Author Topic: General Climate Discussion  (Read 93292 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #150 on: October 29, 2007, 09:21:48 AM »
If I recall right, Moray pointed out the big part of CO2 and warming, which was the sea. It holds less CO2 when warmer, just like your coca-cola when it's warmer.
Anyway, you cannot discard the sea (which is warming) nor the SL. The forces at work there are simply huge.
I was actually quite surprized that the arctic areas and the sea didn't come much into the discussion, however not sao surpried to see the selectiveness of the data.
Very nice claim that we suddenly lost the ability to measure temperature in the last 20 years.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #151 on: October 29, 2007, 10:42:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh yeah.. show that co2 lags not leads temp and they say "well.. this time is different it is now leading."

say that the co2 is going up but for 8 years the temp has not (20 for the US) and they say... "give it time..  nothing happens instantly"

say the suns activity leads global temp and they say "but look.. for  two years the activity was not as strong and the temp still went up"   no, "give it time" stuff there.

algore presents a weepy mocumentary and it is praised and even some scientists (at first) praised the science... of course now... england will not allow it to be shown at schools as fact.

The "swindle" documentary?  real scientists saying that it is a hoax the MMGW thing.. the media and alarmists come unglued.. even their attempt to discredit (add balance) is weak.. the basics have not been discredited at all.   co2 can't be doing it.

We are indeed being swindled by the alarmists and the socialists.    

lazs


Why can't CO2 be doing it?
Laz, solar forcing isn't doing it.  If it was, then all levels of the atmosphere would be warming, in particular, the stratosphere.  The stratosphere does not hold any CO2, and it is actually cooling.  As a matter of fact, all levels of the atmosphere are cooling, except for one, the troposphere.  I'll give you one guess where that is, and another guess as to what makes it special.

(a: we live there and it holds pretty much all the CO2)

Personally attacking me and trying to make me look stupid won't fly.  My credentials are just fine, thank you, and suit me.  I have plenty of scientific papers out there published in peer reviewed literature.  Try and discredit me all you want, it won't change the consensus and scientific evidence.  

Also, actually, for 17 years the sun's activity went down,(and still is, BTW) as measured by flare and sunspot activity,  and temperature still went up, Laz.  Please get your facts straight.

I am not a fan of Al Gore's film.  He made a film that presents outlying scenarios, statistically, and presents them as what is certain.  The only good thing about it is it's "wake up call" potential.  

Laz, there is a reason that 65 million years ago there were dinosaurs walking around Antartica... coincidentally CO2 was 300 times higher then.  The planet locked all that carbon up in coal and oil.  We, as a species, are taking that all out again and putting it back in the atmosphere.  It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what comes next.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #152 on: October 29, 2007, 10:54:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz, there is a reason that 65 million years ago there were dinosaurs walking around Antartica... coincidentally CO2 was 300 times higher then.  The planet locked all that carbon up in coal and oil.  We, as a species, are taking that all out again and putting it back in the atmosphere.  It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what comes next.



dinosaurs walking around Antartica...
:eek:

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #153 on: October 29, 2007, 12:03:49 PM »
Yes.
However the Pole was at the today's equador. There were forests in Greenland too.
What was the CO2 ppm?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #154 on: October 29, 2007, 01:07:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
recently a petition was circulated and 17,000 men with advanced degrees all signed it saying that they thought MMGW was a hoax.


So no significant increase over the 1998 incarnation of the Oregon petition.  That's strange given your previous statements on how the scientific community is catching on to the swindle.

And for your information, a B.Sc. (B.S.) is not an advanced degree.
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #155 on: October 29, 2007, 02:32:18 PM »
moray...  I am not questioning your ability in science only pointing out that many more scientists with even more experiance do not agree with you.

rather than answer your questions about c02 I will point you to a site.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

written by people who understand it a lot better than either of us.  if you have a problem with any of the data and the way short and long wave radiation works or doesn't work... feel free to correct the site.

your statement that algores movie was valuable as a "wake up call" even tho it was false... smacks of... "the end justifies the means" to me.

I also might point out that earlier, in maybe another thread... you said that you felt that co2 was probly not the major cause of warming.   Are you now saying that it is?

how did dino's lock up the carbon?  

If we did not exist.. there would be fires to unlock the carbon in any case.  fires that would burn for decades in coal fields and forests.

lazs

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #156 on: October 29, 2007, 02:53:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
dinosaurs walking around Antartica...
:eek:


Yes, Dinosaurs were in Antarctica.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #157 on: October 29, 2007, 03:05:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
moray...  I am not questioning your ability in science only pointing out that many more scientists with even more experiance do not agree with you.

rather than answer your questions about c02 I will point you to a site.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

written by people who understand it a lot better than either of us.  if you have a problem with any of the data and the way short and long wave radiation works or doesn't work... feel free to correct the site.

your statement that algores movie was valuable as a "wake up call" even tho it was false... smacks of... "the end justifies the means" to me.

I also might point out that earlier, in maybe another thread... you said that you felt that co2 was probly not the major cause of warming.   Are you now saying that it is?

how did dino's lock up the carbon?  

If we did not exist.. there would be fires to unlock the carbon in any case.  fires that would burn for decades in coal fields and forests.

lazs


Experience, you meant.

1:  Yes, you were calling into question my credentials sir.  Please don't attempt to portray it as otherwise.  What's your advanced degree in again, by the way?  I have two and working on a third.... 2 MS and on my doctoral dissertation.  I'm dumb enough to know when someone is knocking on my credentials.

2.  As usual, you misrepresent what I have said previous.  I stated this, "That CO2 by itself, is not a comparatively major greenhouse gas.  Water vapor and CH4 are many times more viable and increasingly more consistent at retention of thermal energy."  I pointed out that CO2 represents a window that could be used to open up a more radical expression of warming, through water vapor and methane.

3.  The Dino's locked up that carbon by DYING .  That point should not be lost upon you sir.  The Cretaceaous exctinction basically took the world's ecosystems, pushed the restart button, and sealed up all that carbon (carbon, as you know is what ALL life on the planet is based on) under the ground.  The atmospheric CO2 concentration of the time was 300x heavier than now.  Amazingly, the temperature was also 20 degrees warmer then, worldwide.  I guess you don't see a correlation.  (CH4 concentration was also much greater, and that also got locked up, under the sea and in permafrost.)  Bottom line.... CO2 is a stepping stone to release of methane hydrate, which in turn will cause higher H2Ov concentrations.

4.  Please feel free to include viable forms of citation.  Junkscience.com, is not one of those.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #158 on: October 29, 2007, 03:31:49 PM »
Still baffles me that people are still debating whether there is any warming occuring. Just look at the glacial areas on the N-Hemisphere...
But again, it's being debated by GW denialists, and they cut away from both the Ocean warming as well as the N-Cap as much as they can, while if anything, pull up the increased snowfall on Antarctica.
BTW, that should give a bit of a ting on the bell, for it is one of the dryest areas in the world. Or used to be.....

And BTW, Lazs, - how do you expect a natural fire in a coalfield? Would that be a lightning into the shaft?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #159 on: October 29, 2007, 10:46:40 PM »
Been wondering that myself.... how do you get coal on fire underground... without, that is, having a mine?(laz said we wouldn't be there)  Yes, I know about the underground coal fires in Pennsylvania, caused by a mine incident (and supplied by oxygen in that shaft) and burning for the past 35 years...  Underground is naturally anaerobic...fire needs oxygen....  That argument is pretty vague.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #160 on: October 30, 2007, 08:57:12 AM »
yet... you claim that the reset button was hit.. and.. man was not even here.. we had nothing to do with it.

Show me some proof that the GLOBAL temp has gone up in the last 7 years.. that the US temp has in the last few decades...   How can this be?

If co2.. if man made co2 is heating the earth..  then why is it not doing so like the models predicted?  we are at almost 80% of a doubling this century but no ten degrees warmer.  how can that be?    

Suns activity is not just solar flares.. it is solar winds.. It has always led the temp changes while co2 lagged the changes.   co2 is not leading temp change now.  solar wind is at a high now but sunspot activity has calmed.. still higher than the 40's and 50's tho when we had a global cooling..

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/wind.html

Our universe is heating... mars is heating.. what is causing that?  why would not the same things that cause that cause us to heat?  

moray... get over yourself.. the fact remains that you are not the most credentialed person on either side of the debate... certainly I am not either.. nor is angus..  but.. we don't claim to be.    

There are people who know more about it than you with better credentials who think you are wrong.  

coal fires are both natural and man made.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/coalfires.html

just one countries coal fires are more co2 than all the cars and trucks in the US

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp

sooooo.. if co2 is the problem then why even care about anything till we can put out the coal fires?    should be simple enough for a race who can control nature eh?

lazs

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #161 on: October 30, 2007, 12:14:34 PM »
Coal fires = industry. In China, yes, a LOT. And they are really crude about it. But it gives us westeners very cheap products.
Natural (underground) coal fires in huge quantities however challenge one important law of Physics....

As for the last 7 years, watch the debunking of the debunking (the 8 links here above) It's actually quite clear about it, there is only ONE particular form of analyzing sattellite data that does not speak out in the order of warming, - i.e. rather still in the S-Hemisphere, slightly warming in the N-Hemisphere.
Ocean temps however go up, and bear in mind that those are 70% of earths surface. SL rises slightly, which means either or both of more landbased ice melting than gathering, as well as water slightly expanding due to heating.
And in the N-Hemisphere nearer to the arctic circle the warming is more detectable. Greenland is probably the clearest place to look at.
BTW they were on our news today. They are now successfully growing potatoes and some cabbage, - outside, - in the S-Area. That has not been possible before now.
Then you have to look at the animal lifes as well, since they can tell you a lot about climate. Migrating birds in N-territories are now leaving later and arriving earlier in the spring. The difference is very marked.
It's not all about JUST one interpretion and the surface-none-urban temps JUST in the USA, this is much bigger than that.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #162 on: October 30, 2007, 12:34:55 PM »
* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
    * Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
    * Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
    * Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
    * Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
    * Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
    * Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
    * Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
    * Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
    * Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
    * Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

All practising research scientists.

The Mars argument has been debunked repeatedly, so I'm surprised that you're dragging it up again.

Quote
The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere.

  Albedo of the south pole on Mars determined by topographic forcing of atmosphere dynamics

As Moray pointed out, the vast majority of coal fires are man-made, since they occur most often in mines and waste tips.  China's coal fires, which consume an estimated 20 – 200 million tons of coal a year, make up as much as 1 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

As Fred Singer says, "It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."

I could agree with him on that point.
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #163 on: October 30, 2007, 01:08:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
BTW they were on our news today. They are now successfully growing potatoes and some cabbage, - outside, - in the S-Area. That has not been possible before now.
 


yes, growing food is a bad thing,:rolleyes:

<>

but the shrinkage of the arctic is not regional but global?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 01:11:35 PM by john9001 »

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #164 on: October 30, 2007, 02:26:55 PM »
You are obviously smarter than everyone else. :rolleyes:

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."