Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming schmarming,it`s all pure hoke.Reminds me of the boiler room tactics of Telemarketing.

Then please explain to us all why the reinsurance companies started to warn about it 20 years ago? And then panic?

WoW people have trouble seeing reasons behind agendas, it must have been pretty easy to create the worlds religions, indoctrinate and subjugate the brain, and tell it HOW to look at problems, so as to be incredulous at always the wrong moments.

Only one thing continues to amaze me about this whole debate.....

Does anyone remember 5th grade science class?

If CO2 were truly the cause of climate change, then why do we continue to chop down acres upon acres of trees daily?

Some of you may be wondering why I ask that question, so let me explain by going back to 5th grade science.

Its called the process of photosynthesis. Where plant life takes in CO2 and converts it to Oxygen and releases it back into the atmosphere.

The fact is, if climate change is in fact real, we could begin to reverse the process tomorrow by simply legalizing industrial hemp. Notice my choice of words? I did not say legalize marijuana. I said legalize industrial hemp. Hemp grows much faster than trees. It can easily be used to make all the same things we make using the raw materials of trees that are taken down on a massive scale for industry. Paper, clothing, rope and so much more. Then we would no longer need to chop down trees anymore. No more destroying rain forest. No more destroying the plant life that takes in CO2 and releases Oxygen.

At least that is the way I see it..... but I'm sure taxing people makes much more sense.

originally posted by: MrWendal
Only one thing continues to amaze me about this whole debate.....

Does anyone remember 5th grade science class?

If CO2 were truly the cause of climate change, then why do we continue to chop down acres upon acres of trees daily?

Some of you may be wondering why I ask that question, so let me explain by going back to 5th grade science.

Its called the process of photosynthesis. Where plant life takes in CO2 and converts it to Oxygen and releases it back into the atmosphere.

The fact is, if climate change is in fact real, we could begin to reverse the process tomorrow by simply legalizing industrial hemp. Notice my choice of words? I did not say legalize marijuana. I said legalize industrial hemp. Hemp grows much faster than trees. It can easily be used to make all the same things we make using the raw materials of trees that are taken down on a massive scale for industry. Paper, clothing, rope and so much more. Then we would no longer need to chop down trees anymore. No more destroying rain forest. No more destroying the plant life that takes in CO2 and releases Oxygen.

At least that is the way I see it..... but I'm sure taxing people makes much more sense.

The scary thing is your right about the trees and taxes... But wrong about climate change and CO2. Yes we could plant millions of trees scrub the atmosphere, but the dems don't wanna stop it... They wanna profit off it... But what's worse?

The Dems trying to profit off a disaster?

Or

The GOP denighing it completely?

IMHO the GOP head in the sand approach is the worse evil.... Not thAt they all arnt garbage.

There's a new study out with a "correction" to Hansen's original calculations for feedback that lowers sensitivity.
He originally used a feedback calculation for electrical circuits, which are NOT analogous to atmosphere:

Solution found for why climate models run hot

In a paper published in the peer-reviewed Science Bulletin, climate scientists have determined that an error in feedback calculations used by the IPCC, NASA (from Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt) and Hadley/CRU have exaggerated the resulting rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2.

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
Sci. Bull. (2015) 60(1):122–135 DOI 10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2
Christopher Monckton • Willie W.-H. Soon •David R. Legates • William M. Briggs
Received: 27 August 2014 / Accepted: 12 November 2014 / Published online: 8 January 2015
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

o.b5z.net...

The article has been summarized in several places:
“Oops! One wrong equation caused the #climate scare!”
junkscience.com...

Although I’ve linked to the paper in its entirety, above, there is an excellent summary here:
tallbloke.wordpress.com...


I do not expect the MSM to say anything, but it is getting some notice.

a reply to: jdub297

Interesting.

the impact of anthropogenic
global warming over the next century, and even as
far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more
than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure where you are going with that.

The data is there. ~280ppm to 400ppm~ are the observed CO2 concentrations. No manipulation, just observations.

That is less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere! how can so little have so much 'effect'.?

a reply to: jdub297

That paper is a joke. Discussed somewhat in this thread about it.

a reply to: pikestaff

One of the weaker arguments.

You realize that without any CO2 in the atmosphere the planet would be much, much colder right?

a reply to: Entreri06

One overlooked fact which is continuously glossed over, is that co2 also reflects heat. The phenomena that produces the greenhouse effect also reflects/radiates more heat back out as it enters the atmosphere. It has been shown that water vapor (THE most significant GHG) will reflect more heat than it retains via the Greenhouse effect. In other words, the more water vapor in the atmosphere, the higher the albedo of the atmosphere resulting in a negative temperature change.

When one examines the temperatures on planets and moons in our solar system, a couple of odd facts emerge: One is that a significant amount of the atmospheres are methane and other recognized GHG's. Fact 2 is that, oddly, the temperatures as estimated/presented by scientists for the planets and moons are pretty much explained by gas law. The greenhouse effect does not seem to significantly play any part in the temperatures.

One might surmise that GHG's reflect as much heat as they retain producing a near net zero effect. How else would the above be explained? I am a geologist, not a climatologist nor a physicist nor an astrophysicist so I pose these questions for discussion, not as given evidence debunking the Greenhouse Effect in it's entirety but as, perhaps, an indicator that the greenhouse effect is not as well understood as claimed.

This, in itself, would explain the deficiencies in the IPCC's climate modeling.

a reply to: bbracken677

One overlooked fact which is continuously glossed over, is that co2 also reflects heat.

When you say "reflect heat" do you mean re-emit infrared radiation? Because heat, which is molecular movement, is not "reflected". The "reflection" of infrared is not glossed over, it is the primary factor in determining radiative forcing for greenhouse gasses.

The greenhouse effect does not seem to significantly play any part in the temperatures.

Venus?

One might surmise that GHG's reflect as much heat as they retain producing a near net zero effect.

One might, but one would be incorrect. Please see this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: PeterMcFly

I do not have time address all of your list of why you do not believe warming is a reality.

Number 4 sticks out. As a result of our burning of carbon based fuels, CO2 has increased significantly and continues to do so.

The increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 400+ppm is a significant one, and it has been shown that this increase is directly tied to man's habit of burning fuel.

We are changing the atmosphere of this planet!

You say that co2 has increased significantly (and it has) but as a result of carbon based fuels. Could you, perhaps, demonstrate or provide data that pins the increase on man that would result in a conviction in a court of law? (so to speak).

It has been shown...how?

It's not like co2 levels have never increased significantly in the past. If co2 levels are the bad-a$$ed effect it is reputed to be, then at the rate that co2 levels have increased over the last 20 years, why have temperatures not increased by anything close to similar levels?

Co2 levels and man's contribution are always presented as though the "system" was in balance, and man unbalanced it which is absolutely false. The "system" has never been balanced and is/has always been in flux. Over the last 400k years has seen consistent and predictable swings, and now we have exceeded the swings of that most recent period, true. Prior to the most recent 400k period (something AGW proponents like to leave out of the discussion) co2 levels varied drastically...as in drastically higher than today...

The ice age began with levels of co2 12 times higher than today. AGW proponents like to say that "solar levels were lower then", however there is absolutely no scientific corroboration of that statement. None...zippo.

If you tell me that carbon isotopes indicate man's contribution I have a counter that debunks that statement in it's entirety.

a reply to: bbracken677

The recent rise in CO2 is most certainly caused by man.

The 'studies' that refute this use bad science and bad math to come to the conclusion that the extra CO2 is not from man. There have been plenty of threads where this is discussed, but if you want to go down that road again, there will be several posters that point out the flaws of the so called studies that 'debunks' the reality of man's contribution to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

a reply to: bbracken677

Prior to the most recent 400k period (something AGW proponents like to leave out of the discussion) co2 levels varied drastically...as in drastically higher than today

So what? How does that contradict the fact that humans are releasing carbon which was sequestered millions of years ago?

The ice age began with levels of co2 12 times higher than today.

Can you be more specific? Which "ice age" are you referring to? Are you referring to "ice ages" or glacial/interglacial periods?

None...zippo

You're sure about that?

a reply to: bbracken677

Here is a link showing how "enormous" the effect of CO2 is vs water vapor:

File_Atmospheric Transmission.png - Wikimedia Commons

To add to this "monstrous" effect, we can see that CO2 bands are already practically at saturation. Of course the high priests of the church of warmingology will stick to the minimal increase and exagerate its effect by all kind of voodoo like positive feedback...

a reply to: Phage

Are you saying that infrared radiation cannot be reflected? Although, what I was referring to was what you describe.

Venus? Closer to the sun, no? It does stand to reason that surface temperatures on Venus would, indeed, be higher. Even higher for Mercury, although I do not believe Mercury has an atmosphere, which excludes it from the GHG discussion fully. Is Venus's atmosphere not something approximating 100 times denser than Earth's? What does gas law suggest that temperatures should be at what would be the equivalent of "sea level" on Venus?

Titan has an atmosphere of primarily nitrogen, methane and ammonia. It's atmospheric pressure is approximately 1.5 times higher than earth's. Roughly 1-6% of Titan's atmosphere is methane and other hydrocarbons, stronger GHGs, by far, than co2 and water vapor.

Titan's surface temp is pretty low, at 95 K. This is well explained by it's distance from the earth and gas law.... shouldn't it be higher due to the significant levels of GHG's?

What about Neptunes temerature? Saturn? Uranus? Do the GHG's play a part or is it actually a simple function of distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure? When you begin looking at extraterrestrial bodies it appears that GHG is not a factor.....

a reply to: bbracken677

Could you, perhaps, demonstrate or provide data that pins the increase on man that would result in a conviction in a court of law? (so to speak).

What other cause could there possibly for current increase?

It's not like co2 levels have never increased significantly in the past. If co2 levels are the bad-a$$ed effect it is reputed to be, then at the rate that co2 levels have increased over the last 20 years, why have temperatures not increased by anything close to similar levels?

CO2 increases have happened in the past and well before humans entered the scene but how is that supposed to absolve human activity of this increase?

Co2 levels and man's contribution are always presented as though the "system" was in balance, and man unbalanced it which is absolutely false. The "system" has never been balanced and is/has always been in flux.

The system was in balance for life as we know it to evolve. Our changing of the make-up of the atmosphere has thrown that balance out the window which threatens our species even though the planet will be fine and produce life again eventually.

Prior to the most recent 400k period (something AGW proponents like to leave out of the discussion) co2 levels varied drastically...as in drastically higher than today

People that disagree with man made climate change always say this or that we (more absurdly, science) don't account for the sun. False.

The ice age began with levels of co2 12 times higher than today. AGW proponents like to say that "solar levels were lower then", however there is absolutely no scientific corroboration of that statement. None...zippo.

Solar levels were lower at that time because of where the planet was in the Milankovitch cycle which coincided with a period of CO2 sequestration due to rock weathering.

a reply to: bbracken677

You are trying to compare apples to oranges there buddy.....

There earth to sustain diverse life as it does, has a delicate balance. The concern is that we as a species are tipping the scales and the planet could loose that balance. The CO2 is just one aspect of man causing great harm to this planet's 'spheres'

a reply to: bbracken677

Are you saying that infrared radiation cannot be reflected? Although, what I was referring to was what you describe.

You said CO2 "reflects heat." Infrared radiation is not heat, it is electromagnetic radiation. CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. That is not quite the same thing as "reflecting heat." Its is also the primary factor in considering radiative forcing due to greenhouse gasses.

What does gas law suggest that temperatures should be at what would be the equivalent of "sea level" on Venus?

What is the density of air in a SCUBA tank? What does gas law suggest the temperature of that tank would be?

Titan's surface temp is pretty low, at 95 K. This is well explained by it's distance from the earth and gas law.... shouldn't it be higher due to the significant levels of GHG's?

No.

When you begin looking at extraterrestrial bodies it appears that GHG is not a factor.....

Why?

a reply to: Phage

I am not claiming that man is not releasing carbon... I question the degree to which we are blamed for the increase. Given that in past interglacial periods carbon has risen along with temperature, and yet we are led to believe that ALL the increase since industrialization is attributable to man. I find that rather disengenuous.

I do know the difference between an interglacial period and the beginning of an ice age. Geologist...remember?

Here is an historical record of temps and co2 levels.



Regarding am I sure that there is no scientific support for the claim that "solar output was lower". Yeah, pretty sure. I have not made a career of it, yet I do not believe there is any proof of said claim. It is my understanding that the claim comes from "since co2 levels were high, it stands to reason that solar levels were lower" ... in other words, an assumption. I have found nothing in my reference materials to suggest anything more. I could be wrong, as I said, I have not made a career of it. This is outside my area of expertise.

So...prove me wrong, and I will admit my error, but I do not believe that is likely.

originally posted by: MrWendal
Only one thing continues to amaze me about this whole debate.....

Does anyone remember 5th grade science class?

If CO2 were truly the cause of climate change, then why do we continue to chop down acres upon acres of trees daily?

Some of you may be wondering why I ask that question, so let me explain by going back to 5th grade science.

Its called the process of photosynthesis. Where plant life takes in CO2 and converts it to Oxygen and releases it back into the atmosphere.

The fact is, if climate change is in fact real, we could begin to reverse the process tomorrow by simply legalizing industrial hemp. Notice my choice of words? I did not say legalize marijuana. I said legalize industrial hemp. Hemp grows much faster than trees. It can easily be used to make all the same things we make using the raw materials of trees that are taken down on a massive scale for industry. Paper, clothing, rope and so much more. Then we would no longer need to chop down trees anymore. No more destroying rain forest. No more destroying the plant life that takes in CO2 and releases Oxygen.

At least that is the way I see it..... but I'm sure taxing people makes much more sense.

I work for an irrigation company up here in Canada. Maintaining and supplying irrigation water to farmers to irrigate their crops. What I am getting to is that hemp although illegal to grow in the USA, it is definitely a crop that is grown in other jurisdictions. Last year alone in my district I had about 1000 acres of hemp. Of course it is strictly controlled and monitored, but it is a viable and relied upon crop here in Canada. In fact, hemp is a legal crop in a fairly large number of countries:
www.hempuniversity.com...