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.

 

Global Warming Dissenter Bjorn Lomborg (Sort of) Has a Change of Heart

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clavicula
"If CO2 is building up, this must mean we (and other sources) are creating CO2 faster than the Earth can handle." - illumin8ed

Or it could mean that the if the global mean temperature goes up (for whatever reason) that the CO2 level increases with it. I have no doubt however that the contribution from man made sources has an impact, how this plays into the overall picture is however largely unknown.


I don't think you understood my quote.

The plants and trees, and ocean, etc., remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Many climate change skeptics suggest Earth can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a fast enough rate so that we don't have to worry about increases in CO2. My quote you quoted was suggesting that an increase in CO2 levels suggest that Earth can't remove CO2 fast enough. It doesn't matter what increases CO2 levels... the fact that it can increase suggest Earth can't remove it fast enough. That is what I was saying...


Originally posted by Clavicula
Or it could mean that the if the global mean temperature goes up (for whatever reason) that the CO2 level increases with it.


What you just said is a positive feed back loop. If global temperature goes up, and this increases CO2 levels, the increase in CO2 (greenhouse gas) will trap more heat, and increase temperatures more. This rise in temperature will also increase water vapor (greenhouse gas) and create another feed back loop. So the increase in temperature will never stop (global warming).

So you debunked yourself.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by illumin8ed

What you just said is a positive feed back loop. If global temperature goes up, and this increases CO2 levels, the increase in CO2 (greenhouse gas) will trap more heat, and increase temperatures more. This rise in temperature will also increase water vapor (greenhouse gas) and create another feed back loop. So the increase in temperature will never stop (global warming).

So you debunked yourself.



IPCC operate with a climate sensitivity where feed back loops are included. This feed back comes largely in the form of added water vapour. By logic reasoning positive feed back must be countered by negative feed backs or the oceans would have boiled off long ago when the CO2 levels were much higher. Everyone agrees (even the scientists) that CO2 by itself is not potent enough on it's own to be a problem in any forseeable future. They have to add positive feed back for global warming to be a problem. So the entire case of CAGW (Catastrophic Antropogenig Global Warming) hinges on the amount of positive feed back in the climate system. Should the positive feed back turn out to be negligible the case for CAGW collapses.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Clavicula
 


This is from NOAA showing outgoing radiation as a function of CO2 concentration. As you can see the idea of feed back is more complicated than previously thought. Up to about 360 ppm the AGW theory looks plausible with a decrease in outgoing radiation, however beyond this level the OLR levels increase again pointing to some mechanism that does not agree with the current CAGW meme.





edit on 16-9-2010 by Clavicula because: Image too large replaced with smaller version.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by illumin8ed

CO2 will dissolve in water, and react with water to create carbonic acid (a weak acid). This weak acid will create hydrogen ions which produces the characteristic chemical behavior of acids. Acids kill plants and animals. pH levels are very important if you want to sustain life.


Oh really, so the life that developed in the oceans all those millions of years ago when the CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm should not really be there then? Ocean acidification is just a backup scare story kept in the wing for the eventuality that the CAGW scare story crashes and burns. Saltwater is a highly buffered solution which is actually alkaline, and as you mention carbonic acid is a very weak acid that has a very minute impact on the Ph of seawater.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by Clavicula
 


This is from NOAA showing outgoing radiation as a function of CO2 concentration. As you can see the idea of feed back is more complicated than previously thought. Up to about 360 ppm the AGW theory looks plausible with a decrease in outgoing radiation, however beyond this level the OLR levels increase again pointing to some mechanism that does not agree with the current CAGW meme.





edit on 16-9-2010 by Clavicula because: Image too large replaced with smaller version.



First, can you please provide a link to exactly where you found this graph?

Second, you're making an assumption with your statements, "more complicated than previously thought" and, "pointing to some mechanism that does not agree with the current CAGW meme". In both statements you seem to assume that climatologists do not understand the complexity/mechanisms involved with CO2 concentration and outgoing longwave radiation (which they largely do, at least far more than you seem to be implying). It is a false assumption that somehow minor fluctuations (such as in the graph you posted) negate the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming, and in your false black/white assumption you hypocritically fail to provide for the very complexity for which you criticize researchers for somehow missing. Which is to say- the minor fluctuation in the above graph could be attributable to a fluctuating pattern that isn't perfectly linear but still generally trends towards a strong relationship between atmospheric CO2 and outgoing longwave radiation. You seem to imply with your very tiny/limited bit of information (which even leaves out the full scope of what it's referring to) that we need to rethink CO2 as a strong greenhouse gas. However, the reality is that CO2 is a crucial greenhouse gas... which is elementary atmospheric physics... as it increases, regardless of any diminishing return, it will increase trapped radiation and thus temperatures and obviously decrease outgoing radiation.

Once again, please provide a direct link to the NOAA webpage that hosts this graph so we can have better context to explain it.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
As discussed with NoHierarchy earlier in this conversation I stated that I didn't see that the 'climategate' mercenaries were independently investigated or reviewed. Here is another man's take on it. Enjoy. Oh, by the way, shaping up to be a pretty nippy winter by all accounts, what with the all that snow in Scotland already.

Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free?
by Alan Caruba
Warning Signs

Recently by Alan Caruba: Your Insane U.S. Energy Department

If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?

Or if the universities for which I worked had benefited from receiving those public funds had conducted hearings that exonerated me, wouldn’t those institutions be considered accessories to the alleged crime?

This is the case today for the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and Pennsylvania State University in America. If the CRU is above suspicion, why did the U.S. Department of Energy suspend funds for it in July citing scientific doubts raised by the Climategate revelations last November?

Leaked emails between the principal players, CRU’s Phil Jones and Penn State’s Michael Mann, documented their dismay over the fact that the overall temperatures of the Earth were not increasing and colluded to suppress any expression of global-warming skepticism in respected science journals.

Indeed, one of Mr. Jones emails admitted that he had “deleted loads of emails” to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request. In July a Wall Street Journal commentary by Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, noted that at the heart of the yet unresolved issues are “professional misconduct, data manipulation, and the jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data.”


A newspaper serving the area where Penn State is located published an article on July 12, 2010 by Louis Lombardi reporting that it had “cleared Mann of any wrongdoing” but that “the university was in no position to investigate one of its own or, stated differently, to investigate itself. Over the years, Mann had brought in millions of dollars for the university through his research. For the university to come to any other conclusion than that he acted appropriately would be an admission that the university has been fleecing those who gave the money.”

A similar whitewash occurred in England when Phil Jones and the CRU was investigated by a supposedly independent review, but one of the four members of the panel was Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, a member of the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Science for 18 years. A previous internal investigation by the university was similar to Penn State’s, clearing Jones of any charges.

Under any other circumstances, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, to name just two participants, would be subject to trials to determine whether they had, in fact, deceived their respective governments and other donors in order to receive the funding that was at the core of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) reports asserting that the Earth was heating up and that carbon dioxide emissions had to be limited to avoid it.

As this is being written the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to assert authority to control carbon dioxide emissions despite evidence of a global fraud and mountains of scientific data that indicate CO2 plays no role in a fraudulent “global warming.” All utilities, industries and businesses in America generate CO2 in the normal course of producing or using electricity for manufacturing and countless other uses.


The prospect of Republicans gaining control of Congress, likely in the House of Representatives, if not the Senate, suggests that, despite having been cleared by Penn State, Michael Mann will face an investigation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has made it known that a probe of the Climategate scandal will be at the top of his environmental agenda.

The funding at issue was public funding, the taxes paid by Americans and in England by its citizens. It will never be repaid, but the public has a right to know if its taxes underwrote a global hoax, a fraud primarily perpetrated by the United Nations and countless other parties seeking to create a market for “carbon credits” to be bought and sold on various exchanges.

Justice is not likely to be served in the case of Al Gore who has testified under oath before Congress asserting that “the planet has a fever”; he lied under oath. A long line of scientists and others have similarly misled Congress. The result in the House was the passage of the Cap-and-Trade bill that awaits a vote in the Senate.

We routinely put people like Bernard Madoff in jail for Ponzi schemes that defrauded people of billions. There is no reason why those who provided the data underwriting the fraud of Climategate should not face justice.

That may not occur, but the truth will be a form of justice despite the loss and waste of billions in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

Reprinted from Warning Signs.

October 1, 2010

Alan Caruba founded The National Anxiety Center in 1990 where this series is posted. An author, business and science writer, he blogs daily at factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com....



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
ok pollution is not good..not good at all in fact...but this manipulation on mass to set a price on pollution via carbon taxes is going to help.....how?

As a polluting company I can offset my pollution buy investing in a farmers trees, and plant cheap saplings in some plantation forest.
Then I hike up my prices which in turn hurts the end consumer who is being hit with a direct tax from personal pollution use fee but then smashed in the face with massive cost increases on every consumable item...transportation costs also are effected.....

Now putting the massive cost to Mr Ave Joe family from fighting climate change aside, and realize big business is still producing excessive pollution, manipulating the system with climate change accountants offsetting and writing off carbon uses, increasing cost to cover changes and carbon taxes while still destroying and raping the planet, making huge profits...and in turn huge government revenue. But even while one country is doing this, unless ALL nations fall into line including China & the USA whats the use...

This whole climate change global warming thing is grubby at best...
I can see more harm than good..via more control on the population at large while the upper end wont be effected.... apart from the reliance on their goods costing more..making them more $$$$$





edit on 1-10-2010 by Rollo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join