PDA

View Full Version : AGW- Please ease me in.


Undesired Walrus
29th October 2009, 10:29 AM
So, like most people, I understand there is something called Climate Change, but I really don't know the first thing about it.

Ever since I studied Venus at school, I always took it as a given that an excess amount of C02 could destroy a planet. But asked to defend the case for AGW, and I wouldn't be able to do it.

So please scramble my ignorance. Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature? Is the scientific opinion in line with media hype, or will this be a case when we look back and realise the effects were still there, but milder than we initially thought?

Other than An Inconvient Truth (Which I didn't think was all that powerful), could you recommend any youtube/videogoogle videos, docs to break me in on the issue?

BenBurch
29th October 2009, 10:32 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Pipirr
29th October 2009, 02:19 PM
I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming, especially in book form. Or you can read it online:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

The book isn't that long, but it thoroughly covers the development of the scientific idea of global warming. I would recommend this book over any other that I have read on the subject.

lomiller
29th October 2009, 02:48 PM
both of the above are very good places to start

Pixel42
29th October 2009, 02:53 PM
As always I recommend the two free Open University courses on the subject.

Introductory level (5 hours study): http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1526

Intermediate level (18 hours study): http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 03:54 PM
Walrus,

Good luck. I’ve spent hours and hours reading everything.

I’m still not enlightened.

If you read the stuff in the links attached you will come to the following conclusions.

The earth is Warming
A lot of things, natural and unnatural, cause climate changes.
Scientists cannot find natural causes for the current warming trend
CO2 causes warming, man produces a lot of CO2.
CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Man is the cause of current warming

So logically you would ask yourself how much warming can CO2 cause.

Please study the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, its % effect in terms of warming and the % of it that is there because of man.

It may redefine the conclusions you initially reached.

BenBurch
29th October 2009, 03:58 PM
What Aussie Thinker never seems to be able to understand is that the earth would be an iceball without CO2.

It has an amazingly large effect on heat retention of the planet in spite of the small percentage of the air it makes up.

Correspondingly, a change in the amount in air that seems to be small has a fairly large effect.

We've explained that to him before.

macdoc
29th October 2009, 04:03 PM
Good luck. I’ve spent hours and hours reading everything.

We've seen no evidence of that....unless echoes of the deniosphere count.

I’m still not enlightened.

we've seen undeniable evidence of that :garfield:

GHG physics has been understood for over 100 years.....some really ARE behind the times...

This a bit of an omnibus of resources and always expanding
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network

and this a bit more on the tech side
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

Poptech
29th October 2009, 04:06 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
The Truth about RealClimate.org (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html)

RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide (http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html). Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419) comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml) William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/25/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx) skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151). The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.

Poptech
29th October 2009, 04:12 PM
Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature?
No.

31,478 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda (http://www.petitionproject.org/) (Petition Project)

Other than An Inconvient Truth (Which I didn't think was all that powerful)...
An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court.

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2214) (Video) (1min)

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486969&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source) (Daily Mail, UK)

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf) (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)

...could you recommend any youtube/videogoogle videos, docs to break me in on the issue?
How many do you want?

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCJ-UhZFT4) (Video) (8min)
Apocalypse? No! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524) (Video) (1hr 26min)
BS! - Environmental Hysteria (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=2028375596) (Video) (29min)
BS! - Being Green (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1325805851224851246) (Video) (29min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295) (Video) (44min)
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271) (Video) (25min)
CNN: Exposed: Climate of Fear (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2951065823736508883) (Video) (42min)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647) (Video) (1hr 14min)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4Pz1mwBao) (Video) (10min)

The Skeptics Handbook (http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/) (PDF) (Joanne Nova, Ph.D. Meteorology)

Don't Believe the Hype (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 04:20 PM
Ben,

I wasn’t trying to influence Walrus, just asked him to look it up himself.

It seems very clear when you look it up yourself that CO2 is a mild GHG.

It seems when you look it up yourself most of the CO2 is NOT put there by man.

But you are right about 1 thing it is helpful for making a more habitable planet.

I know you have told me about CO2 helpfulness before and I did understand it, what you have struggled to explain is the harm it causes and how much of that is man made.

BenBurch
29th October 2009, 04:29 PM
I don't know why you think it is mild. Its the primary one.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 04:30 PM
The Truth about RealClimate.org (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html)

Nothing substantial to say then? Just some badmouthing?

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 04:33 PM
Mac,

Your links are almost exactly like Poptechs (and completely countered by them).

Pretend you know nothing about GW or AGW and go into your linked pages.

They tell you NOTHING.. except that it is warming and we are doomed.. link to something specific about WHY CO2 is the problem and HOW much of it is attributable to man.

Your links are completely irrelevant.. I’ve trolled through them and wasted hours before.

How do you even think they are relevant. Here is a full list of headings from the opening page of one of them

The climate change game
Climate change will devastate Africa, top UK scientist warns
Keeping prediction in perspective
Must-reads for Copenhagen
Wrangle over how to pay greenhouse gas bill
Green and greedy
Sealing climate treaty 'impossible': UN
All creatures small
Refining the future

None of them explain GW or mans role in it.. they are all political banter or doomsaying !

GHG Physics are know..

WE KNOW C02 HAS A WARMING EFFECT. GREAT !

And you know, unless you have NO comprehension the effect is mild and a small % is produced by man.

BenBurch
29th October 2009, 04:35 PM
Again, its not a mild effect at all. This is your primary error.

Poptech
29th October 2009, 04:40 PM
Nothing substantial to say then? Just some badmouthing?
Nothing substantial?

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org)

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6918) (Discover the Networks)

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]

EMS officially served as the "scientific" branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America's dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]

EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration's environmental policies. Among these titles were: "Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups"; "President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill"; "Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health"; "Bush Administration Report Card: 'F' on Protecting Children"; and "National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush." EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted "the latest and most credible information" provided by "top scientists, physicians, and other experts." These "experts" included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.RealClimate.org is an environmental shill site directly connected to Al Gore. There is nothing else you need to know.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 04:40 PM
Ever since I studied Venus at school, I always took it as a given that an excess amount of C02 could destroy a planet. But asked to defend the case for AGW, and I wouldn't be able to do it.

You must have missed the part about Venus still being there, thoroughly undestroyed.

So please scramble my ignorance. Is there really a huge scientific consensus that Humanity is to blame for the rise in the Earth's temperature? Is the scientific opinion in line with media hype, or will this be a case when we look back and realise the effects were still there, but milder than we initially thought?

Which media hype, the kind that says some cities will flood by 2050 due to AGW or the kind that says AGW is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated?

The importance of the subject is evident in the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. Humanity (in a sense) meeting to discuss rescuing the situation it has created. I doubt it'll show humanity at its best, but there it actually is.

The quick story is that CO2 is what has kept the world warm enough for liquid water, and we've increased the amount by over a third in little more than a century. That has to make a difference.

DogB
29th October 2009, 04:42 PM
I second Pixels recommendation of the Open University courses. Do both those and you'll be more than up to speed.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 04:43 PM
Nothing substantial?

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org)

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6918) (Discover the Networks)

Nothing substantial then?

RealClimate.org is an environmental shill site directly connected to Al Gore.

A lie.

By the way, doe Al Gore run this thing that's not a conspiracy but they're all in it?

Poptech
29th October 2009, 04:46 PM
Nothing substantial then?
Plenty more...

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110) (Activist Cash)

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton's paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It's a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]

It's called "black marketing," and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged "story ideas" for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These "experts," though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It's a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don't consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous "spin."An EMS hosted site engaged in fear mongering? Say it ain't so!
A lie.
I just proved it. Who hosts (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) Realclimate.org Dodger?

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 04:53 PM
Ben,

I get the feeling we are not helping Walrus but just pushing our own opinion now

I don't know why you think it is mild. Its the primary one.

Water vapour accounts for 95 % of the greenhouse effect on earth. Its origin is 99.99 % natural
CO2 (and Methane etc) pretty much accounts for the other 5%
Man accounts for about 5-6 % of CO2 etc
Simple maths shows man is responsible for about 0.25 – 0.30 % of global warming.

The IPCC predicts temperature rise from 1.1 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years.

Non doomsaying global temperature increase is expected to be 1-2 degrees over the next 100 years.

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

athon
29th October 2009, 04:57 PM
You must have missed the part about Venus still being there, thoroughly undestroyed.

Yup.

Having spent months working with scientists on this very topic (developing educational resources on climate change), I can say that the science is often poorly reflected by both sides of the 'agenda'.

Terms like 'save the planet' are bandied around in an effort to slap people in the face and make them care. Unfortunately, it not only reduces people's desire to do something, it's perfect fodder for denialists. Because, ultimately, the planet isn't doomed. It doesn't need saving. Civilisation won't end and life will continue to flourish.

What WILL happen is that our way of doing things will have to change on a relatively short time scale. Those with access to resources will survive, but will have their way of life changed. Those without will suffer adverse consequences as varied as having to move entirely, to facing depletion of certain resources such as food and water.

Occasional freak weather events will become less than occasional, demanding an increase in disaster funds and/or an improvement in technology to deal with it. Again, civilisation won't crumble away, but it will have a cost.

The importance of the subject is evident in the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. Humanity (in a sense) meeting to discuss rescuing the situation it has created. I doubt it'll show humanity at its best, but there it actually is.

This is another issue I have with the portrayal of the science versus the reality.

There is no 'rescuing' of a situation. If you imagine climate change like a slow river. It's moving, and we can't do a lot to stop that with modern technology. AGW has added water to the torrent, so to speak, increasing its speed. We can try to limit the water we're adding to reduce the potential severity of climate change events, but I fear AGW is often portrayed as something that, if stopped, will in turn stop climate change.

The quick story is that CO2 is what has kept the world warm enough for liquid water, and we've increased the amount by over a third in little more than a century. That has to make a difference.

Indeed.

Athon

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 04:57 PM
It seems very clear when you look it up yourself that CO2 is a mild GHG.

It' a GHG, at least you got that much.

It seems when you look it up yourself most of the CO2 is NOT put there by man.

A quarter of it is. A century and half ago none of it was.

But you are right about 1 thing it is helpful for making a more habitable planet.

That's a significant effect for a GHG. This planet's good for 6.3 billion or more as it is, heading upwards. It'll take major changes to improve on that.

But you don't believe in major changes from AGW. How does that work?

I know you have told me about CO2 helpfulness before and I did understand it, what you have struggled to explain is the harm it causes and how much of that is man made.

The harm is in the climate change. As is the benefit. Of course harm and benefit are never given in equal measure to everybody. Unless you have some scheme for sequestering the benefits and using them to balance things up, on a global scale. That would take more World Governance than we've any prospect of in the near-term.

athon
29th October 2009, 04:58 PM
The IPCC predicts temperature rise from 1.1 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years.

Non doomsaying global temperature increase is expected to be 1-2 degrees over the next 100 years.

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

Simple enough to evade me. Can you explain how you arrived at that?

Athon

macdoc
29th October 2009, 05:09 PM
I think you will find that indicative of the mindset....:rolleyes:

••

Lets put the GHG aspect to bed....this is MEASURED...

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons.

The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement.

The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Some don't understand cumulative.
CO2 does not reset each year...it climbs thanks to us so each year builds on the energy gain of the last 100 or 300..

If we stopped all C02 fossil emissions now it would continue to warm for 50-60 years to reach close to a radiative balance and then in minor way for thousands of years beyond at.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 05:25 PM
Yup.

Back at ya :). "Destroy the planet" makes my teeth grind, and of course denialists present that as the only message. Ironically their "Destroy the economy" message is the only one they've got.

What WILL happen is that our way of doing things will have to change on a relatively short time scale. Those with access to resources will survive, but will have their way of life changed. Those without will suffer adverse consequences as varied as having to move entirely, to facing depletion of certain resources such as food and water.

It was ever thus. By the Parable of the Unsavoury Sandwich, the more bread you've got the less filling you have to eat.

AGW is another event in history, like the Industrial Revolution or the Mongol invasions. It just happens to be the one we're living through.

There is no 'rescuing' of a situation. If you imagine climate change like a slow river. It's moving, and we can't do a lot to stop that with modern technology. AGW has added water to the torrent, so to speak, increasing its speed. We can try to limit the water we're adding to reduce the potential severity of climate change events, but I fear AGW is often portrayed as something that, if stopped, will in turn stop climate change.

Non-anthropogenic climate change isn't a problem. It doesn't have the pace or persistence of AGW. It's taking us to a new norm about which natural variation occurs. And to an unprecedented state of knowledge of how the climate works. A better experiment could not have been asked for.

For myself, I think the response to AGW will be regional at best, managing adjustment retroactively - firefighting, in effect. As a history buff I find the whole process fascinating, having covered my own arse reasonably well.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 05:32 PM
An EMS hosted site engaged in fear mongering? Say it ain't so!

It ain't so.

I just proved it. Who hosts (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) Realclimate.org Dodger?

You have a strange concept of proof.

RealClimate is exactly what it purports to be. It presents the actual science of climate and the science of events, such as Arctic sea-ice loss. I know you won't look for yourself because it's on your Proscribed List but I'm sure the Walrus will. Which leaves you preaching to yourself.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 05:41 PM
Some don't understand cumulative.
CO2 does not reset each year...it climbs thanks to us so each year builds on the energy gain of the last 100 or 300..

We've certainly put our stamp on the atmosphere. CO2 up by over a third in a century or so, and on a rising curve. So much for "feeble" humanity. Yay for us!

Shame about the blowback, but what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

Prometheus
29th October 2009, 05:47 PM
....A better experiment could not have been asked for....

Personally, I might have preferred an experiment in which we were in the control group rather than the treatment group. ;)

athon
29th October 2009, 06:02 PM
Non-anthropogenic climate change isn't a problem. It doesn't have the pace or persistence of AGW. It's taking us to a new norm about which natural variation occurs. And to an unprecedented state of knowledge of how the climate works. A better experiment could not have been asked for.

I'm not sure I agree there. There are ample examples throughout history where climate events that have had no or little influence from humans have had a significant impact. Even short-term periods of climate change, such as the little ice age, have had an effect.

In the future we should aim to cope with anything nature throws our way. Sure, AGW increases the pace, frequency and severity of such events, but even if it's slowed it doesn't make it all go away. I don't think there is a degree of drought I'd be happy to ignore, for example. And sometimes I feel the message is that climate change is something that can be made to go away if we work hard enough, ignoring the fact climate change is always something that humanity will need to adapt to, at least in some way.

Athon

Poptech
29th October 2009, 06:12 PM
It ain't so.
Really?

RealClimate is exactly what it purports to be. It presents the actual science of climate and the science of events, such as Arctic sea-ice loss. I know you won't look for yourself because it's on your Proscribed List but I'm sure the Walrus will. Which leaves you preaching to yourself.
The propaganda is it is presenting the science, the reality is it is presenting the alarmist position as "science".

You have a strange concept of proof.
Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 06:21 PM
Really?

Yes..

The propaganda is it is presenting the science, the reality is it is presenting the alarmist position as "science".

That is not the reality, as anybody can see for themselves.


Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

Very big and hence even more emphatic capitals. It doesn't change the fact that anyone can go to RealClimate themselves and see it for what it is. People are sooooooooo influenced by their own lying eyes, don't you find?

Of course you could always present some examples from RealClimate that you find objectionable.

Or just one?

Praktik
29th October 2009, 06:26 PM
You know I never really agreed with global warming skeptics but the size of Poptech's font is strangely convincing...

Perhaps there is something to their arguments after all??

macdoc
29th October 2009, 06:30 PM
You mean like loud and juvenile...:garfield:

DogB
29th October 2009, 06:30 PM
Yes I alway find myself compelled by barely coherant shouting.

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 06:34 PM
Athon,

If 5 % of GHG is CO2 and 6 % of that is man made then .05 x .06 = 0.003.

0.003 x 2 degrees = .006 of a degree !

BTW : I like your less doomsday take on GW or AGW.

And I am not adverse to cutting CO2 regardless of what I think is its limited effect on warming.

Also.. you beat me too it.. NON AGW has contributed to MASSIVE changes in Earths climatic history.

Poptech
29th October 2009, 06:35 PM
Dodger...

Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 06:41 PM
I'm not sure I agree there. There are ample examples throughout history where climate events that have had no or little influence from humans have had a significant impact. Even short-term periods of climate change, such as the little ice age, have had an effect.

Not a significant one. History is perfectly explicable without reference to climate change, and the effort to read climate into history is a relatively recent one.

Depletion of resources and over-exploitation of environments, they have featured regularly. A few years of bad weather can bring on crises, and as we know weather ain't climate.

The depth of post-Medieval cooling, and greatest persistence, was in the 19thCE, yet nowhere in there does it leave a significant mark.

In the future we should aim to cope with anything nature throws our way.

I expect that when things settle down sustainability is going to be up there with patriotism and a mother's love, not the party-pooper it is these days.

... ignoring the fact climate change is always something that humanity will need to adapt to, at least in some way.

Athon

I expect a little more of humanity. The next few generations will accumulate a deep understanding of how the climate works and will be left with a much simpler one (no perennial ice outside Greenland and Antarctica, for instance. Get over it or be dead already) so I don't see another glaciation coming up. We know how to prevent it, and where's the upside for us?

When CO2 and climate stabilise it will become a matter of public policy to keep it that way, even if it means digging up coal simply to burn it.

Praktik
29th October 2009, 06:44 PM
Yes I alway find myself compelled by barely coherant shouting.

Definitely compelling.

I just looked up Environmental Media Services and found an interesting article (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6918) written by somebody who sure doesn't like them.

I'm not entirely sure that identifying people as "left" or "environmentalists" necessarily amounts to a valuable criticism, given its the content of the evidence they provide that matters. People with an axe to grind - or to put it more charitably - people who believe deeply about a given issue can still be used as a valid source of information. So we acknowledge their bias, adjust for it where necessary and evaluate what they put before us.

There really is something in there for everyone in the list of contributors to the entity:

People wanting to tarnish it with the brush of partisanship or to invoke the spectre of the polarizing Al Gore will love the fact it was organized by a Gore associate.
People who respond to the bogeyman of "leftist" or consider the term "environmentalist" derogatory will be happy as pigs in mud.
And there's even something for the tinfoil crew since there are no less than two groups with "Rockefeller" in the name. AGW treaties as the gateway to an NWO GLOBAL TAKEOVER!?!?!?!
Now we really have some room to manoeuver. When confronted with anything sourced to realclimate.org there are plenty of angles you can use to discredit the source.

Dealing with "evidence" can be time consuming - why bother going through all the hassle when you can say "leftist/NWO/Al Gore" and have done with it??

Praktik
29th October 2009, 06:46 PM
Now Poptech, did our razor wit and mocking of your large font not chasten you at all?

Surely there must be some part of you that realizes that size doesn't matter?

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 06:46 PM
Dodger...

Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

Have you maxed on the font-size?

I don't care. I, like anybody else, can go to the site and see it for what it is. I neither know nor care what a "Registrant Organisation" is.

BenBurch
29th October 2009, 06:49 PM
Now Poptech, did our razor wit and mocking of your large font not chasten you at all?

Surely there must be some part of you that realizes that size doesn't matter?

Clearly compensating for, *ahem*, something.

Wowbagger
29th October 2009, 06:54 PM
Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

Who is using blatant fallacy?

In place of developing evidence against the information on the site, you resort to alerting us to what organization registered the domain.

You can do better than that, I hope.

DogB
29th October 2009, 06:55 PM
I don't care. I, like anybody else, can go to the site and see it for what it is. I neither know nor care what a "Registrant Organisation" is.

Exactly!

Besides, it's a website f'christsake. Anybody with half a brain knows to take care with stuff on the web - and I suspect the original poster has enough smarts to know that. If he want the other side of the story I'm sure he can find it.

DogB
29th October 2009, 06:58 PM
Mine's bigger than yours!

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 07:00 PM
Dealing with "evidence" can be time consuming - why bother going through all the hassle when you can say "leftist/NWO/Al Gore" and have done with it??

Dealing with evidence can be painful. First there' denial, then there's anger ...

PopTech can avoid facing the reality of RealClimate (by looking at it, as anybody can) by associating it with his own demon list. What he won't do is persuade anyone that they shouldn't look at RealClimate themselves (easily done, http://www.realclimate.org/) by his argument.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 07:03 PM
Mine's bigger than yours!

Windows 7 is good for something then.

a_unique_person
29th October 2009, 07:16 PM
It seems when you look it up yourself most of the CO2 is NOT put there by man.


Isnt' that the whole point of this exercise, the change in level is all our doing. We are well on the way to doubling the CO2 concentration, as well as acidifying the oceans because much of what we are making is being absorbed into them.

macdoc
29th October 2009, 07:26 PM
WB

You can do better than that, I hope.

Hasn't so far.:garfield:

Poptech
29th October 2009, 07:45 PM
I don't care. I, like anybody else, can go to the site and see it for what it is. I neither know nor care what a "Registrant Organisation" is.
Of course you don't care that a left wing environmentalist organization that spreads alarmism is hosting the website you claim to be "objective". And no anyone cannot not go to the site and see it's true motivations.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958) (Discover the Networks)
Foremost public relations firm of the political left. Past clients have included Marxist dictatorships in Central America. Represents environmentalist groups, pro-Democratic political action committees, labor unions, and the anti-war movement.

Founded in 1982 by activist and public relations veteran David Fenton, Fenton Communications (FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on the political left, with locations in Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco.

FC serves as an "umbrella" for "three independent nonprofit organizations" which it co-founded. These include: Environmental Media Services, which manages publicity efforts for environmental groups; New Economy Communications, a social justice group; and the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty lobby.

FC expressly refuses to represent "clients and projects that we don't believe in ourselves." Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war organizations. In addition, FC has offered its services to pro-Democrat political action committees and law firms, as well as to political campaigns against the death penalty and gun-ownership rights. [...]

Equally noteworthy has been FC's business partnership with environmental groups. In 1988 and 1989, FC helped one such organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), promote misleading claims about the dangers of Alar, a pesticide then in use by the apple industry. On the basis of NRDC's study of Alar, itself based on exaggerated probabilities rather than concrete empirical data, FC launched a media campaign that stoked consumers' fears and captured the interest of television news programs, daily newspapers and daytime talk shows, fueling a backlash against apple growers. By some estimates, the apple industry suffered $200 million in lost revenue as a result of the FC campaign.

By contrast, FC and its client prospered. David Fenton subsequently boasted that his firm had "designed" the media campaign "so that revenue would flow back to NRDC from the public," noting that FC had gained "$700,000 in net revenues from it." Fenton Communications today cites the Alar campaign as a significant contribution to the "national debate" on pesticides. [...]

Joining forces with the Environmental Working Group, FC has also engineered media campaigns exaggerating the dangers posed by pesticides in tap water and baby food.

In 2003 FC created an ad campaign targeting the automotive industry for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The controversial ads alleged that consumers who bought sport utility vehicles were, in effect, supporting terrorism by using large amounts of fuel imported from the Middle East. [...]

Arlie Schardt, a senior consultant at Fenton Communications and Chairman of Environmental Media Services, served as Al Gore's national press secretary during his first presidential campaign.

bokonon
29th October 2009, 07:47 PM
I don't know why you think it is mild. Its the primary one.
Nope. Water vapor is the primary one.

Hindmost
29th October 2009, 07:51 PM
Ben,

I get the feeling we are not helping Walrus but just pushing our own opinion now



Water vapour accounts for 95 % of the greenhouse effect on earth. Its origin is 99.99 % natural
CO2 (and Methane etc) pretty much accounts for the other 5%
Man accounts for about 5-6 % of CO2 etc
Simple maths shows man is responsible for about 0.25 – 0.30 % of global warming.

The IPCC predicts temperature rise from 1.1 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years.

Non doomsaying global temperature increase is expected to be 1-2 degrees over the next 100 years.

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

Could you cite your numbers.

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

These indicate a varying contribution from water vapor and nowhere near your figure. In addition, the CO2 contribution is about 9 to 25 percent and we have added about 100 ppm to the atmosphere.


glenn

bobdroege7
29th October 2009, 07:59 PM
Nope. Water vapor is the primary one.

Pound for pound, they are about the same, roughly close same, order of magnitude, but I don't have exact figures, other than as of now there is 10 times as much water in the air as CO2.

But

and in climate science there is always a but,

You can't very well increase the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere.

I mean buring fossil fuels put both CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere, why aren't we worried about the extra water going up there?

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:05 PM
Of course you don't care that a left wing environmentalist organization that spreads alarmism is hosting the website you claim to be "objective".

Of course not, because I can go to RealClimate and see what it is for myself. As can anybody.

Your demons are not everybody's, you know.

And no anyone cannot not go to the site and see it's true motivations.

And why not? We're not idiots or ignorant. We certainly don't need to be told by you what it actually is ...

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications.

... on such a basis.

Fenton Communications (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958) (Discover the Networks)

Well there you are. Your point being?

The thing itself is there for you to see and read and try to understand. It doesn't have to be described to anybody, let alone by you.

That thing which isn't a conspiracy but they're all in it : is Al Gore the leader, or just a decoy? Did he invent the internet just to further his nefarious schemes?

macdoc
29th October 2009, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by bokonon http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5257671#post5257671)
Nope. Water vapor is the primary one.

continual lack of comprehension....water vapour increase is a feedback not a driver. :rolleyes:

It magnifies the primary driver ( be it orbital or C02 )

How many times do you have to be corrected on your lack of understanding of the physical geo-systems

Does this sound familiar

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

Filed under:

Climate Science (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/)
Climate modelling (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-modelling/)
FAQ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/)
Greenhouse gases (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/greenhouse-gases/)

— gavin @ 6 April 2005 - (http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/plugins/langswitch_flags/de.gif (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/langswitch_lang/de/))
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc.

Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

sigh....Sisyphus had it easy....:garfield:

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:09 PM
Could you cite your numbers.

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

These indicate a varying contribution from water vapor and nowhere near your figure. In addition, the CO2 contribution is about 9 to 25 percent and we have added about 100 ppm to the atmosphere.


glenn

omg, they're back to the water vapour thing. As if the world got warmer because the air got wetter instead of vice versa.

Denialim has regressed to the point where it soon disappears up its own blastula.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:11 PM
sigh....Sisyphus had it easy....:garfield:

You should listen to his wife.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:18 PM
I mean buring fossil fuels put both CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere, why aren't we worried about the extra water going up there?

Because the atmosphere very quickly rejects it. Relative Humidity will not be denied.

In contrast, the atmosphere will hold onto any amount of CO2. Which is why it has over a third more than it had a century or so ago.

shadron
29th October 2009, 08:27 PM
Athon,

If 5 % of GHG is CO2 and 6 % of that is man made then .05 x .06 = 0.003.

0.003 x 2 degrees = .006 of a degree !

BTW : I like your less doomsday take on GW or AGW.

And I am not adverse to cutting CO2 regardless of what I think is its limited effect on warming.

I would call your calculation irrelevant on several grounds. First of all, whence the "5 % of GHG is CO2"? CO2 was, for the last several thousand years at least, fairly stable at 300 parts per million. That fraction, .03% by weight, is the primary reason our planet is in the liquid water domain; if it were absent, the mean global temperature would be something like -40C. CO2 is not the most influential GHG; that would be water vapor, but that vapor is self-limiting and already at a good proportion of it's maximum value. CO2 is in the driver's seat.

"6 % of that is man", hmmm? The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere started rising in the first part of the 20th century; today it is about 385 PPM, and is on an exponential growth curve who's current slope is 8 PPM/yr. If that rising amount is anthropogenic (and scientists have no other explanation for it), then man made CO2 increase is about 28% of the gas in the atmosphere today.

The third thing that is a problem is that the relationship between the fraction of CO2 and the temperature rise is non-linear. The full story on that is not out, and involves imponderables like water phase change heat, water heat capacity, deep water mixing, earth heat absorption, plants and so on. Drawing a linear relationship as you did is unwarranted.

Also.. you beat me too it.. NON AGW has contributed to MASSIVE changes in Earths climatic history.Sure it has. The Cretaceous Period had dinosaurs living on Alaska's north slope, which is about unchanged in latitude over the intervening period, and an equivalent distance from the south pole. The difference is that it took tens to hundreds of thousands of years to make the changes then. More lately the Earth has cooled considerably, but we are in a interglacial warm period now. But, unexpectedly, we seem to be heading into a large warming that will change in just a few hundreds of years.

I like Capel's attitude about the future. The only thing that troubles me is that the crisis, when it comes, is going to be very hard on lots of people - not those of us here, mainly, but the sort who were killed by the Christmas tsunami in the quarter millions, or those dying of famine in Africa today. We live with famine now, but the results of GW are bound to raise that, likely considerably. The political upheaval will be great as well.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:32 PM
These indicate a varying contribution from water vapor and nowhere near your figure. In addition, the CO2 contribution is about 9 to 25 percent and we have added about 100 ppm to the atmosphere.

Which is over a third.

I find that when faced with the Law of Small Numbers (a variant of argument from personal incredulity) proportion is a good way to go.

Over a third, which is a quarter of what's up there. Numbers which anybody can appreciate.

CapelDodger
29th October 2009, 08:46 PM
I like Capel's attitude about the future. The only thing that troubles me is that the crisis, when it comes, is going to be very hard on lots of people - not those of us here, mainly, but the sort who were killed by the Christmas tsunami in the quarter millions, or those dying of famine in Africa today. We live with famine now, but the results of GW are bound to raise that, likely considerably. The political upheaval will be great as well.

It troubles me as well, but no more than many other events. There is never any justice near the time. But there is progress.

I can be flippant on these threads because they are of no significance.

shadron
29th October 2009, 08:54 PM
On the subject of videos about GW, I'd invite you to view potholer54's set of four videos on climate change on YouTube, starting here:

52KLGqDSAjo

Also on YouTube is greenman3610's series called Climate Crock of the Week, which specializes in refutation of denier claims. His channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Trakar
29th October 2009, 09:48 PM
I know you have told me about CO2 helpfulness before and I did understand it, what you have struggled to explain is the harm it causes and how much of that is man made.

The important issue, is how much of the CO2 increase of the last 200 years can be demonstrated to be human sourced. You are familiar with the atmospheric carbon isotope fingerprint studies and how these allows us to fairly precisely calculate exactly what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 can be traced back to open-cycle fossil fuel combustion?

Trakar
29th October 2009, 09:51 PM
Ben,

Man is responsible for a massive .006 of a degree !!!!

Simple maths.

simply inaccurate maths

Trakar
29th October 2009, 09:55 PM
If we stopped all C02 fossil emissions now it would continue to warm for 50-60 years to reach close to a radiative balance and then in minor way for thousands of years beyond at.

Probably close enough for a simple examination, but we are already engaging several natural negative feedback systems and our stopping wouldn't necessarily disengage those systems. For one thing, we've got a lot of perma frost that isn't so perma anymore.

Third Eye Open
29th October 2009, 10:06 PM
Crackpots seem to all have the same posting style. Certain posts on this thread have stood out to me as 'crackpot material' without me even reading them. I know this is a terrible way to decide on an issue, but that's how I roll.

Let that be a lesson to you all.

Trakar
29th October 2009, 10:07 PM
Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

"...RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked..." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/)

Aussie Thinker
29th October 2009, 10:14 PM
The level of Water Vapour in the atmosphere seems to be quite disputable.

I read anywhere from 60 % to 95 % (and yes I selected the high end).

The level of CO2 is NOT disputed.

But its effect is.

Shadron

I like you post and u make a lot of reasoned sense.

The third thing that is a problem is that the relationship between the fraction of CO2 and the temperature rise is non-linear. The full story on that is not out, and involves imponderables like water phase change heat, water heat capacity, deep water mixing, earth heat absorption, plants and so on.

The full story is not out is very relevant.

We NEED to add a whole lot of unproved unscientific unhistoric attributes to CO2’s greenhouse effect to make it a the bogey man. I’m not willing to do that yet.

The second important thing is the amount of MAN MADE CO2 in the atmosphere.

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT man made.

The % is disputable.

Pro AGWers would have you believe that man is responsible for 30 % of CO2. But if you think about it that doesn’t make sense.

That means even though ALL atmospheric CO2 was once natural and varied by natural means .. they would have you believe that NONE of the current increase in the last 100 years has been natural.

CO2 was already naturally increasing before man produced any.

The world was naturally warming which causes more CO2 to be naturally produced.

I have seen good science supporting anything from 5 % to 20 % as being man made (yeah again I chose the low end for emphasis)

Heres some new maths for you.

Using the Worst figures

So if we use 30 % of the warming is GHG and 30 % of that is man that means man is responsible for 0.18 of a degree warming over the next hundred years

Using my figures you get .006 of a degree using the worst AGW figures you get 0.18 of a degree…. (somewhere in between seems likely)

What is the problem ?

Highly Selassie
29th October 2009, 10:17 PM
"...RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked..." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/)

That doesn't matter to deniers. All that matters is that they can use RealClimate in their game of Six Degrees of Al Gore.

Trakar
29th October 2009, 10:26 PM
That doesn't matter to deniers. All that matters is that they can use RealClimate in their game of Six Degrees of Al Gore.

Most probably correct, however, it is important to get the information that most accurately addresses the hyperbole somewhere in the thread.

UnrepentantSinner
30th October 2009, 12:08 AM
PT is still citing Discoverthenetworks and Activist Cash as though they were impartial websites?

:egglaugh:

fsol
30th October 2009, 01:38 AM
The Truth about RealClimate.org (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html)

This is out of date by the way. Perhaps you should try to pay attention instead of posting the same thing on multiple threads.

BenBurch
30th October 2009, 01:39 AM
Nope. Water vapor is the primary one.

Nope. That is secondary. Take away the CO2 and there will be almost no water vapor.

shadron
30th October 2009, 02:00 AM
The level of Water Vapour in the atmosphere seems to be quite disputable.

I read anywhere from 60 % to 95 % (and yes I selected the high end).

What are these numbers? Relative humidity? My personal guess (and that's exactly what it is) would be that the average is around 50% RH. That means that the air could concieveably hold twice as much water as it does now, but then half of it would just drop out as rain/snow and we'd be right back where we were.

The level of CO2 is NOT disputed.

But its effect is.

...

We NEED to add a whole lot of unproved unscientific unhistoric attributes to CO2’s greenhouse effect to make it a the bogey man. I’m not willing to do that yet.

Like what attributes? Its transmission/absorption spectrum is known. Its behavior in the highest layer of the atmosphere is known. What unscientific attributes more does it need?

The second important thing is the amount of MAN MADE CO2 in the atmosphere.

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT man made.

So far, yes. About 72% of it is natural; that's keeping our average temperature around 20C rather than -18C which it would be with no CO2 in the atmosphere. For now. But that's not what is important. What is important is that it is rising. That means that more of the sun's radiation is being captured than is being radiated away into space, and that will continue until the additional heat raises temperatures to the point where the Earth's black body radiation reaches equilibrium.

The % is disputable.

Pro AGWers would have you believe that man is responsible for 30 % of CO2. But if you think about it that doesn’t make sense.

That means even though ALL atmospheric CO2 was once natural and varied by natural means .. they would have you believe that NONE of the current increase in the last 100 years has been natural.

Take a look at the graph here at Carbon dioxide under "In the Atmosphere". Now, explain how come that graph, which if extended backwards bobbles up and down +/- 10% for the last several thousand years, suddenly decides to make that kind of movement? Can you describe a natural mechanism for that? Most scientists think that that level of rise in 50 years is probably unprecendented in Earth's history. I'll wait right here for an explanation.

CO2 was already naturally increasing before man produced any.

The world was naturally warming which causes more CO2 to be naturally produced.

Says who? The last warming cycle the world went through was essentially completed 20,000 years ago; the graph has been mostly flat since that time.

I have seen good science supporting anything from 5 % to 20 % as being man made (yeah again I chose the low end for emphasis)

Heres some new maths for you.

Using the Worst figures

So if we use 30 % of the warming is GHG...

Whoa, stop right there. Where did that come from? Why is only 30% of the new warming due to green house gasses? Why not 100%? Are you hypothesizing some solar increase in the last several hundred years? I'll disagree.

Look at the diagram here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect_png . This represents the heat cycle between the sun, earth and the atmosphere when in balance. However, as the text below the diagram explains, we are currently intaking about .85 W/M^2 more heat than we are radiating away. Now, tell me where in that diagram your other 70% of warming is being created? Either insolation is higher, or radiation out is lower; which is it, and what is the mechanism?

...and 30 % of that is man that means man is responsible for 0.18 of a degree warming over the next hundred years

Using my figures you get .006 of a degree using the worst AGW figures you get 0.18 of a degree…. (somewhere in between seems likely)

What is the problem ?

You tell me. Show me where you got your 30%.

Actually, it makes no real difference to me whether your figure of 30% is correct. It could come from within the Earth, for all I care, but the amount of warming is 100% of it, by definition, and, man-made or not, we have to figure out a way to control or live with it. It isn't going to feel cooler just because teh rise is natural as opposed to man-made, though I'll argue that the latter is exactly what it is.

bobdroege7
30th October 2009, 04:25 AM
Probably close enough for a simple examination, but we are already engaging several natural negative feedback systems and our stopping wouldn't necessarily disengage those systems. For one thing, we've got a lot of perma frost that isn't so perma anymore.

I would change that to


Probably close enough for a simple examination, but we are already engaging several natural positive feedback systems and our stopping wouldn't necessarily disengage those systems. For one thing, we've got a lot of perma frost that isn't so perma anymore.


Increase the temperature, increases the amount of water evaporating and at the same time increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold, which increases the greenhouse gas effect of the water vapor, which increases the temperature.

This is an example of a positive feedback, and so is the permafrost thingy.

Mr Clingford
30th October 2009, 04:41 AM
Of course you don't care that a left wing environmentalist organization that spreads alarmism is hosting the website you claim to be "objective". And no anyone cannot not go to the site and see it's true motivations.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958) (Discover the Networks)Foremost public relations firm of the political left. Past clients have included Marxist dictatorships in Central America. Represents environmentalist groups, pro-Democratic political action committees,
Eh? You are against democracy? Since when is being pro-democracy the same as being politically left?

Dancing David
30th October 2009, 04:46 AM
Undesired walrus:
Unfortunately the usual sniping and bickering has occured.

There are many reasons to believe that the temperatures on the earth have been rising, while this is often disputed in many way, it comes from many divergent sources. Some people will focus on just the recnt data to deny the rising temperatures but many sources point to the overall rise in teperatues.

The question then comes down to :what is the role of CO2 and other green house gases in this equation? There are many reasons to believe that CO2 is contributing to an increase in the theperature. But the debate usually then revolves around, what is the role of other things, how much is from CO2

Now as you can see there is also a political element that is behind much of the arguing, it is almost absent in the research papers on AGW. But it exists as sidebar in the debate. Unfortunately the tactics used to deny the possibilty of AHW have been borrowed from the asbestos and tobacco industry, and this has really muddied the debate.

Belz...
30th October 2009, 05:00 AM
Of course you don't care that a left wing environmentalist organization that spreads alarmism is hosting the website you claim to be "objective".

That might have something to do with the "I don't know" part. :rolleyes:

macdoc
30th October 2009, 05:08 AM
Can we lose the political crap - this is the science forum :rolleyes:

••

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Probably close enough for a simple examination, but we are already engaging several natural negative feedback systems and our stopping wouldn't necessarily disengage those systems. For one thing, we've got a lot of perma frost that isn't so perma anymore.
BobD
I would change that to...


Yeah - noticed that - for sure positive feedback...

Would that there is a robust negative feedback to engage.....about the only one is increased snowpack in some areas leading to a bit of albedo change.....

Maybe our cooking technique will produce more volcanoes and they we can point to a robsut negative feedback as a reslt of out C02 release.:rolleyes:

Seismic activity linked to global warming
By Richard Pauli on October 1, 2009 11:05 P
http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2009/10/seismic-activity-linked-to-global-warming.html :whistling

Wowbagger
30th October 2009, 08:22 AM
...that spreads alarmism...
PopTech, Honest question, here:

I've looked through some of the material on that site (realclimate.org). I was wondering if you could tell me which part of it are "alarmist". Apparently, I missed them. All the stuff I was reading seemed fairly level headed and reasonable. But. of course, I couldn't get to everything.

If there is any actual "alarmist" material on that site, I would be curious to know about it. At least a few examples would be good to start with.

Thanks.

Puppycow
30th October 2009, 08:52 AM
I recommend this series of videos if you've the modern disease like me:
khikoh3sJg8

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Fishstick
30th October 2009, 08:52 AM
Dodger...

Who is the Registrant Organization (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org) of RealClimate.org?

So if next year they transfer their domain to, say, goDaddy, everything's peachy?

lomiller
30th October 2009, 10:35 AM
The level of Water Vapour in the atmosphere seems to be quite disputable.


If there were no water in the atmosphere at all, the total greenhouse effect would be 34% of its current value.

If there were no other greenhouse gasses besides water vapor the greenhouse effect would be 66% - 85% of it’s current value (the sum is greater then 100% because the absorption bands overlap) This is an impossible situation however, since other greenhouse gasses are partly responsible for keeping the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere high. Without the warming effect of other greenhouse gasses propping up water vapor levels the greenhouse effect water vapor provides would be much much lower.


Humans are responsible for all the CO2 increase since the industrial revolution. Which is (393-280)/280 or 40%. We’ve actually produced enough CO2 to raise concentrations by another 110ppm or so but that’s been absorbed by the oceans.

BenBurch
30th October 2009, 10:39 AM
lomiller, BUT if you removed the other GHGs, the planet would get so cold there would be virtually no water vapor, either.

lomiller
30th October 2009, 10:45 AM
lomiller, BUT if you removed the other GHGs, the planet would get so cold there would be virtually no water vapor, either.

I said that. It's worth repeating though.:)

rocketdodger
30th October 2009, 10:58 AM
PopTech, Honest question, here:

I've looked through some of the material on that site (realclimate.org). I was wondering if you could tell me which part of it are "alarmist". Apparently, I missed them. All the stuff I was reading seemed fairly level headed and reasonable. But. of course, I couldn't get to everything.

If there is any actual "alarmist" material on that site, I would be curious to know about it. At least a few examples would be good to start with.

Thanks.

I suspect that any material that might lead a person to the conclusion "things are not exactly as the old guard with a vested interest in the status quo says they are" would be considered "alarmist" to these types of people.

Trakar
30th October 2009, 11:56 AM
I would change that to


Probably close enough for a simple examination, but we are already engaging several natural positive feedback systems and our stopping wouldn't necessarily disengage those systems. For one thing, we've got a lot of perma frost that isn't so perma anymore.


Increase the temperature, increases the amount of water evaporating and at the same time increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold, which increases the greenhouse gas effect of the water vapor, which increases the temperature.

This is an example of a positive feedback, and so is the permafrost thingy.

You might, but in general, that would more expose the naivette of your comprehension of the science involved in the issue. In trying to equate the two processes and in attempting to misframe the conditions, you don't provide an accurate and meaningful technical revision of my statements.

1) where did the temperature difference come from that caused the initial water vapor content to increase.

2) you acknowledge water vapor greenhouse mechanism, but deny CO2 mechanism?

Excess water doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough to create a persistent feedback cycle.

You are free to your opinion, but facts and evidences need to be supported and empirically testable.

BenBurch
30th October 2009, 12:00 PM
I said that. It's worth repeating though.:)

Oh, so you did. Serves me right for posting while doing three other things...

AlBell
30th October 2009, 12:52 PM
"...RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked..." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/)
Do you think "free lunch" is also a factual concept?