quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Antarctic SEA ice is up, as expected from the observed increase in glacial ice movement to the sea and the glacially fed ice shelf retreat and fragmentation observed all around the Antarctic. Ice volumes on land or in floating ice shelfs are all decreasing.

quote:




But you are right, I'll look it up. I read most all opinions, if only to give the Devil his due. :D

...

I do notice you have deep respect for academics that you already agree with and the rest are idiots and scammers.

quote:


People just keep having babies and we probably will breed ourselves out of a livable planet before we overheat it. Not making the necessary choices voluntarily means the Four Horsemen do it for us? Which seems a lot harsher than just looking around and believing the many field workers who devote their lives to understanding our planet by actually going out doors and Looking at 'stuff' with really good instruments, careful experimental design and open minds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh you mean the fraudulent memos that Peter Gleick (global warming activist) forged to discredit Heartland?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession

Gleick stole the memos. Heartland claims on some rather shaky ground that one is forged. The rest they admit are theirs.
From the Heartland press release

quote:

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views

Now since denialists believe it was perfectly ok for some hackers to steal documents from the University of East Anglia when it served to support their cause it is entirely ok for a an opponent to do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh you mean the fraudulent memos that Peter Gleick (global warming activist) forged to discredit Heartland?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession

Gleick stole the memos. Heartland claims on some rather shaky ground that one is forged. The rest they admit are theirs.
From the Heartland press release

quote:

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views

Now since denialists believe it was perfectly ok for some hackers to steal documents from the University of East Anglia when it served to support their cause it is entirely ok for a an opponent to do the same.

I don't mind that Gleick engaged in identity theft. I don't mind an investigative journalist doing journalism.

But if you read the "memo" it is obviously a forgery - and TT analysis concluded the same. And I do think his journalism career should be destroyed for such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh you mean the fraudulent memos that Peter Gleick (global warming activist) forged to discredit Heartland?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession

Gleick stole the memos. Heartland claims on some rather shaky ground that one is forged. The rest they admit are theirs.
From the Heartland press release

quote:

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views

Now since denialists believe it was perfectly ok for some hackers to steal documents from the University of East Anglia when it served to support their cause it is entirely ok for a an opponent to do the same.

I don't mind that Gleick engaged in identity theft. I don't mind an investigative journalist doing journalism.

But if you read the "memo" it is obviously a forgery - and TT analysis concluded the same. And I do think his journalism career should be destroyed for such.

I read the analysis and it clearly stated there was not enough original text to make any determination and then the author did make a determination. It was a bogus study. The memo may be fake but that study proved nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh you mean the fraudulent memos that Peter Gleick (global warming activist) forged to discredit Heartland?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession

Gleick stole the memos. Heartland claims on some rather shaky ground that one is forged. The rest they admit are theirs.
From the Heartland press release

quote:

"Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views

Now since denialists believe it was perfectly ok for some hackers to steal documents from the University of East Anglia when it served to support their cause it is entirely ok for a an opponent to do the same.

I don't mind that Gleick engaged in identity theft. I don't mind an investigative journalist doing journalism.

But if you read the "memo" it is obviously a forgery - and TT analysis concluded the same. And I do think his journalism career should be destroyed for such.

I read the analysis and it clearly stated there was not enough original text to make any determination and then the author did make a determination. It was a bogus study. The memo may be fake but that study proved nothing.

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

quote:

Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

Nope. The real experts say it is "disastrous" to even try at anything less than 3000 words. I don't believe some analysis that set out to prove a guy guilty but instead read the guy actually admitting he had no idea who wrote the memo.

But as usual you believe lies because it confirms your beliefs even when the guys says right in the document that he is full of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

Nope. The real experts say it is "disastrous" to even try at anything less than 3000 words. I don't believe some analysis that set out to prove a guy guilty but instead read the guy actually admitting he had no idea who wrote the memo.

But as usual you believe lies because it confirms your beliefs even when the guys says right in the document that he is full of it.

Ah DK says that Patrick Juola, Ph.D. (you know a doctor with years of study and practise, with publications to his credit isn't an expert.

All bow to DK's superior knowledge.

quote:

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

Nope. The real experts say it is "disastrous" to even try at anything less than 3000 words. I don't believe some analysis that set out to prove a guy guilty but instead read the guy actually admitting he had no idea who wrote the memo.

But as usual you believe lies because it confirms your beliefs even when the guys says right in the document that he is full of it.

Ah DK says that Patrick Juola, Ph.D. (you know a doctor with years of study and practise, with publications to his credit isn't an expert.

All bow to DK's superior knowledge.

Once again the guy actually said so

quote:

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

Nope. The real experts say it is "disastrous" to even try at anything less than 3000 words. I don't believe some analysis that set out to prove a guy guilty but instead read the guy actually admitting he had no idea who wrote the memo.

But as usual you believe lies because it confirms your beliefs even when the guys says right in the document that he is full of it.

Ah DK says that Patrick Juola, Ph.D. (you know a doctor with years of study and practise, with publications to his credit isn't an expert.

All bow to DK's superior knowledge.

Once again the guy actually said so

quote:

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

And yet he says:28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Really. Perhaps you'd like to quote me from the study where it says any such thing.

Here let me help you:
Analysis
24 This task is challenging for several reasons, some technical and some linguistic.

25 First, the Heartland memo as published contains a great many quotations taken from other sources. As originally published, the memo contains approximately 717 words, but at least 266 of those words have been identified as belonging to phrases (or paraphrases of phrases) found elsewhere in the stolen documents). [N.b. this identification was done by the Heartland Institute, who admit that these 266 words are "paraphrases [of] text appearing in one of the stolen documuments.”

As paraphrases, they may nor may not reflect the style of the original authors, and they also may or may not reflect the style of the alleged forger. For this reason, we analyzed both the full document as well as the 451-word redacted document with the controversial passages removed.

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

27 Thirdly, perhaps as a result of the previous factors, we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.

Results
28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

Nope. The real experts say it is "disastrous" to even try at anything less than 3000 words. I don't believe some analysis that set out to prove a guy guilty but instead read the guy actually admitting he had no idea who wrote the memo.

But as usual you believe lies because it confirms your beliefs even when the guys says right in the document that he is full of it.

Ah DK says that Patrick Juola, Ph.D. (you know a doctor with years of study and practise, with publications to his credit isn't an expert.

All bow to DK's superior knowledge.

Once again the guy actually said so

quote:

26 Second, even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words “are simply disastrous.”)

And yet he says:28 Despite this difficulty, we were able to identify and calibrate an appropriate analysis method. Using this method, we analyzed both the complete Heartland memo and the selections from the Heartland memo that had been identified as not copied from other stolen documents. In both analyses, the JGAAP system identified the author as Peter Gleick.

IOW he made it up. He already said the acknowledged experts in the field do not accept any analysis done on such a short document. He simply ran his software and got a result. He doesn't even try to justify why he considers his result valid when the actual experts in the field do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It is .. ignorant and ironic that you persist in defending Gleick.

The memo was scanned on an Epson scanner. There are none at Heartland.
It was created the day before he leaked it to the press.
Intended to be a strategy summary it has factual errors from the 50 page strategy it was supposed to summarize.

As indicated previously, more than one forensic analyst now has confirmed that Gleick wrote it.

Besides that Gleick released the names and salaries of more than 40 people that earned as little as 25k a year - people that included secretaries and janitors, which resulted in harassment from left aligned groups.

You really want to hold this up as a counter example to ClimateGate? Really?

quote:


a). The attribution to AGW.
b). The attribution to Co2. In fact of the hundreds of temperature variations studied by ice cores, Quaternary Journal indicates that there are no less than 6 contributing factors to climate change; and that the CO2 forcing component contributed no more than 2 degrees to the total.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:


a). The attribution to AGW.
b). The attribution to Co2. In fact of the hundreds of temperature variations studied by ice cores, Quaternary Journal indicates that there are no less than 6 contributing factors to climate change; and that the CO2 forcing component contributed no more than 2 degrees to the total.

Now we add in water vapor as contributing factor. The horse that comes before that cart IS the temp. of the atmosphere, the effect of adding CO2 to that atmosphere and and man's contribution to CO2.

First: The contribution to CO2 and its effect on global warming...IS proven.

quote:




Venus should be much cooler than Mercury and a little warmer than Earth...it is not and by a long shot.

quote:



Forget 1000's and millions of years ago. Forget the extraneous effects of long term history and here's why. The debate is MAN's contribution to global warming and in this debate is the effects of and mans' contribution to upper atmospheric CO2.

quote:



So for the purposes of debate, I will tell you that here is what we know. Over the last 120 years or so, man has created the industrial rev. and that rev. for those short 120 years and its heat energy for heat, power and locomotion/transportation, has been based on the burning of oil and coal. So man's contribution has been the coal and oil fired plant and the gas fueled internal combustion engine.

So as for man's contribution, the deal...is sealed that for just the last 120 years, man has deposited billion of tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere. See Venus if you wish to keep this up. We may have 50 maybe even 100 years left and by that time, we either run out of oil and get way down on our use of coal or...we really sweat a lot. OR as a sadly funny stand-up comedian said on HBO...you'll evolve.

quote:



Water vapor and its inclusion in this debate is ephemeral at best. Water vapor is not only a constantly moving target but once at accumulation, becomes that all important rain. In fact, man's contribution to CO2 and its greenhouse effect is the horse that precedes that cart...causing not more rain storms, not more snow blizzards, hurricanes or floods, typhoons etc. Rather because warmer air holds more water...man's contribution of CO2 causes bigger storms i.e., storms of much more intensity and the more damaging storms such as floods and storms like Katrina, Sandy and typhoon Yolanda.

quote:



So if we are debating man's contribution, this is it and there is no escape. When we include un-burnt hydrocarbons CnH2n+2...it gets even worse. Man only vaporizes on average, 80% of our petro and coal fuels, the remaining heavy atoms of the process still accumulating sub stratosphere and trapping heat along with CO2. Catalytic converters produce even more CO2 yet. There are over 1 billion cars on the road now...1.7 billion by 2035. You do the math.

I am too old for it to make that much difference to me but for the young and unborn, if MAN doesn't change his habits...[they] are in serious trouble.

Edited for my Freudian slips sub for sun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:


a). The attribution to AGW.
b). The attribution to Co2. In fact of the hundreds of temperature variations studied by ice cores, Quaternary Journal indicates that there are no less than 6 contributing factors to climate change; and that the CO2 forcing component contributed no more than 2 degrees to the total.

Now we add in water vapor as contributing factor. The horse that comes before that cart IS the temp. of the atmosphere, the effect of adding CO2 to that atmosphere and and man's contribution to CO2.

First: The contribution to CO2 and its effect on global warming...IS proven.

Really? Great. Show me the *proven* relationship between co2 concentration and temperature. I'll make the same challenge I've made 50 times before. Show me. Show me the causal relationship you know

oC = F(Co2).

Because I will tell you there is not anywhere any such standard. Nowhere.

quote:


Venus should be much cooler than Mercury and a little warmer than Earth...it is not and by a long shot.

Duh. Something every school child should know past 5th grade.
Not a SINGLE person questions that Co2 absorbs and reradiates energy. No one. Nada.

It also has jack-all to do with the debate at hand. No one disputes the contribution of CO2 at the surface of the earth. However the NET contribution of CO2 in the atmospheric column is very much in question.

quote:


Forget 1000's and millions of years ago. Forget the extraneous effects of long term history and here's why. The debate is MAN's contribution to global warming and in this debate is the effects of and mans' contribution to upper atmospheric CO2.

I'm sure you'd like to forget that temperature changes similar to the one we are going through now have been occuring for a million years.

However, in order for you to *prove* AGW you have to disprove nonAGW as a reasonable candidate. Which has never been done.

quote:


So for the purposes of debate, I will tell you that here is what we know. Over the last 120 years or so, man has created the industrial rev. and that rev. for those short 120 years and its heat energy for heat, power and locomotion/transportation, has been based on the burning of oil and coal. So man's contribution has been the coal and oil fired plant and the gas fueled internal combustion engine.

So as for man's contribution, the deal...is sealed that for just the last 120 years, man has deposited billion of tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere. See Venus if you wish to keep this up. We may have 50 maybe even 100 years left and by that time, we either run out of oil and get way down on our use of coal or...we really sweat a lot. OR as a sadly funny stand-up comedian said on HBO...you'll evolve.

Oh thats rich.
Do you have any idea the difference in concentration of Co2 between earth and Venus.
Do you realize that the concentration of Co2 is measured in parts per million?

quote:


Water vapor and its inclusion in this debate is ephemeral at best. Water vapor is not only a constantly moving target but once at accumulation, becomes that all important rain. In fact, man's contribution to CO2 and its greenhouse effect is the horse that precedes that cart...causing not more rain storms, not more snow blizzards, hurricanes or floods, typhoons etc. Rather because warmer air holds more water...man's contribution of CO2 causes bigger storms i.e., storms of much more intensity and the more damaging storms such as floods and storms like Katrina, Sandy and typhoon Yolanda.

Hypothesized and yet never proven.

quote:


So if we are debating man's contribution, this is it and there is no escape. When we include un-burnt hydrocarbons CnH2n+2...it gets even worse. Man only vaporizes on average, 80% of our petro and coal fuels, the remaining heavy atoms of the process still accumulating sub stratosphere and trapping heat along with CO2. Catalytic converters produce even more CO2 yet. There are over 1 billion cars on the road now...1.7 billion by 2035. You do the math.

I am too old for it to make that much difference to me but for the young and unborn, if MAN doesn't change his habits...[they] are in serious trouble.

Edited for my Freudian slips sub for sun.

I only wish you had edited it for scientific accuracy.

quote:

Really? Great. Show me the *proven* relationship between co2 concentration and temperature. I'll make the same challenge I've made 50 times before. Show me. Show me the causal relationship you know

quote:


When an area's albedo changes due to snowfall, a snow–temperature feedback results. A layer of snowfall increases local albedo, reflecting away sunlight, leading to local cooling. In principle, if no outside temperature change affects this area (e.g. a warm air mass), the lowered albedo and lower temperature would maintain the current snow and invite further snowfall, deepening the snow–temperature feedback. However, because local weather is dynamic due to the change of seasons, eventually warm air masses and a more direct angle of sunlight (higher insolation) cause melting. When the melted area reveals surfaces with lower albedo, such as grass or soil, the effect is reversed: the darkening surface lowers albedo, increasing local temperatures, which induces more melting and thus increasing the albedo further, resulting in still more heating.

quote:


Albedo and Global Warming

The most significant projected impact on albedo is through future global warming. With the exception of Antarctic sea-ice, recently increasing by 1% a year, nearly all the ice on the planet is melting. As the white surfaces decrease in area, less energy is reflected into space, and the Earth will warm up even more.

The loss of Arctic ice is of particular concern. The ice is disappearing quite fast; not only is albedo decreasing, but the loss triggers a positive feedback. By exposing the ocean surface to sunlight, the water warms up. This melts the ice from underneath, while man-made CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface. Humidity also increases; water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. More ice therefore melts, which exposes more water, which melts more ice from underneath…

This loop fuels itself, the effect getting more and more pronounced. This is a good example of a positive feedback. Increased water vapour also has another effect, which is to increase the amount of cloud. As mentioned already, clouds can increase albedo (a negative feedback), but also warming (a positive feedback).