Where is global warming when you need it?

#26
#26
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
He told a half truth in The Inconvenient Truth (which means it was a lie). He showed a correlation between climate and CO2 levels and insinuated that CO2 caused temperature increases.

In fact, the actual data showed that CO2 LAGGED behind temperature by several hundred years. So in essence, temperature caused CO2 increases, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Gore also said that the gulfstream might shut down which was wrong....it is the general overturning that could potentially slow/shut down...but wind-driven currents like the gulf stream will still be around unless global warming stops the wind....doubtful. So, it is obvious that he either mis-spoke or over-inflated at times. A lot of people mix up thermohaline currents (I think that is what they are called) and the gulf-stream. I won't sue him..but he should have been more careful.

As for the CO2-temperature correlation...we've been through it before...scientists would expect CO2 to lag temperature in those plots...and if Al Gore said that see....CO2 increases cause Temperature increases here it is...then he misrepresented the data (as opposed to saying...see...look ... it's pretty clear...when CO2 is high, temperature is high...which is not an incorrect statement...the two are correlated). The correlation is part of the problem...natural positive feedback effects will augment the problem that we create. Then, when you add increased solar forcing from orbital patterns (when we enter those patterns again)..then you can expect even bigger increases.
 
#27
#27
utvolpj said:
There’s No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature - Leadership and the Environment - MSNBC.com

Just in case some doubt what he says,
Click to expand...

I think that it is important to note that Professor Lindzen doesn't say global warming won't happen. He is unwilling to say whether or not it will ... and what the effects will be if it does .. based on current scientific evidence. He really likes stirring up trouble on this issue....and he can...because the scientific evidence isn't past the 95% confidence level yet. There is still room for doubt, and he exploits it for all its worth. It's good that people like him are around (and he might be the only dynamic climatologist left in the WORLD that feels the way he does), because it forces the others to stay more honest to the science. But, I don't want people to get the impression from his credentials that all MIT climatologists (or a lot of prominent climatologists) feel the way he does...because they don't. He is in a overwhelming minority in that community. His colleagues don't badmouth him (as they shouldn't)...but they also point out that he is one of the very few people in their field that is unwilling to accept attribution of global warming to man. I think that the biggest reason he is unwilling to do that is because he TOTALLY disagrees with their climate forecasting (because it is uncertain, there is no doubt about it) and their calls of disaster that could result. I think that he resents their willingness to forecast something that is very difficult and then cry the sky is falling ... and so he makes his position very loud to try to counteract their position.
 
#28
#28
Human activity counts for for between 2-3% of ALL CO2. So if you can do simple math you can deduce that we are INSIGNIFICANT compared to nature. BTW, Global Warming is affecting Mars ALOT more than us right now. Maybe Al Gore needs to help save Mars instead of us.

Global Warming - Greenhouse Gases and the Kyoto Protocol

The Global Warming Page

Global warming hits Mars too: study

SkepticsGuideToGlobalWarming

That should give more information to you about Global Warming than the liberal media EVER has.
 
#29
#29
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Human activity counts for for between 2-3% of ALL CO2. So if you can do simple math you can deduce that we are INSIGNIFICANT compared to nature. BTW, Global Warming is affecting Mars ALOT more than us right now. Maybe Al Gore needs to help save Mars instead of us.

Global Warming - Greenhouse Gases and the Kyoto Protocol

The Global Warming Page

Global warming hits Mars too: study

SkepticsGuideToGlobalWarming

That should give more information to you about Global Warming than the liberal media EVER has.
Click to expand...

I see that you can do simple math and I think that is the problem. Global warming is an issue of balance and steady state. Natural background emissions were fully equilibrated with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv at pre-industrial levels. At that level, the sink of CO2 back to the earth was equal to the natural emissiosn of CO2 to the atmosphere. Humans have introduced a perturbation to the system. This perturbation is not yet fully resolved...and the earth is still responding to it. If we stopped all CO2 emissions today, the earth would continue responding. More CO2 means more greenhouse effect and more greenhouse effect likely means temperature increase. That temperature increase will continue until the radiative release of energy from the earth equals the radiative input of energy from the sun.

Because natural emissions were fully equilibrated, there total doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are introducing tons (literally) of CO2 into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources..and it is this amount that is the forcing climate now..not natural emissions. It is the imbalance that matters. Granted, it might not be simple math like yours, but it is more accurate.

I don't get my global climate change information from the liberal media...perhaps the better question is where exactly are you getting your information?
 
#31
#31
TennTradition said:
I see that you can do simple math and I think that is the problem. Global warming is an issue of balance and steady state. Natural background emissions were fully equilibrated with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv at pre-industrial levels. At that level, the sink of CO2 back to the earth was equal to the natural emissiosn of CO2 to the atmosphere. Humans have introduced a perturbation to the system. This perturbation is not yet fully resolved...and the earth is still responding to it. If we stopped all CO2 emissions today, the earth would continue responding. More CO2 means more greenhouse effect and more greenhouse effect likely means temperature increase. That temperature increase will continue until the radiative release of energy from the earth equals the radiative input of energy from the sun.

Because natural emissions were fully equilibrated, there total doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are introducing tons (literally) of CO2 into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources..and it is this amount that is the forcing climate now..not natural emissions. It is the imbalance that matters. Granted, it might not be simple math like yours, but it is more accurate.

I don't get my global climate change information from the liberal media...perhaps the better question is where exactly are you getting your information?
Click to expand...

Steady state? Equilibrium? I feel like I'm sitting through a control theory class... :unsure:

How can anybody say we have an equilibrium point for CO2 if weather is constaly in flux and CO2 (by association) is also in flux?

And another thing, the atmosphere should be treated like a solution. The atmosphere can only hold so much gaseous CO2 at any given temp. It is not lke we are going to constantly be able to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing linerar rate. At some point, we will reach a saturation point, which I'm sure isn't much higher than it is right now. But we are making some very BOLD predictions about the amount of CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by humans when you compare it to volcanic activity, forest fires, and the oceans.
 
#32
#32
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Steady state? Equilibrium? I feel like I'm sitting through a control theory class... :unsure:

How can anybody say we have an equilibrium point for CO2 if weather is constaly in flux and CO2 (by association) is also in flux?

And another thing, the atmosphere should be treated like a solution. The atmosphere can only hold so much gaseous CO2 at any given temp. It is not lke we are going to constantly be able to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing linerar rate. At some point, we will reach a saturation point, which I'm sure isn't much higher than it is right now. But we are making some very BOLD predictions about the amount of CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by humans when you compare it to volcanic activity, forest fires, and the oceans.
Click to expand...

As for steady state...the planet can reach a steady state with regard to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. General weather won't drive large fluctuations in CO2...really only large natural phenomenon (volcanoes) or solar activity (orbits = heat = oceans giving up CO2). But...when a large perturbation is presented .. you're right if you're saying it takes a long time to get to equilibrium...but there is one (or a perceived one...with only small oscillations...mainly seasonal - again small fluctuations around a general equilibrium)

We are no where near the saturation point for carbon dioxide. It will reach lethal limits before you see pools of CO2 lying around. If you want to see the math, I'll go do the calculation. But, if you want, take my word for it.

Forest fires don't really count for CO2 forcing because any CO2 they release, they will take right back up when they grow again. It is only a short-term affect. That is most of the impetus behind a biofuels market.

As for volcanos...I don't know how much CO2 they release, but I'm sure you're right. I bet it is a lot...and more than we release in any given year. But, volcanoes have probably caused a lot of havoc in the past....havoc that I would rather not bring upon myself.

As for oceans...you can't look at oceans as a large net source of CO2. Yes, when temperatures increase, they will release a lot...and they hold tons...literally. But, it is not like it is an emission. Same way with summer/winter seasons ... the ocean takes it up in the winter, gives it up in the summer...but it really isn't in the same class as volcanoes because there is then give and take.
 
#33
#33
I forgot to say...I tend to agree with the word Bold when it comes to talking about CO2 concentrations, though. With all the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that exist...a lot that probably haven't been discovered...it is somewhat bold I guess to talk about the effect that any one change will have...but it is necessary to make predictions and to attempt to understand what changes we may be making to our environment, I think.
 
#34
#34
TennTradition said:
As for steady state...the planet can reach a steady state with regard to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. General weather won't drive large fluctuations in CO2...really only large natural phenomenon (volcanoes) or solar activity (orbits = heat = oceans giving up CO2). But...when a large perturbation is presented .. you're right if you're saying it takes a long time to get to equilibrium...but there is one (or a perceived one...with only small oscillations...mainly seasonal - again small fluctuations around a general equilibrium)

We are no where near the saturation point for carbon dioxide. It will reach lethal limits before you see pools of CO2 lying around. If you want to see the math, I'll go do the calculation. But, if you want, take my word for it.

Forest fires don't really count for CO2 forcing because any CO2 they release, they will take right back up when they grow again. It is only a short-term affect. That is most of the impetus behind a biofuels market.

As for volcanos...I don't know how much CO2 they release, but I'm sure you're right. I bet it is a lot...and more than we release in any given year. But, volcanoes have probably caused a lot of havoc in the past....havoc that I would rather not bring upon myself.

As for oceans...you can't look at oceans as a large net source of CO2. Yes, when temperatures increase, they will release a lot...and they hold tons...literally. But, it is not like it is an emission. Same way with summer/winter seasons ... the ocean takes it up in the winter, gives it up in the summer...but it really isn't in the same class as volcanoes because there is then give and take.
Click to expand...

You let me know when they can accurately predict EXACTLY what nature does on a daily basis, and then AND ONLY THEN will I listen to anything ANYONE has to say on Global Warming. Also, explain to me EXACTLY the correlation between what man is doing and Global Warming. Shouldn't Switzerland be covered completely in ice and the polar bears be extinct due to EXTREME COLD that was predicted by the same scientists that are backing Global Warming??? The best thing for the American people to do is to educate themselves on this subject and not take the media's word on it. I don't even watch TV news anymore because of this. BTW if the temperature has risen .6 degrees Fahrenheit in like the past 30 years, isn't that like only a .02 degree rise per year??? This is definitely an "alarmist" agenda and has no business in the media.

Global Warming is crap and if you read this about what happened in the 70s then some of you might get it after. But then again, prolly not....

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#35
#35
g8terh8ter_eric said:
You let me know when they can accurately predict EXACTLY what nature does on a daily basis, and then AND ONLY THEN will I listen to anything ANYONE has to say on Global Warming.
Click to expand...

I will as soon as you prove to me that even half of the stuff written in the Bible actually happened.
 
#36
#36
OWB said:
I will as soon as you prove to me that even half of the stuff written in the Bible actually happened.
Click to expand...

I wish we could go to Canada and cause global warming so we would not have such cold weather in April.

:eek:k:
 
#39
#39
g8terh8ter_eric said:
LOLOLOLOL.
Click to expand...

Actually the two aren't that comparable. Even if you were to consider both of them "myths", Global Warming has more scientific data than there will ever be on the Bible.

I just thought since you were such a hard fact, prove it to me kind of guy, you would had some interesting informational links backing up everything written in the Bible.
 
#40
#40
g8terh8ter_eric said:
You let me know when they can accurately predict EXACTLY what nature does on a daily basis, and then AND ONLY THEN will I listen to anything ANYONE has to say on Global Warming. Also, explain to me EXACTLY the correlation between what man is doing and Global Warming. Shouldn't Switzerland be covered completely in ice and the polar bears be extinct due to EXTREME COLD that was predicted by the same scientists that are backing Global Warming??? The best thing for the American people to do is to educate themselves on this subject and not take the media's word on it. I don't even watch TV news anymore because of this. BTW if the temperature has risen .6 degrees Fahrenheit in like the past 30 years, isn't that like only a .02 degree rise per year??? This is definitely an "alarmist" agenda and has no business in the media.

Global Warming is crap and if you read this about what happened in the 70s then some of you might get it after. But then again, prolly not....

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Do you not find it unreasonable to assert that someone must predict EXACTLY how the climate will respond to any forcing? If that is your opinion, then go with it, I guess. But, I will be happy to not place those demands on anyone. Instead, I will accept the work of scientists who can place high confidence intervals on their work. I will continue to read their work as well as have an interest in those who make rebuttals.

I'm sure that it is not my place to do so and that you don't really care, but I will do it anyway - I would advise you to not be so worried about the liberal media flooding everyone with their "propoganda" and be a little more concerned with how accurate your view of global climate change is. You have mentioned the liberal media several times now as a bad source of information about climate change. Somehow, I think that you feel that finding opinions/facts online is superior because you have sought out this knowledge on your own (I say this only based on the links you posted earlier). Like I said before, the things I say are not based on what the media says nor are they based on unsubstantiated online sources. While I cannot guarantee that everything I have learned/read is unbiased, I have generally high confidence that the foundation of my understanding of the subject is pretty good and while I am trying to build a better knowledge base - I'll go with what I know over your liberal media or your online resources.

It isn't so much that the online resources are wrong in my opinion, but it is more that they are not peer-reviewed or fair in their description of the issue. They can list the facts they choose (usually which pertain to the difficulty of predicing future climate or the effects of any warming), with no one to referee or verify. Even if they are true, they generally show one side of a story and do so by focusing on the uncertainty that the scientists admist exists - but then try to play it off as something that blows huge holes in the science. It could be wrong - there is room for that error...but more and more climate models are showing results that give the scientists higher and higher confidence in their estimates of warming ranges. Prediction of precipitation, melting, sea level rise, drought, famine, etc. are much more difficult and the scientists who focus on these issues are working to improve them. I find your assertion that you will believe nothing that a scientist has to say until they can accurately predict EXACTLY how something will behave as naive at best - very few models do this, particularly models that have stochastic components like climate models. If EXACT prediction is your minimum standard for acceptable science then I think that you must have a lot of problems with all science.
 
#41
#41
OWB said:
Actually the two aren't that comparable. Even if you were to consider both of them "myths", Global Warming has more scientific data than there will ever be on the Bible.

I just thought since you were such a hard fact, prove it to me kind of guy, you would had some interesting informational links backing up everything written in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, up to 500 people saw Jesus AFTER he died. He cooked breakfast for his disciples AFTER he rose again. He gave the most important sermon EVER, The Sermon on the Mount AFTER HE ROSE. Science has no faith where as religion does. I have believe WHOLE-HEARTEDLY what happened and that Jesus died AND rose again and is my Lord and Savior. So if you actually look at it, do you believe everything you see on the news?? Or do you have faith that what they are saying is correct?? Thing is OWB, are you a man of faith or just a man of facts?? See the Bible is fact to me and I have Faith in what occurred. So are you sure that the Civil War actually happened or are the documents that demonstrate that it did fictional since you can't see it or touch it??

Now back to the Topic, Global Warming is CRAP.
 
#42
#42
Scientists nailed it on the head with the ice age in the 70's. How much proof does one need, right?
 
#43
#43
OrangeEmpire said:
Scientists nailed it on the head with the ice age in the 70's. How much proof does one need, right?
Click to expand...

I was not around for the global cooling arguments, so I want to offer that disclaimer. But, from what I have read on the issue, much of the global cooling theory was based on continued emissions of aerosols - which have a general cooling effect on the earth's climate. When aerosol emissions finally began to curb with US limits imposed, the cooling effect went away. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the whole story ... because I think that there were bad models mixed in there as well...but this was a major if not the major contributor, from what I understand. But, again, I will note that my understanding isn't as good as I would like for it to be to be speaking on the topic...so I'll stop there.
 
#44
#44
TennTradition said:
I was not around for the global cooling arguments, so I want to offer that disclaimer. But, from what I have read on the issue, much of the global cooling theory was based on continued emissions of aerosols - which have a general cooling effect on the earth's climate. When aerosol emissions finally began to curb with US limits imposed, the cooling effect went away. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the whole story ... because I think that there were bad models mixed in there as well...but this was a major if not the major contributor, from what I understand. But, again, I will note that my understanding isn't as good as I would like for it to be to be speaking on the topic...so I'll stop there.
Click to expand...

I was not alive either, just find it amusing humans think they can control so much.

:yes:

I have no doubt there is global warming and cooling...........

I just have trouble believing we are the main/sole cause.:thumbsup:
 
#45
#45
TennTradition said:
Do you not find it unreasonable to assert that someone must predict EXACTLY how the climate will respond to any forcing? If that is your opinion, then go with it, I guess. But, I will be happy to not place those demands on anyone. Instead, I will accept the work of scientists who can place high confidence intervals on their work. I will continue to read their work as well as have an interest in those who make rebuttals.

I'm sure that it is not my place to do so and that you don't really care, but I will do it anyway - I would advise you to not be so worried about the liberal media flooding everyone with their "propoganda" and be a little more concerned with how accurate your view of global climate change is. You have mentioned the liberal media several times now as a bad source of information about climate change. Somehow, I think that you feel that finding opinions/facts online is superior because you have sought out this knowledge on your own (I say this only based on the links you posted earlier). Like I said before, the things I say are not based on what the media says nor are they based on unsubstantiated online sources. While I cannot guarantee that everything I have learned/read is unbiased, I have generally high confidence that the foundation of my understanding of the subject is pretty good and while I am trying to build a better knowledge base - I'll go with what I know over your liberal media or your online resources.

It isn't so much that the online resources are wrong in my opinion, but it is more that they are not peer-reviewed or fair in their description of the issue. They can list the facts they choose (usually which pertain to the difficulty of predicing future climate or the effects of any warming), with no one to referee or verify. Even if they are true, they generally show one side of a story and do so by focusing on the uncertainty that the scientists admist exists - but then try to play it off as something that blows huge holes in the science. It could be wrong - there is room for that error...but more and more climate models are showing results that give the scientists higher and higher confidence in their estimates of warming ranges. Prediction of precipitation, melting, sea level rise, drought, famine, etc. are much more difficult and the scientists who focus on these issues are working to improve them. I find your assertion that you will believe nothing that a scientist has to say until they can accurately predict EXACTLY how something will behave as naive at best - very few models do this, particularly models that have stochastic components like climate models. If EXACT prediction is your minimum standard for acceptable science then I think that you must have a lot of problems with all science.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with science at all, but when its 80 degrees one week and 40 degrees and snowing the next week and they can't predict that on a YEARLY basis, I have a problem believing that the Earth is going to roast depending on what Al Gore says and does. Does anyone ACTUALLY believe the Sun and the Earth are equally responsible for Global Warming and Global Cooling and not man???

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame | Germany | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

ScienceDaily: Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

I have provided some links that explaining that the Sun is more responsible that we are for global warming. If we didn't have the 94-96% CO2 in the atmosphere from water vapor we WOULD fry from the Sun itself.
 
#46
#46
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I have no problems with science at all, but when its 80 degrees one week and 40 degrees and snowing the next week and they can't predict that on a YEARLY basis, I have a problem believing that the Earth is going to roast depending on what Al Gore says and does. Does anyone ACTUALLY believe the Sun and the Earth are equally responsible for Global Warming and Global Cooling and not man???

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame | Germany | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

ScienceDaily: Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

I have provided some links that explaining that the Sun is more responsible that we are for global warming. If we didn't have the 94-96% CO2 in the atmosphere from water vapor we WOULD fry from the Sun itself.
Click to expand...

I still stand by the statement that if you hold all science to that standard then you would accept very little science. The solar radiative forcing may be increasing - they'll hash that out in time...and if it is, then our problems just get worse. More CO2 will mean more climate sensitivity to any increase in radiative forcing.

As for your last comments...what do you mean 94-96% CO2 from water vapor?
 
#48
#48
TennTradition said:
I still stand by the statement that if you hold all science to that standard then you would accept very little science. The solar radiative forcing may be increasing - they'll hash that out in time...and if it is, then our problems just get worse. More CO2 will mean more climate sensitivity to any increase in radiative forcing.

As for your last comments...what do you mean 94-96% CO2 from water vapor?
Click to expand...

Sorry got ahead of myself alittle. I meant to say that 94-96% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. CO2 is only about 2-4% and most of that is NATURALLY occurring. Long day sorry.
 
#49
#49
OrangeEmpire said:
I was not alive either, just find it amusing humans think they can control so much.

:yes:

I have no doubt there is global warming and cooling...........

I just have trouble believing we are the main/sole cause.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Sole cause - no way : agreed. Main? I think it is very hard to say. Without the sun...there is no warming obviously...so in that sense it is the "main" contributor. But, let's say we were emitting no greenhouse gases....and take the temperature increase caused by a certain change in solar radiative forcing (along with all the CO2 changes it causes like we have seen in Gore's famous plots..which causes even more warming in positive feedback). Now, let's increase the CO2 concentrations through human emissions....and allow the same change in solar radiative forcing be imposed again. How much does the temperature change this time (including after the increasing temperature forces the release of more CO2 from the ocean.....yada yada)? Is this increase twice what it was without our CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't know. The two are highly couple and are very difficult to separate....particularly with feedbacks and, heaven forbid, thresholds, that could be involved. I guess that my point is that we are building the stage for something that could be a pretty big problem...and we should try our best to understand how big of a problem it could be ... and to understand what we can do to try to lessen the impacts or prevent it. It is all about probabilities really....does the confidence in the science warrant the investment..we'll see I guess.
 
#50
#50
TennTradition said:
Sole cause - no way : agreed. Main? I think it is very hard to say. Without the sun...there is no warming obviously...so in that sense it is the "main" contributor. But, let's say we were emitting no greenhouse gases....and take the temperature increase caused by a certain change in solar radiative forcing (along with all the CO2 changes it causes like we have seen in Gore's famous plots..which causes even more warming in positive feedback). Now, let's increase the CO2 concentrations through human emissions....and allow the same change in solar radiative forcing be imposed again. How much does the temperature change this time (including after the increasing temperature forces the release of more CO2 from the ocean.....yada yada)? Is this increase twice what it was without our CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't know. The two are highly couple and are very difficult to separate....particularly with feedbacks and, heaven forbid, thresholds, that could be involved. I guess that my point is that we are building the stage for something that could be a pretty big problem...and we should try our best to understand how big of a problem it could be ... and to understand what we can do to try to lessen the impacts or prevent it. It is all about probabilities really....does the confidence in the science warrant the investment..we'll see I guess.
Click to expand...

So you believe in the Global Cooling scare of the 70s right???
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top