Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation

reply to post by soficrow


But here's the rub.

The climate is always changing - that's what climates do!

Since the end of the last ice age, with the exception of a few anomolies (little ice age, medievil and roman warm periods) the earth has been warming at a slow but steady rate, which will continue until we move into the next ice age - which may be sooner than we think.

It was very trendy in the late 60's/ early 70's to believe that we were heading into a new ice age.

They told us that the science was sound, that the evidence was irrefutable, that man was to blame (sound familiar?)

Until a little known scientist proposed the greenhouse theory - which slowly gathered momentum, until Jim Hansen appeared before a congressional hearing chaired by al gore, then the train really started moving, until now we are in the ridiculous position of this being the new religion.

And in a control sense, it is VERY much like religious control - right down to a modern day version of the inquisition for anyone who dares to doubt the propaganda which is constantly thrown at us, while the heads of the church get rich and dream up ways to profit from this.

reply to post by cushycrux


Who's flaming?

Certainly not me.

Although your blatant attempt to steer away from venus could certainly be classed as deflection.

Let me be quite clear - if you think I'm flaming or if you have a problem with any of my posts, hit the alert button and send an email to the mods describing exactly what you think my transgression is.

Really, go right ahead.

reply to post by budski


Again.

I think 2 questions are being mushed together, quite inappropriately:

1. Is the climate changing? (Yep.)

2. Is the "Cap and Trade" plan the right solution? (Nope.)


So yeah, as per usual, a real problem is being played opportunistically to make the rich richer.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a real underlying problem - just means the proposed solution is a scam.


It's absolutely true that industrial activities have modified the "chemical formula" that is our atmosphere.

It's also fairly clear that those modifications likely impact climate, although I recognize that the proofs aren't in - there are i's to dot and t's to cross.

The "proofs" available are the sort that actuaries quantify - and are used to give business decision-makers a huge edge, but are inadequate as 'epidemiological' and do not offer scientific certainty.

Doesn't mean they're not valid.




tweak



[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by Styki


No sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Either increasing levels of CO2 causes temperatures to go up or it doesn't. CO2 doesn't take a holiday and only generate a greenhouse effect sometimes but not other times. Here's what most people don't know about CO2

1) All CO2 only accounts for about 10% of the total greenhouse effect of all greenhouse gases. 98% of the rest is caused by water vapour ie. humidity. The 10% caused by CO2 works out to between 2 and 3 degrees C.

2) CO2's ability to absorb heat energy quickly and re-emit that heat energy slowly, which is what the greenhouse effect really is, is not linear. Which means that if you have twice as much CO2 you DON'T get twice as much impact on temperatures. Of the current 388 ppm we have now, the first 20 ppm accounts for half of the entire greenhouse effect from CO2 ie. 1-1.5 degrees C. The remaining 368 ppm accounts for the other half. It's been estimated by experts(chemists not climate scientists), that in order for the temperature impact to double (ie. 4-6 degrees C), the level of CO2 would have to exceed 10,000.

3) The incremental amount of CO2 that human civilization generates, is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 that the oceans either give up or absorb, depending on what the average temperature of ocean water is(and by average temperature I don't mean just average surfact temperature). Over the last 600,000 years, there have been three instances when temperature and CO2 levels spiked(to levels that were close to today's levels), then declined suddenly and in all three case, temperature led the way and CO2 levels followed. These natural occurrences show that there is a self-correcting mechanism, not the 'tipping point' that alarmists assume. Because the cause ALWAYS has to precede the effect, changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

When you do your homework, and understand the basic science behind greenhouse effect, you quickly see that CO2 is a red herring regardless of whether it's naturally or artificially produced.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by Styki

 

...

1) All CO2 only accounts for about 10% of the total greenhouse effect of all greenhouse gases. 98% of the rest is caused by water vapour ie. humidity. The 10% caused by CO2 works out to between 2 and 3 degrees C.

...When you do your homework, and understand the basic science behind greenhouse effect, you quickly see that CO2 is a red herring regardless of whether it's naturally or artificially produced.

By that logic, oxygen is irrelevant to the existence of H2O.



Oh yeah, and btw - what about methane? Also irrelevant to atmospheric impacts?




tweak







[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow


and again for you
cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs

Climate changes constantly, that's the whole point.

I am not talking here about cap and trade, I am talking about the disinformation propogated by those who have something to gain, which could include cap and trade, but which also includes the thousands who gain in other ways.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a real underlying problem - just means the proposed solution is a scam.

The underlying problem as you put it is a problem in and of itself, because the science is not proven in any way shape or form - rather it is believed, which doesn't automatically make it right.

It's absolutely true that industrial activities have modified the "chemical formula" that is our atmosphere.

Again, this is not what we're discussing here - CO2 is not and has never been a pollutant, and there is no real peer reviewed evidence to support the claims that CO2 is the major cause of alleged AGW.

Other pollutants with local effects?
Absolutely, but again there is little real evidence to support alleged AGW being caused by certain activities.

It's also fairly clear that those modifications likely impact climate, although I recognize that the proofs aren't in - there are i's to dot and t's to cross.

Modfications caused by humans producing CO2?
I think not.

The "proofs" available are the sort that actuaries quantify - and are used to give business decision-makers a huge edge, but are inadequate as 'epidemiological' and do not offer scientific certainty.

Doesn't mean they're not valid.

Well actually it does mean they are not valid - CO2 is being used as something it is not for the purposes of defrauding people.

CO2 has not been proven as the driving force behind alleged AGW.

We are not talking about "other" industrial pollutants or activities, we are talking very spcifically about CO2 and it's supposed effect on a dynamic system about which very little is understood.

Now if you want to discuss "other" pollutants or activites which have an impact on the planet, by all means we can do that, but it is a topic for another thread.

reply to post by soficrow


What the 'bleep' has oxygen and H2O got to do with CO2 and temperature changes?

Methane's impact on atmospheric temperatures is so small, it can't even be reliably measured because it's such a tiny fraction of 1% of all greenhouse gases.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Beancounter72]

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by soficrow

 

What the 'bleep' has oxygen and H2O got to do with CO2 and temperature changes?

Methane's impact on atmospheric temperatures is so small, it can't even be reliably measured because it's such a tiny fraction of 1% of all greenhouse gases.

It's a joke:

If CO2 is unimportant as a factor affecting atmosphere because it only accounts for 10% of the whole, then by the same logic, it follows that oxygen is unimportant to the existence of water (H2O).

Get it?

Originally posted by budski
He also happens to be a very good friend of al gore, and owns shares in his carbon credit company - I guess that's the payoff for all those years of tirelessly working on gore's behalf and falsifying data on at least 3 occasions that we know of.
But of course, that was just a "mistake"

[edit on 18/2/2010 by budski]

Yes this is a major scam! Like selling beachfront in Arizona. I got a bridge Ill sell yea sort of thing on a large large scale.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by soficrow

 

Methane's impact on atmospheric temperatures is so small, it can't even be reliably measured because it's such a tiny fraction of 1% of all greenhouse gases.

Hmmm. Can be argued. ...Even without considering combined effects and interactions.

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).[2] Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.
The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. Methane can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million.

Methane

And again - AGREED - the "Cap and Trade Solution" is a scam. But that does NOT mean there is no problem.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by soficrow

 

What the 'bleep' has oxygen and H2O got to do with CO2 and temperature changes?

Methane's impact on atmospheric temperatures is so small, it can't even be reliably measured because it's such a tiny fraction of 1% of all greenhouse gases.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Beancounter72]

H20 is the most powerful greenhouse gas in out atmosphere, it is extremly important for its role of heating and cooling the atmosphere. While the concentrations of methane are small, it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than C02 so even it small concentrations it's affect is significant.

The climate debate is useless because it comprised of fools on both sides who don't even know what gases are in our atmosphere trying to defend their side. While the evidence for global warming is weak, so is the anti-warming evidence.

Even so these revelations in the news lately seem to have had the effect of making to people not give a 'bleep' about the enviroment anymore. This is the saddest part about the climate debacle, our planet is suffering while a useless debate continues...It is like two doctors arguing what kind of bandaid to use on a scraped knee while the patient is bleeding out through a gash in their neck.

reply to post by soficrow


Water vapor is 100 times more efficient at holding heat than CO2 and it is a significant fraction of all gases including nitrogen and oxygen. Do the math with methane. CO2 is 365 parts per million which is equal to 365,000 parts per billion versus 1,745 parts per billion of methane so CO2 is 209 times more plentiful than methane. Forget methane. It's a none issue.

The change in average levels of water vapor have far more impact on temperatures than CO2. Water vapor is caused by evaporation which is caused by heat energy hitting the surface of the Earth (but mainly hitting water). Cloud cover blocks the sun's heat which is why cloudy days are generally speaking cooler than sunny days. Clouds form when cosmic rays hit molecules of water wapor which causes them to form water droplets. The amount of cosmic rays that reach the earth's atmosphere, can be blocked by high energy particles emitted by sunspots. This explains why weather turns noticably cooler when sunspot activity is low(such as during the Maunder Minimum) and warmer when sunspot activity is high. Lots of sunspots, reduce the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth , which means less cloud cover which means more heat energy hitting the surface, which then raises air temperatures.

reply to post by Beancounter72


As jrod says:

H20 is the most powerful greenhouse gas in out atmosphere, it is extremly important for its role of heating and cooling the atmosphere. While the concentrations of methane are small, it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than C02 so even it small concentrations it's affect is significant.

...the saddest part about the climate debacle, our planet is suffering while a useless debate continues...It is like two doctors arguing what kind of bandaid to use on a scraped knee while the patient is bleeding out through a gash in their neck.

Enough with the distraction and discombulation.

You must have missed this:

Again.

I think 2 questions are being mushed together, quite inappropriately:

1. Is the climate changing? (Yep.)

2. Is the "Cap and Trade" plan the right solution? (Nope.)


So yeah, as per usual, a real problem is being played opportunistically to make the rich richer.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a real underlying problem - just means the proposed solution is a scam.


It's absolutely true that industrial activities have modified the "chemical formula" that is our atmosphere.

It's also fairly clear that those modifications likely impact climate, although I recognize that the proofs aren't in - there are i's to dot and t's to cross.

The "proofs" available are the sort that actuaries quantify - and are used to give business decision-makers a huge edge, but are inadequate as 'epidemiological' and do not offer scientific certainty.

Doesn't mean they're not valid.

......so lay off with the "CO2 argument," kay? I really don't wanna play.

reply to post by soficrow



CO2 is what this argument is all about, it's what the scam started with and is why so many people don't buy into the propaganda.

You have governments and their IPCC stooges, news channels, gore, hansen etc etc all telling us that CO2 is the problem, and yet you want us to ignore CO2 as part of the argument?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

CO2 IS the argument.

It's not various forms of industrial pollution - that's not what the scam revolves around, and that's not what's being rammed down our throats.

The whole crux of the debate is that CO2 causes global warming - or climate change now that it's been shown that GW is a crock.

Industrial pollutants and their effects, local or otherwise are another conversation entitrely.

Someone mentioned ozone holes.


You know, we can MAKE ozone.

I have a book written by Tesla from the early 1900s and even he had machines that generated large amounts of ozone back then by generating such massive AC voltages that it caught the air itself "on fire," ie it caused nitrogen in the air to combine with oxygen, or causing the nitrogen to oxidize.


People have made these machines in recent years for various uses and I've seen the government seize them, claiming they were ineffective. If they're ineffective then what is the freaking point in taking them away from people?


They're scamming you hardcore. All they ever want is more power. There is no evidence our emissions are causing any significant effect.

Global warming caused by humans is a lie and a big fat joke! You wanna know what 97% of the green house gases in our atmosphere are comprized of? Water vapor!!! Yeah that's right water vapor! As in clouds and water and the like! Yeah down with water we better stop water because it's gonna kill us all lol! Look it up people. What a joke, man made global warming pfft...

Now, lets take a look at atmospheric absorption BY GAS, Rayleigh scattering, and incoming and outgoing radiation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ddb81462ffd6.png[/atsimg]

You will see that co2's effects are minimal compared to water vapor, as well as other gasses.

Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

Now, we have to look at the total atmosphere by mass:

The atmosphere has a mass of 5x10^18 (5 quintillion) kilograms.

So, carbon dioxide at 0.038% would equal 1.9 × 10^15 (2 quadrillion) kilograms

Annual carbon dioxide output is (2006 estimate) 28 trillion kilograms worldwide.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, at 2006 output, it would take 67.8 years to double carbon dioxide.

However, this is not considering the effects of increased carbon dioxide levels on plants.

tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 - 40 %.
ezinearticles.com...

So, a 30-40% increase in plant growth, also means a 30-40% increase in carbon dioxide absorption from plants.

So, that must be taken into account.

Also, increased global temperatures will increase global plant growth (By increased seasonal growing times, and increased latitude growth area) and will thusly increase the carbon sink effect.

In addition to this, oceanic Algae increases its growth and subsequent carbon transmutation into oxygen in a carbon dioxide rich environment

pcp.oxfordjournals.org...


Furthermore, we must estimate *WHERE* the CO2 comes from.

This is a great little pdf containing JUST that information.
earthtrends.wri.org...

And here is the list (2000 estimates, global) (Metric ton = 1,000 kilograms)

Solid fuel: 8,112,096 metric tons
Liquid Fuels: 10,636,592 metric tons
Gaseous Fuels: 4,744,880 metric tons
Gas Flaring: 113,584 metric tons
Cement Manufacturing: 824,400 metric tons
Land use change: 7,618,621 metric tons

(Land use change denotes land that is "Industrialized* and no longer used as a natural carbon sink... e.g. grassland to parking lot, jungle to strip mall, etc)

So, we can see that the LARGEST part of CO2 emissions are from Liquid Fuels (Petrochemicals, kerosene, gasoline, etc...)

And as you can *PLAINLY SEE*

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d7f911364ae.jpg[/atsimg]

That supply is running out.

What we should do INSTEAD of taxing carbon, is to initiate a global production of solar capturing technologies

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/511710c9c626.jpg[/atsimg]


The earth is a delicately balanced system, but that is not to say it is EASY to imbalance.

There are MANY different factors at play that counterbalance anything that we puny humans could ever do at our current level of technological sophistication.

Carbon Dioxide is NOT the problem...

The centralization of energy production from "Financially efficient" sources *IS* the problem.

The best way to go about building this, is to place it under DOD budgets... because energy security *IS* a defense issue.

-Edrick

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by soficrow

 

CO2 is what this argument is all about, it's what the scam started with and is why so many people don't buy into the propaganda.

imho - you are assisting the polarization and attempting to perpetuate a non-productive dialogue with your insistence on the CO2 focus.

I have already stated clearly and repeatedly that I think the carbon cap and trade scheme is a scam. ...Yet you keep trying to engage me on CO2 as if I supported the scam.

Why, I wonder?

I also have stated clearly that I consider our planet's atmosphere to be a complexity of complex interactions. Yet again, you try to say I'm claiming single-cause-and-effect for carbon as a culprit. ...Complete misrepresentation - and distraction - pure and simple.

YOU are focusing on carbon, saying rightly that it's a red herring - but wrongly that your observation proves there is no problem and ends the debate.

Re: H2O in the atmosphere.

The IPCC data reveals that clouds are many more times more important than CO2 in global warming. Their data also shows that human created pollutants in the atmosphere are almost as great as natural pollutants. However, the IPCC did not consider pollution as a way humans might have affected global temperatures. What is now required is for scientists with a holistic perspective to join the dots between diverse scientific disciplines in which Australia excels.

Scientists generally accept that H2O is responsible for more than 90 per cent of the heat dynamics of the planet while CO2 is responsible for less than 5 per cent. The residual gases are methane, nitrous oxide and industrial gases.

Also accepted is that water is by far the most dominant natural greenhouse gas responsible for heating the planet to its current comfort level of 15C from -18C: a change of 33C.

...Trees and other plants have a pivotal role in controlling the composition of the atmosphere, rain and perhaps global temperatures. Through photosynthesis plants use the energy of the sun to release oxygen from CO2. Photosynthesis manufactures sugars that provide the building material for plants. The sugars feed the special bacteria that act as a catalyst in changing the state and behaviour of the atmosphere.

Cooling the planet without carbon taxing or trading: is water the elephant in the room?

reply to post by soficrow


Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are not reading my posts properly.

The thing that has been shoved down our throats at every opportunity, the thing that climatologists have based all their scare stories on is CO2.

Hence the carbon credit scheme.

ALL of this debate is centred around atmospheric CO2 - your attempt to bring a strawman in the form of water vapour is not working, just as your post about other industrial pollutants did not work, because that has little or nothing to do with what we are repeatedly told.

THAT CO2 IS THE CAUSE OF AGW.

This is the information we have been given, this is what people are railing against.

If you want to debate other pollutants and their effects, or water vapour and its effects, write another thread instead of posting nonsensical strawmen in an attempt to derail this one.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by soficrow

 

Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are not reading my posts properly.

...ALL of this debate is centred around atmospheric CO2 - your attempt to bring a strawman in the form of water vapour is not working, just as your post about other industrial pollutants did not work, because that has little or nothing to do with what we are repeatedly told.

...If you want to debate other pollutants and their effects, or water vapour and its effects, write another thread instead of posting nonsensical strawmen in an attempt to derail this one.

YOU are the one fixated on CO2.

This thread is NOT about CO2. The OP's opening post is NOT about CO2.

YOU are the one trying to derail this thread, not me.

A quote from one of the OP's sources, for your edification:

the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.

Here are the points I like to stress:

1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.

The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.

2) Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth’s orbit and hence the amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get. What the current debate is about is whether humans — by emitting so much carbon and thickening the greenhouse-gas blanket around the earth so that it traps more heat — are now rapidly exacerbating nature’s natural warming cycles to a degree that could lead to dangerous disruptions.

3) Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.” We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.

4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.

China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency and high-speed rail. It sees the future trends and is betting on them. Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.


Global Weirding Is Here