quote:

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

(talking about the "greenhouse effect")

The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 buildup. In addition, recent claims that climate models overestimate the imapct of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


You're full of it. The number and scale of volcanic eruptions onEarth the last 250 years are well known and no one but Rush has ever claimed that they could explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why you felt the need to underline a section on fine particle aerosols is a mystery.

As to your ridiculous demand to see accurate climate modeling before agreeing that action should take place, climate modeling is the very definition of the butterfly effect. We can make general predictions of long term trends and we can make short term weather predictions with fair accuract because on one scale the small variables we simply can't account for do not have time to cause major differences and in the long term get swallowed up by the larger variables but for accurate weather prediction 5 moths or a year out those small variables have strong enough effects that we cannot make those accurate predictions with knowing and accounting for all of them and that is simply impossible.

Just Rush? Interesting.

Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Or

quote:

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate.

quote:


Also, you missed the part where I have stated that there are other natural causes of CO2 levels growing, one of which is the climate itself. I never demanded to see accurate models before action was taken. I simply stated that until the modeling can and does accurately reflect what is going on, I will give it as much belief as I do a palm reader's forecast abilities. I further stated that I am all FOR moving towards cleaner and renewable sources of energy. However, those statements were probably missed for a good reason....

Hell even the IPCC estimates give volcanic forcing a range of 1.5-4.5 degrees C; due to equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling...

Edited to add:
As for why I highlighted that particular part in my last post was to show that there are far more reasons for the climate changes than just CO2. Volcanic activity and the aerosols created have an insulating effect, or in other words wind up radiating the heat captured back down to us.

It does seem though that you have made your mind up that, we as a species are responsible for the current climate changes and those in the future. Perhaps, I am reading what you are writing the wrong way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I was putting both sides of the issue out there Ken.... although I guess this debate is already decided, and only one side needs to be heard. Everybody else is just irrational for not accepting information spoonfed to them by the various spinmeisters.......

Edited to add:

For some reason you continue to think I am against cleaning up the man-made pollutants... or maybe I am reading your words from an irrational state of mind.

quote:

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 - Statement of Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(snip)

Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.

(snip)
Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Sorry it took me awhile to get back over here... dinner was excellent.

This should make for an interesting look at CO2, causes and levels...

quote:

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 - Statement of Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(snip)

Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.

(snip)
Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Consider the following:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/10/01/weather-stations-giving-bad-global-warming-data-msm-mia

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

-SD-

quote:

A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming.

<snip>

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming.

<snip>

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Another good read:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

quote:

the author doesn't understand the scientific method and defames

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Merc, it is required but you clearly have no interest in becoming well informed on the subject.

For instance 1998 was only just barely hotter than 2007. The 14 hottest years ever recorded have all occured since 1990 and 8 of those are since 1997. The only way to claim that global temperature averages has come down is to use 1998 as a baseline.

We have very good dendrochronology and ice core data from the roman warming and know that the warming took longer than the present cycle and that no change in atmospheric CO2 occured. Now we have a warming with an associated anthopogenic CO2 increase of more than 50%. No one is concerned that the present warming cycle might be the 2 or 3C global rise that characterized the Roman Warming but the 10 to 15C increase that some models predict. Of primary concern is the melting of the alpine. Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. We know that all of these have shrunk far more and far faster than they did during any warm cycle previously experienced by modern man. For instance during the Roman warming it was possible to transport ice from alpine glaciers to Rome for use by the wealthy. Those glaciers now either no longer exist or are on the verge of disappearing completely. The more of that ice melts the more sea levels will rise and more people will be displaced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Another biased guy. A full fledged creationist this time:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Is there one central clearinghouse that you go to for dirt on global warming heretics, ken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Another biased guy. A full fledged creationist this time:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Merc, it is required but you clearly have no interest in becoming well informed on the subject.

For instance 1998 was only just barely hotter than 2007. The 14 hottest years ever recorded have all occured since 1990 and 8 of those are since 1997. The only way to claim that global temperature averages has come down is to use 1998 as a baseline.

We have very good dendrochronology and ice core data from the roman warming and know that the warming took longer than the present cycle and that no change in atmospheric CO2 occured. Now we have a warming with an associated anthopogenic CO2 increase of more than 50%. No one is concerned that the present warming cycle might be the 2 or 3C global rise that characterized the Roman Warming but the 10 to 15C increase that some models predict. Of primary concern is the melting of the alpine. Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. We know that all of these have shrunk far more and far faster than they did during any warm cycle previously experienced by modern man. For instance during the Roman warming it was possible to transport ice from alpine glaciers to Rome for use by the wealthy. Those glaciers now either no longer exist or are on the verge of disappearing completely. The more of that ice melts the more sea levels will rise and more people will be displaced.

Maybe it is just that you are are more inclined to believe than me. The Roman warming "took longer" means it happened doesn't it - and without any SUV's on the Roman Roads. Exempting that from consideration while at the same sentence taking at truth "some models" predicting a "10-15C increase" is belief not science. The melting of Greenland glaciers is concerning? Based upon my travels the locals in Northern Europe would welcome another period when Greenland WAS green.

Without the use of any precise measurements from the period, you point to concern over the "far faster" warming. It's not the warming but the speed that creates the problem?

Then again, everything you say isn't "scientific method" it is anecdotal or points to one set of "facts" that need to be isolated from any others to work. It may be science involved but doesn't hold up to the standard of scientific method. For any theory, whether Einstein's E=MC2 or global warming, you can have many facts, but until you can duplicate or prove the theory by tests that hold up to observable and/or recorded results its still only a theory.

Being "uninformed" - inform me; under the definition of 'scientific method' duplicate the example. Point me to any model used to warn us about 'global warming' that uses empirical evidence and accounts for prior results, accurately accounts for the past warming episodes, while predicting the coming "catastrophe".

Which one of them considers solar activity? The lack of sunspots has be blamed for the dire predictions of hurricanes never being accurate. Any possibly that there are more unknowns than knows regarding the issue?

quote:

why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers.