.5'C, most likely 3'C.


climate sensitivity to this extent really does strain credulity, doesn't it? i don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that a given amount of what's effectively transfer resistance will somehow cause amplified changes, tbh. especially when you consider that radiation isn't really the only way to emit heat from the Earth's surface. given these other mechanisms, changes will have to be smaller - heat wil take the path of least resistance, obviously.


It would if it applied. But it doesn't. Your incredulity is not evidence.


show me even one sensible source talking about tripled CO2 by 2100, this hyperbole is quite weird, don't you think?


No, it's based on assessing how much CO2 we are emitting and the currect science. Median projections are at around 850ppm for 2095, meaning that 1000ppm is a real possibility (between 900-1000 is the top range). How do you think Hadley show business as usual as being up to 7'C warming (see earlier)? Or, for example, MIT with the median 866ppm (top range 950ish) 2095 projection and an associated 5.1'C warming?

1000ppm is a real possibility if we maintain myopia. You need to follow the current science.

But when you are stating this sort of thing:


so, doubling yields a whoopping 2 percent change in absorption and it's centuries away at the current rate and even if you took projected increases into account.


It just shows you really don't know what you are going on about. The 2% for 2xCO2? 280-560ppm? Centuries?




Shows you just did not read that section properly. And just for future reference, the original energy source is the sun. You need to keep up, that's like very basic stuff. Do you even understand the greenhouse effect and radiative balance? As for amplification/feedbacks - do you think that melting ice doesn't alter albedo?


i think i made myself clear enough that ice is if anything an indirect consequence, not at all about the trace gas itself, which is the whole point.

the sun's power doesn't change, as per convention, therefore there is no additional flow of energy for amplification purposes available from the sun's radiation.


But that's not how it works? Again, do you understand the greenhouse effect? You do get that without our GHG atmosphere even with the same old 342wm^-2 we would be just a bit colder?


btw, did i read this wrong or were you implicitly admitting there has to be a process of amplification at work to achieve these results?!


Which results? CO2 in a tube or the real-world?

Of course there are positive feedbacks in the real-world. Beating the ice issue again, ice is important for albedo. Remove it the surface absorbs more energy leading to warming.


PS: i still like to know what test tube length is supposed to do to absorption?? i always thought that taking a shorter tube is like taking a subsample in a longer one at the same distance as the short tube's length. the results obviously differ by a lot and the input spectrum is the reason, as explained in my last post.


Go back and read the articles again. Start with the first and work through.


albedo should be measured easily enough, don't you think? i still haven't hear a peep in this thread, regarding its effect: isn't it all there is to know about radiative balance? think about it.

[edit on 2009.5.8 by Long Lance]


Try this.

linky

Note the difference between ice, snow, and water and soil. But glaciers are still just cold deserts, huh?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join