FreeWilly

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 509 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by FreeWilly

• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  So Swalker,

  In the 400,000 years of Vostok ice core data, do we ever see CO2 causing temperature rise? Or do we see it as a response to temperature rise?

  If not a cause, then what made CO2 rise?

  What was a cause?
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  "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?
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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....
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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.

  The above graphs show 2 things. First off there is a clear coorelation of Solar irradiance to Glabal temperatures. Secondly it explains the paradoxal decrease in Global temperatures in the middle 20th century, a time when Human source CO2 dramatically increased. It further explains the ~0.5* increase in the first Part of the 20th century when Human contributions of CO2 were relatively small. So far from there being "no known forcing" we have a clear indication. Is this the end-all answer ? No. Is CO2 an amplifier of Global temperature? Possibly - even likely to a degree. Is it a driver of climate change? Well that is the subject we are debating isn't it? Time will tell. But I can tell you that the Alarmist predictions place an aweful lot of power on this trace gas.

  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?
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  The Sun.......What a crazy idea!

  The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

  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." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html 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. “We have to acknowledge that 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. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo. 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. According to scientists, the Sun’s radiance has changed little during this period. But looking back over 1,150 years, Solanki found the Sun had never been as bright as in the past 60 years. The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. Sunspots have been increasing in number as the Earth has been getting warmer. Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. Variations in sunspot activity are probably behind the increases and decreases in solar radiation and consequence changes in Earth's climate. During the Medieval maximum of 1000-1300 there was an extremely large Sunspot which is believed to have warmed the Earth higher than normal. There were no accurate measurements of the weather to call upon during this time but the discovery and colonization of Greenland by Eric the Red supports this hypothesis. Eric was exiled from Iceland for manslaughter and sailed west discovering Greenland. He then led many ships, filled with people who wanted to make a fresh start, to this new land. For 300 years Greenland flourished, new communities settled, trade with other countries grew, and the population increased. Around 1325 the climate cooled down considerably, people started to abandon the northern settlements. By 1350 glaciers covered the northern settlements, and the southern most settlements were dying out as well. The Sporer minimum of 1400-1510 and the Maunder minimum of 1645-1715 were each known as a "little ice age." They were both droughts in Sunspot activity, and a link to a time of abnormally cold weather on Earth. In addition to finishing off the Greenland colonies, the Sporer minimum showed increased rates of famine in the world, and the Baltic Sea froze solid in the winter of 1422-23. Some of the more notable effects of the Maunder minimum included the appearance of glaciers in the Alps advancing farther southward, the north sea froze, and in London there was the famous year without a summer where it remained cold for 21 consecutive months. The evidence supports the effect of Sunspot activity on the Earth's climate, but that is only one of many areas that effects us on Earth. On March 13,1989 a large Sunspot ignited powerful flares that tripped the circuit breakers a generator station. The started the collapse of the Quebec power system and left people without power for hours to days. These same flares damaged several man made satellites, and caused smaller outages all over the U.S and Canada. There are countless other times when large Sunspots have effected similar damage to various electrical systems on Earth. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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?
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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:

  • Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

  • 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- That's less than 4/100ths of 1% of all Earth's atmospheric gasses.

  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%

  Source:http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Q) Does historical data show a climate that's vulnerable to gas fluctuations of less than 1/2 of a percent? Q) What is so powerful about the CO2 molecule that can have global effects with minute changes concentration? Please explain the mechanism.

  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)
• 
  93

  It must be "Global Warming"

  by Warlock in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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.
• 
  27

  Do Sex Offender Laws Go Too Far In SOME Cases?

  by target in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  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.