snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
"The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. "
Perhaps someone can produce the data that has shown Carbon Dioxide as the driver ever in our climate history. Surely this isn't something that is merely assumed is it?
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Zep,
First off awesome graph. It incorporates not only irradiance, but amplitude as well.
One (non threating, sincere question). I'm just curious regarding your statement "There has been no increase in solar forcing since 1940. "
A few posts back I quoted an article from the Telegraph. In it Dr Solanki (the director of the project at Max Plank, responsible for the graph) made a couple of observations.
"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
And is represented as finding the Sun at it's brightest in over 1000 years.
I found this significant. So the Sun's intesity NOW is at it's highest. What effect do you believe this exceptional solar activity could be having on the climate?
Additionally, are you aware of his work with Cosmic rays and magnetic activity and their affects on Global temperature? (Usoskin et al, 2003)? Great side-show here
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Is doubting the 80ppm increase being wholey due to human activities the result of data analysis, if so, what? If not, how do you support your position?
Atmospheric CO2 concentraions can (rather simplistically) be stated as the balance of CO2 sources and sinks. The effectiveness of the ocean as a CO2 sink deminishes with temperature. This reduced capacity as a sink can result in more atmospheric CO2.
http://www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck/ahlbeck.htm
See also http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html Table 2 list 3 plausable variations.
So, what have you got to say about their seeming to think there is 150,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there actually is? I say this as they compare ALL CO2 from outgassing (4.5 billion years with no calculation of re-absorbtion) with 200 years of human activity, thus uder estimating current proportion of human activities on CO2 levels by over 100,000 times! That is spectacularly bad science, but I'm not sure if you understand it...
What comment have you about their major conclusions being unsupported allegations, e.g. “the major causes of currently observed global warming are: rising solar irradiation and increasing tectonic activity"?
Anything to say about them using superceded data? Failing to cite relevant literature in the fields they cover? Or refering to www.junkscience.com (are you gonna tell me that's peer-reviewed? Oh, hang on, that's where you get YOUR stuff from too! LOL)?
Oh dear.... Did I quote this article? If I remember correctly you were supposed to show their alleged tie to oil money. Has your borrowed outrage over the underlying paper displaced this notion? Regardless, comparing 4.5 billion years to 200 yrs to draw any related conclusion is meaningless. Great find!
Oh, hang on, that's where you get YOUR stuff from too!
I have provided links... maybe you should review them? What are you referring to?
More to come....
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Abbadon: "will you be annoyed at me ....or annoyed at the people who have actually mislead you?"
If I hadn't known better I'd think you were asking me a religious question. In a scientific dialog over data I find it difficult to enlist emotion. I'd recommend the same lest they betray you.
Now, on to the discussion.
Does this mean you have no comment on how billions of tons of stored CO2 have been released in such a short space of time?
Yes, that is correct. I do not dispute a human contribution to rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Although I believe it naive and presumptuous to attribute all of the ~80 ppm CO2a increase (pre-industrial/post-industrial age) to human activity, humans, nonetheless bear at least some of that responsibility. My comments to this point have been that of proportion and relavance. If this is not sufficient, or you would like me to elaborate more please ask.
With that understanding.....
Yes, but if water vapour (which you bought up) is NOT changing (which means you bringing it up was another way to avoid the actual issue), and CO2 is, the effect of the extra CO2 is what is important, not the fact water vapour plays a larger role.
Again, viewing the "extra CO2", or as you put it the "billions of tons" of CO2, in their proper proportion we understanding of the size of any human contributions. Were we to go on you words a person would likely view the human contribution as a dispproportionately large component of our atmosphere or of the Greenhouse total. CO2 is a trace gas which represents a mere 0.038% of our atmosphere. It's role as a "Greenhouse Gas" is best view in relation to it's peers. CO2 is dwarfed as a Greenhouse Gas (~3%) compared to Water Vapour (~95%) and other gasses. Only then can we best discuss it's effects.
So then, how much is the additional ~80 ppm (arguably attributed to humans) in the grand scheme of things? It represents a atmospheric change of ~0.008% of out atmospheric makeup. It constitutes a <1% change in the makeup of greenhouse gasses. From these points we need not draw any conclusions about CO2, only bear them in mind when considering the sensational, catastrophic effects that are being attributed to this fractional change.
In a time period where known forcing (orbit, solar variation, etc.) does not explain sudden average temperature rise, and masses of CO2 has been released by man (let alone agricultural inputs of greenhouse gasses), saying that in the past CO2 levels were higher means we can doubt the role of CO2 in the current temperature rise....Please let me know if I mis-state your case
You have. "In a time period where known forcing (orbit, solar variation, etc.) does not explain sudden average temperature rise" would be your position, if i read it correctly - not mine. For a clear, known driver, please see below.
you have simply had a number worked on you by people who are very good at what they do
You sound like my Mom who wonders why I won't fall in line with the JW's. She cook's up consiracies too! Don't drink the cool-aid!
You cite a paper which is becoming infamous on account of the spectacularly bad science
I love your paste of a rebuttal to the findings of Khilyuk and Chilingar. I cannot be sure if your objections to the article are shared or borrowed. For example, is the cause of Earth's internal heat germane to our discussion? Or are you likewise dismayed that some of the references were not translated from Russian? And while the objection the the temperature graph is related to our discussion, I specifically cited this article to show - yet again - the size of the human contribution of CO2 relative to other sources. Although you concede 0.00022% you are nonetheless unmoved by what you otherwise describe as nothing more than fodder for the oil lobby. (BTW specifically which lobby is behind this one?)
The amount of Alarmism the accompanies this debate is disturbing. There are real threats to the environment that we CAN do something about. All of them require resources. This IMHO has not yet been established as the most important. The human contribution is relatively very small and comparitively insignificant as a Greenhouse constituent. CO2's role as a climate driver is woefully unsubstantiated and IMO presumpteous. Earth's temperatures HAVE increased 5*C since the last Ice age. Our Oceans HAVE risen 300 feet since then as well. The trend will likely continue. The glaciers will all melt and oceans rise as they have before. But fear not we will again retreat from this brief period of warm only to sink into another long predominant period of ice and cold that Earth is most accustomed to. All of this until our dear sun expires. Climate stasis is a fallacy. Just look at the graph......:) -FW PS For the flip-side of the funding arguement consider http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 If you want to likewise paste rebuttals of Mr Lizden and this article look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/ Do you see how much time I'm saving you?
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." ALSO....... Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years.
The sun's brightness hasn't changed much over the last 20 years. But it has been brighter for the last 60 years than it has been at any time in the last 1,150 years.
Sunspots have been increasing in number as the Earth has been getting warmer.
|
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Observes the graph below. That 0.03% slice we know as carbon dioxide is what is being touted as the cause of everything from hurricanes to bad breath.
Remember, that 0.03% slice has risen from ~280 ppm to ~380ppm in our present day. These levels are pathetically small compared to atmospheric levels in Earth's past (as much as 5000 ppm).
There are real and serious threats to our environment from human impact. Population growth, deforestation, species extinction, water contamination and more. Where will the resources come from to combat these real issues facing our planet if they are spent chasing an ill founded assumption?
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Never before have billions of tons of stored CO2 been released into the atmosphere in such a short space of time.
Actually our atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. For most of Earths living history CO2 has been MUCH higher than they are now. During almost all of the paleozoic period (spanning ~300 million years) atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 10-15 times as high as they are now! Remember, we are at ~380 ppm atmospheric CO2. The Paleozoic/Cambian period had CO2a levels of ~7000 ppm. The Paleozoic/Ordovician period had levels of over 4000 ppm. The Triassic and Jurrassic had levels between 1000-2000 ppm CO2a. One interesting observation is that during the Ordovician period, when CO2a was 10 times higher than they are now, Earth experienced one of it's many ice ages.
So with a significant portion of Earth's history containing CO2a much, much higher than today, while experiencing glacation and deglacations (ice ages) is it unreasble to question the role of atmospheric CO2? Must we be lumped into a neo-con, oil loving, Bush/Cheney conspiracy to question the link?
Sources:
http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/evolution/paleozoic.html,
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf -(skip to page 201 unless you want to be bored to death)
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
Abaddon: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
PRECISELY!!! I hope you did read the article. Do you agree with it, particularly the admission that previous CO2a rises were NOT a cause of temperature rise, but rather a response to it. Here are some excerpts:
"From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO 2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO 2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO 2 release. So CO 2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words,CO 2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway." -http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Q) What does this historical phenomenom of CO2 responding to temperature change, rather than causing it tell us? Is it unreasonable to question CO2's role as the CAUSE of increased planetary temperatures, particularly when it's rise has been attributed as an effect rather than a driver?
********************************************************************************************************
Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?Abbadon: Again, begging a question that the reply of which does mean anything in this context. So what if water vapour is the main greenhouse 'gas'. We are not talking about an increase in water vapour, we are talking about an increase of CO2 coinciding with a period where some other factor (like an increase in water vapour) can not explain the temperature ris
I "beg" to differ :) The question of "how much" and "to what extent" CO2 affects the atmosphere is central to the issue.
How Much:
Sources:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html
To What Extent:
In the following table we can see exactly what role CO2 plays as a "greenhouse gas". Of all the GH contributing gasses CO2 comprises just over 3%. So Ask yourself the queston, of that 3%, how much have humans manipulated? The answer is an additional 0.28% . Is it unreasonable to question what effect this 0.28% greenhous gas addition has?
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
| Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics | Percent of Total | Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor |
| Water vapor | ----- | 95.000% |
| Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | 72.369% | 3.618% |
| Methane (CH4) | 7.100% | 0.360% |
| Nitrous oxide (N2O) | 19.000% | 0.950% |
| CFC's (and other misc. gases) | 1.432% | 0.072% |
| Total | 100.000% | 100.000% |
Find a vocal, scientifically qualified (in that field) climate change cynic, and then follow the money.OK, but I'm not following it... http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/ "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
snow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
Abbadon: To be blunt, I think anyone who has spent more than a week researching the subject superficially, and still thinks there is not a fossil-fueled link warming trend, is not looking in the right places.
I'm interested in comparing notes. Maybe you could answer a few sincere questions I have about the assumption that CO2 is causing Global Warming.
Q Earth has been much hotter before (holocene, Medievil periods) What do you think was the cause of this?
Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
Q If humans were never on the Earth, what would you expect Earths climate, specifically in regards to temperature, to be doing? Does it makes sense that the ~18,000 year warming trend that is exiting us from the last ice age would continue, stall or reverse?
Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?
I'm just curious what your research leads you to understand in these areas.
a young man of 20 has sex with his willing 17 year old girl friend.
her parents find out and press charges.
now he is a sex offender.
There are two problems with this issue.
1) No one wants to be in the position of arguing for alleged offenders, so it would be hard to change things.
2) This law is an abuse of power. Just like the 'terrorism' laws that are being stretched to fit all kinds of potential crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. However, if law enforcement can remotely label it as potenntial terrorism, they are free to discard all sorts of rights and freedoms.
The urinating cases are pathetic. So are the cases of sex between young people. The police could care less if it destroys someone's life.
in a recent poll students rated global warming as their number one concern for the future.
i guess terrorism comes in also at the top of the list.
neither of these are included as signs of the last days.
But then again he did mention "bringing to ruin those ruining the earth", and that was probably thought of as an impossibility back then, that people could actually ruin the earth.
We assume that "ruin" refers to pollution and environmental devestation. People have made that association ever since these have become plausable in the 20th century. However, from my humble examination, "ruin" in the Bible never (that I'm aware of) refers to environmental devestation. The "ruin" I've seen in the Bible typically refers to war and its after affects. Since this has happened throught history and all over the 'Earth' the scripture probably was intended to mean that God will "bring to ruin (attack) those who are ruining (attacking and destroying in all parts thereof) the Earth".
The Bible is silent about environmental matters. If God were outraged at environmental irresponsibility he fails to teach this in the Bible. This scripture, if intended to address this future development, would be a single, isolated instance of his dissatisfaction over it. In other words it just doesn't make sense that God would reveal, in Revelation of all places, his standards for environmental stewardship. So with that in mind I think the 'ruin' John writes of is the ruin cited elsewhere i.e. Earthwide instances of destruction typically brought on by marauders.
-FW
