General Climate Discussion

[AKH]

Your wife's the realist then?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by AKH
Your wife's the realist then?

She's the one with the bank account password, and won't tell me.  

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by crockett
So where is your proof? You right wingers always claim there is no proof of man made climate change. So where is your proof that counters what most of the worlds top scientists all agree on?

Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the worlds scientific community.

I do not need to provide proof.  I would expect, as does any logical person, that the doomsayers provide difinitive proof that humans are causing global warming.  They can not.  All they can say is that the earth's climate is changing.  Well, hell, there is a revelation!  At times, almost the entirety of the northern hemispere was covered by sheets of ice.  Not once, but several different times.  Who caused the climate change that allowed that to happen?  Was it the aliens?  

Tell ya what dim-wit.  If you provide a shred of irrefutable evidence that climate is changing because of man made influences, then I might consider believing it.  If not, why not just zip the lip and stop cowtowing down to the latest political game...

[lazs2]

proof?  I have shown that the co2 math does not add up..    I have shown that the math on the treaty does not stop what they say will happen if we do nothing.

What proof have the alarmists?  they have... ta da.. computer models.. yep.. that is it.  nothing else.

The "data" they put into these models can't predict the past even.   they take 11 or so natural elements that they don't understand much less, how they work together... and say..  "see.. this is what will happen"

And how do they blame man?  well.. since they can't figure out what is happening with the models..  why... it has to be man.  really.. that is it.  they simply say that the models won't work without mans influence so they just add that in to mask all the mistakes on the natural stuff.

And that is why they never talk about the real science or the proof.  That is why they want to "get past the debate" and onto the money... "get past?"  they never allowed debate in the first place.

But...more and more scientists are speaking out or.. actually being asked is more like it.   every year there are more who say it is all bunk.  every year the alarmists have to tone down their doomsday scenarios.  

lazs

[Sabre]

Climate change is like the common cold.  You can't stop it, you can only treat the symptoms to alleviate the patient's suffering.  Instead of wasting trillions on trying to cure it (since there is not consensus on what is causing it), we should work to alleviate the problems that are truly and demonstrably possible to deal with, such as poverty, hunger, and oppression.

[Sabre]

Exactly what would constitute evidence refuting global warming?  How about the following facts provided in the linked article?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

I especially like the following quote from the end of the article.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

And before you dismiss the author as a mere journalist, I’ll point out that David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.  In other words, a scientist.  At what point do we drop the pretense of a scientific consensus and actually look at the science?

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by lazs2
proof?  I have shown that the co2 math does not add up..    I have shown that the math on the treaty does not stop what they say will happen if we do nothing.

ROFL! It was YOU who put great store in a weblink that claimed that the amount of man made CO2 produced annually was 6m tons. The ACTUAL figure, from the US Department of Energy (2004) was 29m tons. The 6m figure is just the US amount, and does not include the rest of the world. When this was pointed out to you, you dismissed it as a "minor error". Apparently, being out by a factor of FIVE is just a small mistake. So don't talk to us about your CO2 math, and how everyone else's "doesn't add up".

[AKH]

Laz, you have shown nothing more than your gullibility and obstinance.  You will quite happily repeat any junk science spoon fed to you by Stephen Milloy and other "scientists" of his ilk.  You have demonstrated that you are more than willing to constantly regurgitate the same myths, half-truths and lies, over and over again, is spite of them being refuted, over and over again.

Anyone who thinks that climatology is nothing more than GCMs, is naive or idiotic.

Sabre, contrary to what you believe, ice storms and global warming aren't mutually exclusive - try googling "global warming" "extreme weather events."

[Sabre]

Originally posted by AKH
Sabre, contrary to what you believe, ice storms and global warming aren't mutually exclusive - try googling "global warming" "extreme weather events."

I rest my case.  Looks like Deming hit the nail on the head.

[lazs2]

beet... er.. louis... Yeah.. the math doesn't add up but I see you got your yank immitation down a little better with "tons" instead of "tonnes".

it is all well and good to say that we produce this or that tons of co2.. until you realize that it is only a very small fraction of the co2 that is produced by nature and that....  co2 is a very tiny amount of the total of greenhouse gas.

what your huge ton number adds up to is 0.28% of all greenhouse gas...

now you make the math work out that it is causing all the global warming or that cutting that down by 30% or so to..  oh... 0.19% is gonna be worth the dozens fo trillions of dollars the alarmists want to spend.

Tell me though..  If we reduce say..30% (not really possible without real pain)..

How much of a degree will it save us by 2100?  half a degree?  a quarter of a degree?

that is.. unless nature does what it will do and just decides to freeze us instead by then.

What do you alarmists do if the temp goes down 2 degrees by then?   blame co2?

lazs

[AKH]

Originally posted by Sabre
I rest my case.  Looks like Deming hit the nail on the head.

Good idea. Maybe you should write a song about your "victory?"

[AKH]

Try again Lazs.  Your maths fails to account for the spectral overlaps of absorbers, natural sinks, non-linearity and feedback.

For the 30% rise in CO2 there has been so far, that would imply that would represent around 3% of the natural greenhouse effect - a good order of magnitude bigger than that suggested above. Of course, this is at equilibrium and not applicable to a transient change. If one takes into account the human-induced changes in the other GHGs (CH4, N2O, CFCs), you'd get something like double that. Given that even a 5 or 6 ºC cooling was associated with the huge ice sheets 20,000 years ago, and that 33 ºC cooling would reduce our planet to a near-snowball-like state, a potential increase of 5 to 6% of the natural greenhouse effect is not to be sniffed at… nor dismissed as irrelevent with highly misleading arithmetic.

Calculating the greehouse effect

Only out by a factor of 10. Oh well.

[lazs2]

akh... read this site instead..  the numbers do not add up for man made global warming so far as co2 is concerned.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

still.. take the highest and the lowest figures out there and reduce em by 30% at a cost of trillions and no end to the misery... and ta da.....  under the highest estimates you get a reduction of about a half a degree in 100 years (all else staying equal.. no nasty mother nature involved)...  under the lowest estimates... you get a reduction of about a few tenths of a degree...

under both estimates..  the reduction is far less than the margin of error that is aknowledged in global climate calculations.

The site akh shows is pretty dishonest in any case.. it says that we contribute an amount of methane that includes cows and feed crops.   are we gonna stop eating meat as part of the "treaty" too?    it also adds all the coal fires into man made co2 numbers...  one underground coal fire in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and light trucks in America..  put it out if co2 is such a big deal.

lazs

[Sabre]

Originally posted by AKH
Good idea. Maybe you should write a song about your "victory?"

Oh, come on, AKH.  You got to admit, your timing as a straight man was dead on.  And that serious, dead-pan delivery? Priceless, dude! I'll see your  and raise you .

[wrag]

Little more info?


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb