More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[rushmc 18]

Quote

A few notes on that piece:

"Does the Earth's atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it often results in a totally false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere facilitates convection. So-called "greenhouse gases" in the Earth's atmosphere do not act as a barrier to convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is wrong."

This is incorrect. A large part of what a greenhouse does is block re-radiation of IR. That's why plants in a greenhouse will not freeze at night even if the greenhouse is vented - because the glass blocks re-radiation of IR.

To use a concrete example, we had a few-day hard freeze here this year, and we covered our citrus trees with sheets. Our trees were OK but a lot of other people's trees died - because nothing was blocking their tree's IR radiation. The sheet did not "keep the tree's heat inside" (trees don't generate their own heat) nor did it "keep the day's heat in" (they were old and very porous, and could not stop the convection of warm air away from the tree) but did slow radiative heat loss - so the trees did not get much colder than the air.

"Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No . . ."

Untrue. See above example. CO2 does basically what that sheet over our trees did.

"Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent."

They do indeed. No explanation required because the article goes on to admit that they DO trap significant amounts of heat.

"The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it)."

This is quite true - but you seem to be arguing FOR these mechanisms.

Why is it so wrong to be honest and look at all sides. I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing info and opinions. I could just look at what supports my current position.

As for you comments. That info comes from some good places. In all honesty (I ask with respect) how can you just push all that off to the side so easily?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why is it so wrong to be honest and look at all sides. I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing info and opinions. I could just look at what supports my current position.

Above is what you wrote, here's is what they read -

"blah blah blah .... chatized ..... blah"

get ready to be cleverly beat upon for a spelling error

you spell like an Iowan

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I have also seen ice sample driven graphs that are less dramatic and
>could be read the other way.

Was it like the one below? Those are the ice-core historical records that show temps preceding CO2 change.

Maybe it was similar than I remeber but this is close to what I read.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499

and I know it doent support my position

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Why is it so wrong to be honest and look at all sides. I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing info and opinions. I could just look at what supports my current position.

Above is what you wrote, here's is what they read -

"blah blah blah .... chatized ..... blah"

get ready to be cleverly beat upon for a spelling error

you spell like an Iowan

cause I am??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>This is from NOAA that sugests the temps are not all that far from normal?

They're not; most estimates of change since the 1800's put us at under a degree C increase. The problem is that it keeps increasing.

If we stopped at this new temperature now, we'd see more melting at the poles, some minor sea level rise, some stronger weather events (until all parts of the planet equalized at the new temperatures) but not too much of a big deal. It's what happens if temperatures keep rising that has people worried.

Will it be a disaster? Depends on how fast it happens. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since the 1880's. If it continues at that rate, there will be some moderate panic as we try to relocate Bangladesh, coastal Florida cities, New Orleans etc but it's certainly doable. If it speeds up, it will be harder to get everyone out; if it's slower it will be easier.

Likewise, as weather patterns change, people will have to adapt. The southwest will likely start running out of water, since there will be less snow/ice to "tide people over" through the spring and summer. It may mean building massive desalinators; it may mean just plain moving to a wetter place. Farmers may move north to the Dakotas or to Canada.

None of this will mean the end of the world. But it will mean cost and effort. The question now is - is it more cost effective to slow the change down, or is it more cost effective to drive it fast and pay for the desalinators/canals/relocation etc later? That may well be the case - but we should be thinking about this now, not in 30 years when the next big storm hits and makes most of New Orleans permanently uninhabitable.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>This is from NOAA that sugests the temps are not all that far from normal?

They're not; most estimates of change since the 1800's put us at under a degree C increase. The problem is that it keeps increasing.

If we stopped at this new temperature now, we'd see more melting at the poles, some minor sea level rise, some stronger weather events (until all parts of the planet equalized at the new temperatures) but not too much of a big deal. It's what happens if temperatures keep rising that has people worried.

Will it be a disaster? Depends on how fast it happens. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since the 1880's. If it continues at that rate, there will be some moderate panic as we try to relocate Bangladesh, coastal Florida cities, New Orleans etc but it's certainly doable. If it speeds up, it will be harder to get everyone out; if it's slower it will be easier.

Likewise, as weather patterns change, people will have to adapt. The southwest will likely start running out of water, since there will be less snow/ice to "tide people over" through the spring and summer. It may mean building massive desalinators; it may mean just plain moving to a wetter place. Farmers may move north to the Dakotas or to Canada.

None of this will mean the end of the world. But it will mean cost and effort. The question now is - is it more cost effective to slow the change down, or is it more cost effective to drive it fast and pay for the desalinators/canals/relocation etc later? That may well be the case - but we should be thinking about this now, not in 30 years when the next big storm hits and makes most of New Orleans permanently uninhabitable.

I see your point however, your comments are based on the premise man is having an (accelerating) effect and then can alter it in the future. That is the part I have the hardest time buying in on.

Climate change will happen with or with out man.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Why is it so wrong to be honest and look at all sides. I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing info and opinions.

No, that's not it at all. Nobody would ever criticize you for doing that.

You're criticized for religiously adhering to a rigid position then ignoring all contrary evidence.

You're criticized for making expansive and confident claims without understanding even the basics of your topic.

You're criticized for mistaking published partisan opinions for scientific analysis.

You're criticized for not reading the things you link to very carefully before summarizing them.

You're criticized for discounting huge amounts of contrary evidence because you don't like the consequences.

You're criticized for ignoring replies that throw your claims into disarray.

And of course rhemwa criticizes you for your spelling. I apologize on his behalf.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,478]

>I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing
>info and opinions. I could just look at what supports my current position.

No one is chastising you for looking at different opinions. I think you get grief for ignoring the mountain of evidence to find a bit of gravel that supports your "side" of the argument.

>That info comes from some good places. In all honesty (I ask with
>respect) how can you just push all that off to the side so easily?

I'm not. Most of it was fairly accurate. It was worded very oddly, though. For example:

"Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent."

The article then goes on to explain how greenhouse gases DO trap the sun's heat. If I were cynical I might think that the article was intended to influence people who only read the bold type and the first few sentences of each paragraph.

It did make a few errors, which I pointed out. But overall it was pretty accurate in the details, although it makes some odd conclusions, and is clearly political in character. (Clue might have been "Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide . . .")

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I post and ask question I debate and then chatized for looking at differing
>info and opinions. I could just look at what supports my current position.

No one is chastising you for looking at different opinions. I think you get grief for ignoring the mountain of evidence to find a bit of gravel that supports your "side" of the argument.

>That info comes from some good places. In all honesty (I ask with
>respect) how can you just push all that off to the side so easily?

I'm not. Most of it was fairly accurate. It was worded very oddly, though. For example:

"Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent."

The article then goes on to explain how greenhouse gases DO trap the sun's heat. If I were cynical I might think that the article was intended to influence people who only read the bold type and the first few sentences of each paragraph.

It did make a few errors, which I pointed out. But overall it was pretty accurate in the details, although it makes some odd conclusions, and is clearly political in character. (Clue might have been "Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide . . .")

I find interesting your last comments. All of science is based on conclusion derived from gathered data and experiment results.

The part of the GWing crowd I find the most troubling is 1 Most sceinetist agree or.......which is false. There are many that do not agree with the conclutions that man and man made CO2 are the cause and 2 there are mountians of evidence and good science that is in direct contrast to the GWing claims. So to tell me there is not data support for my current position is crap.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The part of the GWing crowd I find the most troubling is 1 Most sceinetist agree or.......which is false. There are many that do not agree

We might be dealing with a minor misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "most".

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,478]

>1 Most sceinetist agree or.......which is false. There are many that do
>not agree with the conclutions that man and man made CO2 are the cause

Most scientists working on the issue agree that anthropogenic CO2 has played a major role in the recent warming we've seen. Indeed, around a thousand of them just published a report on it (called the IPCC fourth assessment.)

Most of the right wing media sites you see think "it's all a bunch of hooey" "it's all alarmist claptrap" etc. which is what you'd expect. However, most right wing media sites != most scientists working on climate.

> 2 there are mountians of evidence and good science that is in direct
> contrast to the GWing claims. So to tell me there is not data support for
> my current position is crap.

There is data. Like I said, that data is gravel next to a mountain. A molehill, if you will. Today we have very, very smart people with access to a lot of money - and they are experts at making molehills seem like mountains.

This is not to say you don't understand what's going on. You've just been force-fed a line from people who want you to believe a certain way. It happened in the 1950's with cigarettes, and it's happening today with climate change.

I used to worry about the efforts to derail research and mitigation strategies. I worry less now, because most people are becoming more educated about what's going on. They've had to - for many americans, their world is changing right outside their windows.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Likewise, we don't understand everything about our climate. We don't fully understand heliosphere-mediated cosmic ray cloud nucleation, as explained above. From there to "therefore we don't understand anything" is a bit of a large jump.

I didn't say that we didn't understand anything - I asked if it's possible that this activity is having an effect that the scientists don't yet understand - important difference.

Regardless, I appreciate the explanation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>1 Most sceinetist agree or.......which is false. There are many that do
>not agree with the conclutions that man and man made CO2 are the cause

Most scientists working on the issue agree that anthropogenic CO2 has played a major role in the recent warming we've seen. Indeed, around a thousand of them just published a report on it (called the IPCC fourth assessment.)For the most part we will have to agree to disagree. I don't buy the mountain gravel comparison but it is what it is. On the IPCC report. I don't buy that thing at all. When I saw a report on how it is created and the disagreement among the memebers writing it well, I will not pay much attention or believe it at all. And the extreem measures were coming from both sides but, well, you look into what some of the upset memebers are saying and come to your own conclusions.

Most of the right wing media sites you see think "it's all a bunch of hooey" "it's all alarmist claptrap" etc. which is what you'd expect. However, most right wing media sites != most scientists working on climate.I don't buy this either but I believe this is what you believe. You don't think any body can not agree with GWing if they are "properly" informed.

> 2 there are mountians of evidence and good science that is in direct
> contrast to the GWing claims. So to tell me there is not data support for
> my current position is crap.

There is data. Like I said, that data is gravel next to a mountain. A molehill, if you will. Today we have very, very smart people with access to a lot of money - and they are experts at making molehills seem like mountains.

This is not to say you don't understand what's going on. You've just been force-fed a line from people who want you to believe a certain way. It happened in the 1950's with cigarettes, and it's happening today with climate change. Would you knock this shit off. You don't know who or where I get my info or even how. It is insulting you even try to make this kind of statement about anybody. I was force fed the nuc power plant bs by 60 Min when I was younger. Aside from being part of CBS that show lost all credibility with me many years ago. If not for the media crap back then electricity might be much cheaper today than it is.

I used to worry about the efforts to derail research and mitigation strategies. I worry less now, because most people are becoming more educated about what's going on. They've had to - for many americans, their world is changing right outside their windows.

I too worry. I worry that changes are going to be force fed us for no good scientific reason...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

I too worry. I worry that changes are going to be force fed us for no good scientific reason...

Changes don't have to be "force fed". Changes happen all by themselves independant of whether you believe they are happening or not.

All science can do is present the facts of what is happening and build a theory about why it is most likely to be happening. The proof is if the theory and facts continue to correlate both experimentally and in the real world over the course of time. Right now and in this case, they do.

What do you call a person that has been presented facts, only to ignore them to his own and others detriment?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What do you call a person that has been presented facts, only to ignore them to his own and others detriment?

Oh oh oh! I know. I know. Call on me, teacher!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,478]

>On the IPCC report. I don't buy that thing at all.

So when scientists working on the IPCC have fairly minor disagreements, you disregard the entire thing because there is not 100% agreement? But when someone says "global warming is a bunch of hooey" you accept that at face value?

I think you hear precisely what you want to hear.

>Would you knock this shit off. You don't know who or where I get my
>info or even how.

You have posted several of your sources, so we have a pretty good idea where you get your information.

>I was force fed the nuc power plant bs by 60 Min when I was younger.

The what?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

What happened to your "stupid comment of the month" post. It was too funny.

Someone green didn't like it, I guess.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I too worry. I worry that changes are going to be force fed us for no good scientific reason...

Changes don't have to be "force fed". Changes happen all by themselves independant of whether you believe they are happening or not.

All science can do is present the facts of what is happening and build a theory about why it is most likely to be happening. The proof is if the theory and facts continue to correlate both experimentally and in the real world over the course of time. Right now and in this case, they do.No, they don't

What do you call a person that has been presented facts, only to ignore them to his own and others detriment?

Global Warming Alarmists

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>On the IPCC report. I don't buy that thing at all.

So when scientists working on the IPCC have fairly minor disagreements, you disregard the entire thing because there is not 100% agreement? But when someone says "global warming is a bunch of hooey" you accept that at face value?They are not minor

I think you hear precisely what you want to hear.

>Would you knock this shit off. You don't know who or where I get my
>info or even how.

You have posted several of your sources, so we have a pretty good idea where you get your information.

>I was force fed the nuc power plant bs by 60 Min when I was younger.

The what?

Never mind, I am tired

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

Take a look at the attached graph. You'll note that from 1880 to 1925 CO2 was increasing but temperature remained about the same. (With its usual half-degree swings due to El Ninos etc.) After that temps began to rise.

Wrong....
Look at the graph again and you will see that between 1945 and 1978 the temperatures were going down as the CO2 rises.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[mikkey 0]

I haven't had time to look at the whole thread and don't know if it ha sbeen posted before, but I found clips from this very interesting documentary on You Tube. Search for"Great Global Warming Swindle" ob You tube and watch. Very interesting stuff...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 2,478]

>Look at the graph again and you will see that between 1945 and 1978 the
>temperatures were going down as the CO2 rises.

Everyone here can look at that graph, so I don't think you're going to get much traction there (especially since the average in 1946 was 57.0 and the average in 1978 was 57.1, from that graph.) The climate is inherently chaotic; we're talking long term trends. And the trend is pretty clear.

[speedy 0]

Quote

The climate is inherently chaotic; we're talking long term trends.

It's your graph, not mine. I was only pointing out that you statement associated with graph was actually incorrect.

Quote

Take a look at the attached graph. You'll note that from 1880 to 1925 CO2 was increasing but temperature remained about the same. (With its usual half-degree swings due to El Ninos etc.) After that temps began to rise.

No mention of the temps starting to sink after 1945.
If we are talking long term trends why do you only show a graph the starts at 1880?
This is what irks me about the alarmist faction. They are no better than the deniers when it comes to cherry picking the data to suit their needs.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,478]

>I was only pointing out that you statement associated with graph was
>actually incorrect.

No, it was quite literally correct. Average temperatures HAVE been increasing. Year to year temperatures are, of course, still chaotic, and always will be.

Making statements about individual years can end up being embarrassing later, as Rush's "There's one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!" thread title was.

>If we are talking long term trends why do you only show a graph the starts at 1880?

Because that's when we started accurately measuring temperatures in a lot of places, so we have direct information. There are other data available that show temperature estimates from ice cores; I have posted several.

[speedy 0]

Ok Bill, you seem unable to admit that your graph does show cooling between 1945 and 1979.

But it does and here is a link that might help you provide an explanation for this http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

When you throw out a graph at people here and someone points out something that doesn't fit your view, it is unfair to side step the issue.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl