Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: climate change (again)


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: climate change (again) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 5:42:18 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
~ FR ~

The Chicken or the Egg?

In an invited talk the week of December 14 at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting, Dr. Roy Spencer from The University of Alabama in Huntsville discussed the challenge of answering questions about cause and effect (also known as forcing and feedback) in the climate.

"Feedbacks will determine whether the manmade portion of global warming ends up being catastrophic or barely measurable," Spencer said recently...

"I am arguing that we can't measure feedbacks the way people have been trying to do it," he said. "The climate modelers see from satellite data that warm years have fewer clouds, then assume that the warmth caused the clouds to dissipate. If this is true, it would be positive feedback and could lead to strong global warming. This is the way their models are programmed to behave.

"My question to them was, 'How do you know it wasn't fewer clouds that caused the warm years, rather than the other way around?' It turns out they didn't know. They couldn't answer that question."


K.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:04:08 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Does the increased CO2 content get absorbed into the ice sample straight away: you say yes I say no.

That's a very interesting point. But you say no, and he says yes. Have any studies established which it is? Do we know? I ask because there seem to be other issues like this, and opinions aren't science.

Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion. ~Richard Feynman

K.



(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:19:55 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
"President Barack Obama declared Friday a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough" had been reached among the U.S., China and three other countries on a global effort to curb climate change but said much work was still be needed to reach a legally binding treaty."

What a fucking moron this country elected. A non-binding treaty that says developing nations will disclose whatever non-binding efforts they will make toward non-binding reductions in greenhouse gasses...thats "a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough". China refuses to allow verification because it would violate their sovereignty (Pay attention, you might learn something from them about sovereignty, Barry)

Obama is the laughing stock of the world with his inability to provide any impetus at all to Hopenhagen, and has further alienated the far-left. (not to mention that every other thing he claims to have accomplished is "unprecedented", the most overused word in this administration).


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:24:43 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

Oh, I believe that humanity is resilient, too! Besides which, the glaciers won't reach all the way to the equator; there'll still be plenty of viable land. Just not enough for the 50 billion or so who will probably be trying to live on the earth's surface by the time the glaciers really do start moving in. People will die, civilizations will rise and fall, and technology will, by fits and starts, be knocked back to the iron/steel ages... at least, in most areas.

One should wonder... what happens if we fight global warming, and accidentally take it too far? A single decimal out of place... could we trigger a glaciation?

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to surelyujest71)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:37:45 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?


ooh!  ooh! ooh!

Brought back through DNA replication and cloning of some of the mammoths recovered in the ice of Siberia!

Yes!  I've read those books!

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:40:55 PM   
surelyujest71


Posts: 48
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent


doubtful. I don't expect our science to make much effort toward cloning species that are so long extinct.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:48:22 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

quote:

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent


doubtful. I don't expect our science to make much effort toward cloning species that are so long extinct.


I'm not sure "much effort" will be required.  The science is getting easier, and more pervasive each day.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to surelyujest71)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:49:26 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~

The Chicken or the Egg?

In an invited talk the week of December 14 at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting, Dr. Roy Spencer from The University of Alabama in Huntsville discussed the challenge of answering questions about cause and effect (also known as forcing and feedback) in the climate.

"Feedbacks will determine whether the manmade portion of global warming ends up being catastrophic or barely measurable," Spencer said recently...

"I am arguing that we can't measure feedbacks the way people have been trying to do it," he said. "The climate modelers see from satellite data that warm years have fewer clouds, then assume that the warmth caused the clouds to dissipate. If this is true, it would be positive feedback and could lead to strong global warming. This is the way their models are programmed to behave.

"My question to them was, 'How do you know it wasn't fewer clouds that caused the warm years, rather than the other way around?' It turns out they didn't know. They couldn't answer that question."


K.



It is ironic to find right next to the article you cited this article where a scientist from the University of New South Wales argues that water vapor feedback will lead to increased rate of global warming. I say ironic because the argument is clouds vs humidity.

"Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns

Predictions of significant global warming over the next 100 years by climate models require a strong water vapor feedback. Recent estimates suggest the earth will warm from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next century – a scenario that could have devastating long-term consequences.

“Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century,” he adds."


I have read elsewhere that water vapor is a mightier GH gas than CO2. The alarmist argument is essentially, I have read, that the CO2 will trigger the water vapor effect which will in turn lead to faster, greater and lovelier warming.

Clouds? We don't worry about your freakin clouds. We got water vapor. Although, there will be more storms, hurricanes and such. Err, doesn't that require water vapor condensation and hence more clouds? What a freakin circus.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: climate change (again) - 12/18/2009 6:51:46 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

quote:

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent


doubtful. I don't expect our science to make much effort toward cloning species that are so long extinct.


I'm not sure "much effort" will be required.  The science is getting easier, and more pervasive each day.

Firm



Damn. It has been ages, actually eons, since I have had a woolly mammoth burger with french fries :( Do you prefer ketsup or mustard, Firm?

Vincent

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/18/2009 7:02:24 PM >


_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: climate change (again) - 12/19/2009 5:29:14 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

quote:

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent


doubtful. I don't expect our science to make much effort toward cloning species that are so long extinct.


I'm not sure "much effort" will be required.  The science is getting easier, and more pervasive each day.

Firm



Damn. It has been ages, actually eons, since I have had a woolly mammoth burger with french fries :( Do you prefer ketsup or mustard, Firm?

Vincent


Ketchup!

Fries are nothing more than a delivery system for massive amounts of the red goodness. 

As for the woolly mammoth burger ... taste anything like the bison that they serve in Ted's Montana Grills?

mmmmm .... meat ..... mmmmmmmm

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: climate change (again) - 12/19/2009 12:17:32 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

quote:

Sigh. I don't suppose there is much room in your scenario that mankind will survive by hunting resurgent woolly mammoths ?

Vincent


doubtful. I don't expect our science to make much effort toward cloning species that are so long extinct.


I'm not sure "much effort" will be required.  The science is getting easier, and more pervasive each day.

Firm



Damn. It has been ages, actually eons, since I have had a woolly mammoth burger with french fries :( Do you prefer ketsup or mustard, Firm?

Vincent


Ketchup!

Fries are nothing more than a delivery system for massive amounts of the red goodness. 

As for the woolly mammoth burger ... taste anything like the bison that they serve in Ted's Montana Grills?

mmmmm .... meat ..... mmmmmmmm

Firm



Taste yummy just like a Mistress I once served. Without the ketchup of course. She was naturally flavored and not so woolly. (If that doesn't kill this thread ..... )

Vincent

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/19/2009 12:35:29 PM >


_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: climate change (again) - 12/19/2009 1:20:03 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
LaRouche Declares Victory! Now the Recovery Must Begin.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 6:36:04 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Vincent.  Where did you teach?.  I went to HS in TN and went to UM on scholarship.  After Grad school, I taught science and coached wrestling and soome football at Columbus, Killian and Homestead untill I got a job in a lab paying about half again as much.  As for your ideas of alternative energy.  I dont think wind will do it.  Going to have to be a combination of Fusion and Solar

(in reply to surelyujest71)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 6:58:04 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
William; I was at UM for grad work and taught in two high schools in the far north western part of Dade County. I have been away from them for awhile. Fortunate to get an early retirement. Teaching was great fun but a bit of a grind, although I loved the performance art of it, the being on stage everyday, so to speak.

I thought harnessing fusion an unlikely source of energy but since you mentioned it I see some serious experimental work is underway. I will have to read about it more carefully. Thanks, William.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 8:19:05 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
2a) CO2 acts as an insulator - it is a "greenhouse gas", preventing heat from the sun escaping the atmosphere; this can be easily demonstrated with a glass tube filled with CO2, a candle and a camera. 
2b) Venus provides us with an example of greenhouse gas effects with an atmosphere made up of such gases that results in it being so hot that probes sent to land there last less than five minutes before being critically damaged by the high temperatures.

Do the climate change sceptics dispute any of these facts of the case as presented, in whole or in part?

I dispute these.
2b. Venus is hot because of internal heat, as demonstrated by the evidence for large scale volcanic activity.
2a. Earth's atmosphere is not enclosed in a glass tube. When heated a gas such as our atmosphere will expand, enabling it to radiate more heat into space, thus establishing a new heat equilibrium.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 8:33:16 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Good grief Rule! Whatever are you doing? We're now well past page 2 for goodness sake- the time for responding to the OP is long past!

More seriously though I thank you for bringing things back on track. As it happens I can see your argument on 2b and 2c. What I am looking for is to establish the basic facts that all agree on, from which to build the argument for or against global warming whether man made or natural (or a mix of both).

If we can agree that CO2 is building up in the atmosphere for instance then we can look at why that might be. What I want to avoid as much as possible is posts that look to establish a conclusion immediately to the greater question. If on the other hand every part of the OP is or could be in dispute then the greater question fails, having no basis from which to be set except on a theoretical basis.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 11:38:23 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Good grief Rule! Whatever are you doing? We're now well past page 2 for goodness sake- the time for responding to the OP is long past!

It is?

I take that this is a humorous statement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

More seriously though I thank you for bringing things back on track. As it happens I can see your argument on 2b and 2c. What I am looking for is to establish the basic facts that all agree on, from which to build the argument for or against global warming whether man made or natural (or a mix of both).

If we can agree that CO2 is building up in the atmosphere for instance then we can look at why that might be. What I want to avoid as much as possible is posts that look to establish a conclusion immediately to the greater question. If on the other hand every part of the OP is or could be in dispute then the greater question fails, having no basis from which to be set except on a theoretical basis.


I address the same points about whether or not CO2 actually is part of the greenhouse effect, with a detailed, peer reviewed paper - written by physicists no less.

I guess what struck me in the paper was the authors claim that - while everyone assumes that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect - there is no original, actual research to confirm this assumption.

I was hoping someone on "the other side" would respond with cites and quotes, but none have done so. Which kinda leads to a default conclusion ... the authors are correct.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: climate change (again) - 12/21/2009 1:17:15 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
so the only dispute with regard to the OP is that there is anything effectual with regard to climate connected to rising CO2 levels at this stage and presumably into the future.

this is the key point. the remainder is simply irrelevant in this regard (though very relevant in other ways) if CO2 levels do not function as they are being said to function in effecting climate change.



_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: climate change (again) - 12/23/2009 8:44:34 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

so the only dispute with regard to the OP is that there is anything effectual with regard to climate connected to rising CO2 levels at this stage and presumably into the future.

this is the key point. the remainder is simply irrelevant in this regard (though very relevant in other ways) if CO2 levels do not function as they are being said to function in effecting climate change.




Another peer reviewed paper about CO2 and it's effects (or lack thereof) on Global Warming (or lack thereof):

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009)

Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.

The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.


Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: climate change (again) - 12/23/2009 8:50:52 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Now that's interesting

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: climate change (again) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109