The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

reply to post by melatonin


Ahhhh so it was CO2 that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs! Just seems so darn plausible. I mean, we all know what pollution hogs they were, why with their dino hummers and all. Flintstones had it right, imo. Foot powered cars for the win~

Seriously though, the world could do well to return to the balmy conditions of the Medievil Warm Period or the Bronze Age. You know, those periods of history when crop production was through the roof and grapes were growing on the British Isles. The couple degrees of warming that the bogus IPCC predicts should be seen as a good thing, and its truly cooling we should be concerned with. (like the last 8 years)

No matter, AWG is dead by its own admission as is evidenced by the foaming hysteria and irrationality of the remaining few adherents to the faith. 'were all gonna die, and worse yet, the polar bears are all gonna die if the earth warms a few degrees! awwwgrrgrggg!'

Its just getting a little silly is all. Can we move on to the *real* enviromental issues yet? sheesh.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by melatonin

 

Read the water vapour thing right HERE
I did not reall remembered it correct. So My question was also a little of.

That site is for some reason often cited. The page is basically full of tripe. CO2 accounts for up to 26% of the greenhouse effect.

If you actually want a scientific source for the radiative budget, try Trenberth & Kiehl (1997):

T&K 1997

I'd like to hear your opinion on this site

It's a site involving several high profile expert climate scientists. And easily more reliable than the other one you had above.

I'll have to add I do not deny climate change.
I do not even deny it is effected by man.

What I strongly believe is that the counter meassures to lower emissions will not help.

Anything which will result in significantly lower emissions of GHGs will help. However, that requires overcoming our addiction to dirty fuels.

I know the climate change has successfully stopped us focusing on pollution and other things.

Don't agree at all.

Every possibility I'm presented with ends up in favour of corporate industries. Leaving the middle class with a check to pay.

I'm not so sure many of the corporate industries agree. Otherwise they would probably not be funding the denial industry in the order of millions of dollars (see Koch and Exxon et al).

Even if everything of the man made global warming is true.
The actions presented will not be in our best interests.

We'll just fowgeddabowtit then.

Quite fatalistic. Not that I mind, I actually think we'll do sod all because we're myopic eejits who are more worried about random distractions and shiny toys. A bit like magpies.

On small unrelated example. All Gore the voice of climate change. I responsible for a bigger carbon footprint then that of some nations. ( a little exaggerated of course.)

Oh, OK. I suppose we should definitely fowgeddabowtit then.

Of course people are responsible for their actions.
Corporate industries is responsible for how they provide or handle the demand.

And for the last 100 years we've been living in the partyland of cheap dirty energy passing the problem onto the next generation. And now many think we should just go all ostrich-like and/or wish for a miracle.

I'll chuck a tuppence in the wishing-well for you.

Night.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by melatonin

 

Ahhhh so it was CO2 that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs! Just seems so darn plausible. I mean, we all know what pollution hogs they were, why with their dino hummers and all. Flintstones had it right, imo. Foot powered cars for the win~

I would like to think that the implications of that were a joke.

My point is that we are not dinosaurs or trilobites. Our complex societies developed during a period of relative stability and I would tend to think a further period of relative stability would be better than a period of rapid and massive climate change.

Although the PETM did lead to extinctions.

Seriously though, the world could do well to return to the balmy conditions of the Medievil Warm Period or the Bronze Age. You know, those periods of history when crop production was through the roof and grapes were growing on the British Isles. The couple degrees of warming that the bogus IPCC predicts should be seen as a good thing, and its truly cooling we should be concerned with. (like the last 8 years).

Yeah, I'm sure the level of crop production in the bronze age is the envy of farmers today, lol. Grapes have been growing here for ages. And we are likely already above MWP levels. Jeez, it's like 'day of the zombie-denier' in here tonight.

And now were down to 8 years, lol. Like most deniers, depending on the cherrypicking in the noise to obscure the signal. If we go 9 years it's slightly upwards. If we go 8 years it's slightly downwards. Neither are above the level of noise.

I'm sure the 'cooling' of the last 8 years is something we should really be concerned about - we almost got back to the chilly days of the year 2000. How awful.

No matter, AWG is dead by its own admission as is evidenced by the foaming hysteria and irrationality of the remaining few adherents to the faith. 'were all gonna die, and worse yet, the polar bears are all gonna die if the earth warms a few degrees! awwwgrrgrggg!'

Oh, OK then.

Its just getting a little silly is all. Can we move on to the *real* enviromental issues yet? sheesh.

Depends if you think that a likely rapid and extreme climate shift is an environmental issue worth bothering with.

If either you or Sinter have anything beyond long past sell-by reheated tripe, I'll bother replying tomorrow. If not, ciao.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Thank you for the site.

I never said we should forget about it.

No need for silly baby talk either. Just correct me if I'm wrong.
These kinds of responses are not helping your cause you know.

I should have used the Man mad global climate change.
It takes the focus of other problems which are just or maybe even more important.

You don't honestly believe there is such a thing like a oil addiction ?
Come on... There is only greed and the addiction is to money.

If we wanted. We could end the use of oil within a few years.
The only problem is the money. It's to expensive bla. bla.bla. We can't afford it. bla.bla.bla.

Can't afford it my butt.
The US alone can start with the using the defense budget. Hell it could even be enough.

You tell me I believe in lies but it seems like you are doing the same.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: ].

Peer Reviewed by whom exactly? More "scientisions" who already agree with you?

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists.

This statement is completely false, and thus shows that this paper is as a pile BS.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverseThere is a new book out by Dr Spencer, who has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a CLIMATOLOGIST, and he is one of the thousands, if not millions of scientists who have never believed the lies of the AGW scam.

Um, no a Climatology degrees make one a climatologist. A degree in atmospheric science make him an Atmosphericist or something....
These three basic "errors" undermine your entire post/thread.
EIther you don't understand enoughot be makign this argument, or you are intentionally deceiving us.




[edit on 25-4-2010 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Originally posted by melatonin
That site is for some reason often cited. The page is basically full of tripe. CO2 accounts for up to 26% of the greenhouse effect.

"Up to" leaves a lot or room for margin...

Even if everything of the man made global warming is true.
The actions presented will not be in our best interests.

We'll just fowgeddabowtit then.

Quite fatalistic. Not that I mind, I actually think we'll do sod all because we're myopic eejits who are more worried about random distractions and shiny toys. A bit like magpies.

So, Mel the fantastic, are you finally ready to tell us all to what lengths the governments should merge and become tyrannical in order to stop this global threat, or anything like that??? I've been waiting years for you to answer this question... and I still maintain that if you're going to go to great lengths to scaremonger everyone you had better also tell us your proposals driving your ambition.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Look Redneck - I don't know what else to tell ya: you wanted a scientific debate and you got one.

Science is all about trying to make black & white out of gray areas. I'm not "denying" anything - just cutting to the chase and skipping the bull. You keep trying to make a case for how the biosphere might mitigate the effects of CO2 and I keep telling you talk is cheap - show me the results or get off the potty.

And you can try to sugarcoat this into a "gray area" all you want but sorry - I'm not buying it. What you call gray area I see as a pretty cheap attempt to backpedal out of the corner you painted yourself into by going down this terrestrial sink route in the first place. I warned you it was nothing but a waste of time from the start.

So to recap - you've tried to turn the burden of proof around on me to show how the biosphere isn't an adequate CO2 sink. I did that. But apparently it wasn't good enough because the data might be corrupted by a volcano. So I showed you multiple lines of evidence corroborating it. You pretty much ignored this amazing coincidence and just opted to muse over the possibility that data might be unreliable because of vague paranoid assertions over spectroscopy's possible shortcomings.

Now, again - I'm not denying any possibility - I just want to draw your attention to a distinct pattern in your murky "gray area" thinking that's quickly beginning to emerge:

Your entire skeptical stance is becoming more and more predicated on a series of "mights" and "maybes" that, although not individually impossible, are only going to get increasingly shaky and statistically unlikely the more you come to rely on them.

Meanwhile my "pro-AGW" argument so far, despite your attempts to undermine it with these potential uncertainties, seems to be reinforcing and corroborating itself with the observed available evidence.

Now - not to be a cocky jerk - but simply based on my experience with this topic and the usual skeptical arguments that I'm sure are waiting on deck, I'm gonna go ahead and predict this trend will only continue to get stronger the deeper we get into it.


And if you think this is an unfair position to put you in - let me kill two birds here by addressing this part of your post:

There is no direct evidence that warming on a global scale will continue to happen.

Well - ignoring all the climate models, extrapolations, feedbacks, common sense, and what not for the time being - yes there is.

It's called the Scientific Method.

I'm sure you're very familiar with it but let me fill in some of our possible lurkers:

Basically this is the most revered standard in objective reasoning. For a scientific theory to become truly accepted it needs to be verifiable in a clear testable way. Essentially your hypothesis has to make some sort of unambiguous prediction that can then be observed in order to "prove" your theory correct.

Over a hundred years ago Svante Arrhenius theorized CO2's importance as a greenhouse gas by predicting rising emissions would result in rising temperatures. This is exactly what has happened since.

Therefore no matter how much denialists like to claim there is "no scientific consensus", there in fact is one even at the most preliminary scientific level.

And although no, that of course does not make the theory of anthropogenic global warming infallible - it does mean you are now going to have to work that much harder to knock it off it's perch.

Merely showering it with vague uncertainties and hypothetical possibilities that so far haven't materialized at all is simply not gonna cut. You're not only going to have to cast reasonable doubt on the entire theory of AGW - but also come up with legitimate testable and verifiable alternative explanations for why Arrhenius' predictions are coming true.


But now - coming back to the idea of "uncertainties" for a second. Since you digressed to the political side of things, only fair I get a turn. So let me direct your attention to this leaked 1998 memo from the Global Climate Science Team (a skeptic organization). First of all, you'd think a science team with a legitimate scientific leg to stand on would be primarily interested in addressing their scientific peers. But this memo outlines their project goals, claiming "victory will be achieved when":

- Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
- Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
- Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Now - you might say what's wrong with some lobby organization trying to bring a bit of "balance" into the public eye? But look at it this way: their argument, very much like yours, at best brings the whole debate down from black & white into gray. Fine, let's accept that for a minute - but the point is it still offers no conclusive evidence man made climate change isn't happening - only that it might not be. It is still a potentially very serious issue, albeit a cloudier one. But now look at what this "science" team writes underneath their apparently noble project goals:

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.

So how much more "black & white" do you want it?? Oh and by the way - that memo was sent out by Joe Walker, a public relations representative for the American Petroleum Institute.

So what I'm saying is you can question the apparent motives of the IPCC all you want - but forgive me if I have the same reservations about anyone looking to cast little more than "uncertainties" on the status quo.

Because ultimately it breaks down to this:

I would love to understand completely what is happening to the climate, because we have indeed experienced some minor warming in the last century. Where I typically part ways with the Global Warming agenda is when this is seen as catastrophic

Well so far in our debate I haven't said anything about catastrophe - but since you are apparently all about not denying any possibilities - then you have to at least accept this is a legitimate possible outcome.

So now - forget about James Hansen's political agendas for a minute (even though I've already tried to point out to you on another thread he himself is against cap and trade). Let's just draw the line here and hopefully save ourselves some time moving forward.

I'm willing to grant you a degree of "uncertainty", if you're willing to grant me the idea climate catastrophe is impossible to rule out at this point.

Now with that scenario firmly in place - you honestly think the best course of action is to twiddle our thumbs and wait? That maybe catastrophe will be avoided if we just faithfully believe the biosphere will fix it for us, once it suddenly "adjusts to the new levels". All this bearing in mind it's had 100+ years to do so - and the best even the skeptics can come up with is that so far it hasn't changed at all?

This is why a lot of scientists, some of whom you could even classify as still "on the fence" are calling it playing Russian roullette with our future. This is why all this back and forth posturing and debating is so utterly stupid and useless at this point.

Like I've maintained from the beginning of my time here on the Fragile Earth forum - it's all a deliberate tactic by the forces behind the denial industry to derail the bigger issue. To keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the many ways they corrupt our world. And I'm not just talking about CO2 and Big Oil - it's about everything - Banks, Wal-Mart, all the giant industries that completely rely on our over-consumptive tendencies to fuel their economy (not ours).

Global Warming is shining a big ugly spotlight on them now so of course they're doing everything they can to protect their oligarchy.

And you want to discuss the corruption on the other side of the ledger - fine, I've told you numerous times I myself think the politics of AGW are a scam. But the way to deal with that is NOT by encouraging everyone to just bitch about taxes and then stick their heads that much further in the sand.

Ultimately the power to make real change lies in the people and not the politics. Taking action against Global Warming doesn't mean you have to fall automatically in-line with Al Gore's agenda. There are many things people can accomplish that have absolutely nothing to do with any of that. But the Global Warming issue is the catalyst to wake them up and make them start to realize that.

But by filling this subject with pointless uncertainties and "gray areas" - all you're really doing pragmatically is enabling their apathy and encouraging them to just stay asleep.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You said it yourself, that CO2 goes up sharply during cold seasons. I'm implying that there would be more plant growth if temps really took off as you people claim, which could be an largely undiscussed negative forcing.

I'm well aware that the types who like to call people deniers tend to flat out avoid details that might counterbalance the arguments.

If you can find some detailed graphs showing temps, co2 etc for North American for the past 2 years we might be able to find something...

No you're still misunderstanding the point - it has nothing directly to do with "colder temperatures" it has to do with the fact plants are flat out hibernating during those colder months and therefore not producing photosynthesis.

Sure, warmer temperatures might extend growing seasons but you can also argue they'll just displace them further north (drying out some of those in the south) with no real ultimate change.

And besides like I've already shown twice - there are graphs that indicate this potential negative feedback has had absolutely no effect on CO2 emissions - so please read more carefully next time before accusing me of "avoiding the details".

Helmkat,

Your signature quote "This evening's meeting of the Clairvoyance Society has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances!" is wrong.

The Clairvoyance Society canceled the meeting because it was not necessary to meet!

reply to post by mc_squared

Well, it was fun while it lasted...

You made a few points in that response, but all were political instead of scientific. But Hansen's political feelings are irrelevant, as is where the information comes from or who funded it, as long as it can be verified. I'm not going to switch sides between science and politics like that; it is a useless exercise that will consistently fall into disarray. Politics is all about control, while science is all about understanding. The two have no common ground.

Instead I am going to concentrate this response on the general insinuations of your post:

You accuse me of not listening to the 'evidence' you propose, but then ignore questions I have asked about the evidence. For instance, I showed evidence that the status of Mauna Loa (as far as human knowledge goes anyway) has apparently changed dramatically since the sensors were placed there. You shrug that off and say 'but it is corroborated'. Then I mention seeming inaccuracies, based on your own conclusions, in that corroboration and you ignore it.

Talk about patterns.

My musings, as you call them, were an attempt to show you where the science has gone awry, a foundation if you will. Science is not about turning grey areas into black-and-white as you contend; that is the realm of religion. Science is about discovering the truth as it relates to the how. The great men of science are the ones who 'muse' about why things don't seem to make sense: Newton 'mused' about why objects fell when there was no scientific reason other than that they did; Einstein 'mused' about what happened near the speed of light; Hawkins 'muses' about what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. According to your postings here, you must either consider them as unscientific, or admit to a hypocrisy.

I will admit one thing: you taught me something I was not aware of, specifically the difference between the calculated temperature and the observed temperature of the planetary radiation. It is an interesting phenomenon indeed, and one I will spend some time 'musing' over. Perhaps the planetary albedo has been incorrectly observed; perhaps the equations are incomplete; perhaps you are right and we are doomed. I do not know for sure.

However, I am sure eventually I will know why this is so. That is the purpose of 'musing'.

You see, that is a poignant difference between the 'faithful' and the 'deniers'... the 'faithful' cling to their beliefs even when confronted with inconsistencies, while the 'deniers' are busily questioning the inconsistencies. The 'faithful' learn nothing new, because all is settled in their mind and no longer open to investigation, while the 'deniers' are trying to learn more about this chaotic and wondrous thing called the 'climate'.

Per that definition, I am proud to be called a 'denier'. I question rather than blindly accept.

Your premise that if we do not know we must assume the worst is silly. I also do not know that 2012 will pass with or without disaster; yet I refuse to live my life in a manner that refuses to include anything beyond that date. I have two children just starting their lives; having children would be illogical if I was preparing for death and destruction on 12-21-12. So is it illogical to abandon all aspects of modern civilization (and make no mistake, that is the only way to remove all CO2 emissions) because it might cause the planet to melt.

It is completely possible that on a clear cloudless day, a sudden thunderstorm can erupt and cause me to have a need for an umbrella. Yet, I do not carry umbrellas around while the sun is shining.

It is completely possible for an earthquake to strike where I live, although there is no known major fault line in the vicinity. Yet, I designed my home based on the probability of tornadic activity rather than seismic activity.

In the end, it is impossible to prepare for every possibility. One prepares for probabilities, based on the expense (chronologically and financially) as it relates to the likelihood of occurrence. I realize this is not the politically correct attitude concerning Global Warming, but it is the common sense attitude that has allowed mankind to build the society that you see around you. That's good enough for me.

Also, your premise that the burden of proof is somehow on me is also inaccurate. If this is to be a scientific debate, then the burden of proof is on both of us. If it is to be a legal dispute, which 'burden of proof' would indicate, then it is on you; I am not the one pressing for a major change to society.

You seem to have come into this debate with the idea that I was both uneducated and uninformed. I am not. I not only attended college; I maintained a 4.0 GPA. I deal with science every day of my life. And so far as being a climatologist, no, I have no degree in such; instead I have researched it on my own time, by choice, with no other intent than to try and understand the truth behind the official political conclusions. That too is politically correct; I completely understand that the only proper way to obtain information is by giving huge sums of one's parents' money to Universities so one can spend most of their time in a drunken stupor while professors desperately try to instill knowledge. I understand it; I do not accept it.

You see, I used to believe in Global Warming. I did not understand the reasoning behind it, but was too involved with other things to investigate it. I trusted the scientists and believed they were acting in a manner true to scientific principles. However, when the political winds began to indicate severe societal consequences, I decided that perhaps I should understand it more. So I read. I 'mused'. I read some more. I went back to my old chemistry texts and refreshed my knowledge of carbon dioxide. I re-familiarized myself with photosynthesis. I investigated the temperature anomalies. I examined all the data I could find. And I finally concluded that there was nowhere near enough hard data to warrant such extreme measures.

You will have to convince me otherwise. My mind is open, but it is not empty.

Now, sir, you have a choice. You decided to take me on in a debate, thinking it would be a teaching assignment. It is not. You should now know that I am not going to follow down a primrose path of thought unquestionably. I want answers to my questions, and I will vet those answers. You can therefore either bow out, and go back to the old politico-pseudo-scientific rhetoric you previously seemed displeased with, or we can continue. If you choose the latter, I want answers to the following:

• Why does the continent of Europe, in the link you provided, show a below-average rise of carbon dioxide levels when Europe burns almost as much fuel as the United States?
  
  
• Why is it, in the same link, that the area of the Sahara desert shows major increases in the levels of carbon dioxide?
  
  
• Why is it that, given that we now know Mauna Loa to be active, that this fact is seemingly disregarded and the Mauna Loa observatory data is still the data most commonly presented?
  
  
• Why is it that a vulcanologist has not been called in to verify the accuracy of the data coming from that observatory?

And I will add one more that I haven't proposed before:

• How much energy do you think is needed to raise the surface temperature of the planet?

As I have already mentioned, I have other brick walls to beat my head against than you. Scientific research takes time, as do original calculations (which I do undertake in these debates, even though others seem to choose not to). I can make much better use of my time by reinstalling the transistor bank that was mismarked by the manufacturer, or by energizing sections of my latest project to test for proper operation. I have circuit boards to design and etch, testing operations to perform, and Lord knows what needs will lie beyond based on the results of those. So please do not waste my time with a closed mind.

I await your choice, and possibly your answers.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by melatonin
That site is for some reason often cited. The page is basically full of tripe. CO2 accounts for up to 26% of the greenhouse effect.

It is often cited because it is the website of a well known scientist, and not a wannabe like yourself. The only one full of tripe and BS is you, and others like you.


And it is nothing more than BS to claim CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect... Only the AGW fanatics came up with that claim... real scientists know differently...

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

Other REAL scientists, and not "wannabes" like Al Gore Junior aka melatonin, say that the greenhouse effect of water vapor in the Troposphere is 98% and could be even more... No one knows exactly, but the AGW fanatics came up with their own claims exagerating the greenhouse effect of CO2 just to back their new found religion.

Anyway, people should know by now that despite the FANatics of AGW, the main AGW scammers, who were posing as scientists, have been caught, have admitted to have rigged data, hidden any data and information that went against their new found religion, and used other tactics like Al Gore Junior/aka melatonin, and some others around here STILL try time and again....

Obviously the AGW FANatics don't want to let go of their new found religion....

Originally posted by melatonin
...............
Because we are talking about a rapid shift in climate. 1500ppm would result in about 7-8'C warming. The last time the earth saw a large injection of carbon into the atmosphere (the PETM), it was associated with about 6'C of warming which lasted tens of thousands of years. We could do the same in a fraction of the time if we try hard enough.
.................

More BS, from melatonin...like always...

Let's actually see if there is any truth to the lies, I mean claims made by te AGW fanatics like Al Gore junior aka melatonin...



Guess not.... atmospheric CO2 has been low, and temps have been high in EArth's geological record, and as you can see there were times when CO2 has been high yet temperatures have been low.... i wonder why?...

Let's not forget the average 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature increases.....

Originally posted by audas
Whatever - read a book - we are all absolutely stuffed - end of story. The reality is we need to decrease carbon to 350 ppm - IPCC is wrong. This is not going to happen, we are going to face run away climate change and temperatures well and truly in the kill range within 10 years. Special thanks to people like RedNeck and Electric Universe for doing their very best to destroy humanity - some people seem to know no boundaries to their depravity........

It is - without doubt - the greatest crime ever committed.

Didn't the dinosaurs live just fine with CO2 levels double, triple of what we have today?
And higher global temperatures too?

More CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better. The planet will be greener.

reply to post by audas


The theory of evolution is just that. A theory.

I understand that it's based on scientific data. Doesn't mean that it can't be wrong ya know.

Until it's made a law. It's still just an educated guess.

Someone asked me why I don't respond to some people - it's because they talk extreme BS and are some of the most dishonest posters on ATS, and are therefore on ignore - you can search to find my discussions with them in the past if you're ever feeling masochistic. For EU, most will be under one his previous usernames, 'muaddib'.

Anyway, I bothered to read his last couple of posts, and apart from the same old crap I've covered with him multiple times he makes a claim I've not seen him make before - that Geocraft.com is the website of a well-known scientist.

It's not. A quick whois search will show it's the website of Monte Hieb, who works as an engineer in the mining sector in West Virginia. Who'd have thunk that? If I want an opinion on how best to dig a hole in the ground, I might just look him up.

You can find discussions from almost 3 years ago I've had with EU/muaddib on the issues he spouts about earlier. Sorry, I have better things to do than going round in circles with the rationally challenged.

Ciao.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Ok so first off let's get right to your questions:

Why does the continent of Europe, in the link you provided, show a below-average rise of carbon dioxide levels when Europe burns almost as much fuel as the United States?

Why is it, in the same link, that the area of the Sahara desert shows major increases in the levels of carbon dioxide?

Which link that "I" provided? All I recall is this link that you provided. Anyway I take it you're making these observations from the neat little graphic showing "carbon weather" in action? Well - to start I'll assume you recognize those swirling patterns are mainly due to temperature and pressure differences - otherwise known as "wind" But regardless - you might want to "click for figure caption" (underneath the graphic). Here's what it says:

CO2 weather for the period of July 10-20, 2007. The colors show CO2 concentrations as simulated by CarbonTracker, averaged from the surface up to about 3 km. Uptake of CO2 by forests and crops acts to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, whereas fossil fuel burning increases CO2 concentrations. These high- and low-concentration CO2 air masses (red for high, blue for low) are then moved around by weather systems to form the patterns shown here.

So there you go. Part of it is your biosphere argument in action. Pretty cool. Europe = plants, Sahara = not so much. But the more important part in terms of your specific question is the fact that this sample is taken over a period of 10 days. A much better representation (covering all of 2008) can be seen here:



Note once again the distinct seasonal variation and the fact the oceans also act as an important relative carbon sink. But don't let these guys distract you from how much that CO2 is nonetheless at the mercy of the weather. Once it gets outside it's good to go. This is the same reason that even though I live in smoggy Toronto, a lot of our pollution actually comes from Detroit, Cleveland and beyond - thanks a lot jerks! (although I'm sure we just pass the buck off to Montreal anyway)


So speaking of moving on:

Why is it that, given that we now know Mauna Loa to be active, that this fact is seemingly disregarded and the Mauna Loa observatory data is still the data most commonly presented?

Well you can ask Charles Keeling yourself - here's a paper he wrote in 1960. Page 2:

At Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, a less prominent variability has been found in approximately half of the records. This is attributed to release of carbon dioxide by nearby volcanic vents

So apparently they were aware of it, even back then. And honestly I find it pretty presumptuous of you to just assume nobody would have accounted for it since. Although if you're getting these questions from the places I think you're getting them from, I know why they would leave that part out and want you to think that way.

Anyway, again I remind you this data is reinforced by observations worldwide, and not just from NASA or NOAA.

But if you're still not convinced:

Why is it that a vulcanologist has not been called in to verify the accuracy of the data coming from that observatory?

Well...you own a telephone right?


You see Redneck, your questions are obviously very much founded on a deep mistrust of the "mainstream" science. And that's fine - it's perfectly justifiable to not merely accept things at face value and be skeptical. Believe it or not I do it too.

But there also comes a point where you need to question your own skepticism as well. You view people like me as just foolishly blinded by our "faith". But then tell me - what am I doing here? Every day I talk to you guys I am in fact questioning my own so-called faith. And I'm not dealing with that by just throwing jibberish from "Al Gore's bible" at you and then sticking my fingers in my ears. I think I have proved that enough through my previous posts.

The fact is a lot of these questions that you are asking now I've already asked myself. And you know what happened when I did? I found answers. Usually very satisfactory scientific ones. At worst maybe sometimes they led to more questions. But what I didn't find was all the supposed missing data, lies, cover-ups, white-washing, fatal errors and other crap the propagandists would have you believe are everywhere.

But you approach everything from the view that they are. You claim this is because apparently you took the same journey as me and got the opposite result - but I'm still wondering where these results are. We've already established earlier in this thread that some of your personal calculations were a wee bit off, and so far this debate has degenerated into you just asking me a bunch of questions and then chastising me for trying to "teach you".

And I'm sorry I don't accept "musings" as legitimate debate fodder either - but we're not playing Jeopardy ok? Answers don't come in the form of a question. You can wax poetic all you want about how this is what led to the great discoveries in science - and I'll remind you you're talking to someone whose screen name is mc squared. "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein. I get it. I'm a big fan.

But that's not what we're here for. If you happen to resolve Unified Field Theory while we're at it then great, let me know - but till then let's stay on topic.

Besides - my whole point in this debate is about how skeptics' arguments are framed in imagination while mainstream climate science is rooted in knowledge. So I really don't think defending this ideology will score you many points.

And I have no problem with the burden of proof being on both of us. But again - you wanted a scientific debate, so I'm holding you to the principles of the scientific method as well. It's as simple as that. Don't get mad at me just because I'm not impressed by hypothetical scenarios - especially when those scenarios are being completely squashed by what's happening in reality.

reply to post by mc_squared

Much better. We can continue, then.

I had anticipated you would attribute the bluer areas over Europe to wind patterns, and to be honest, I can attribute at least some to that. We do know the atmosphere moves with... what was that technical term you used? Oh, yes... wind.

I can accept that as a partial explanation, but not a complete one. In comparing the two areas, it is obvious that Europe has a high level of energy usage compared to none in the Sahara. It is also evident that Europe has a robust biosphere as opposed to none in the Sahara. Taking those two factors into account,it would appear that a lack of biosphere influence has a much greater effect on carbon dioxide level increases than industrialization does.

In all honesty, Europe is not completely blue. There are areas of high intensity, although spotty, that appear just as I would have expected. The wind patterns appear to be blowing from west to east, and the spotty patches tend to dissipate back into blue as they move out of Europe. In the Sahara, however, the winds appear to originate on the African continent then move eastward, just as is observed with Atlantic hurricane prediction. There is no obvious source for this high CO2 level.

That leads me to also believe that what we are seeing is a combination of CO2 emissions and simply heat emanating from the Earth. Remember that the sensors detect CO2 levels via their spectroscopy imaging, which means they look for certain specific frequencies of radiation. It is completely possible for those frequencies to be emitted from sources other than CO2.

As for Mauna Loa, I think it is sufficient that it has been shown that there have been scientific concerns previously raised over carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano. That is the only point I was trying to make.


Now, let us get into the meat of the discussion. You previously pointed out in a post way back on page 6 that the differential between the Earth's calculated and actual radiation temperatures, as given by the
Stefan-Boltzman Law indicates that Global Warming as is being claimed today is true. You even gave an interesting link to back up your contention. And I must say, at first glance I was shocked. It would appear that the earth is radiating less heat energy than it is receiving!

I recap it here as a foundation: The earth is receiving energy form the sun at a rate of about 1366 W/m². Due to the geometry of the planet, that will equate to 341.75 W/m² average on the surface of the planet (less at the poles, more at the equator). About 30% of that is reflected due to the Earth's albedo, leaving about 239 W/m² that the planet actually absorbs. To be in a constant state, the energy being absorbed must be balanced by the energy being emitted. Or does it?

There is the flaw. Hidden, covert, but there nonetheless. I actually realized it when I awoke one morning and turned on the TV. I had been watching History the night before, and it was showing an infomercial about losing weight. Then it hit me. Food contains calories. Calories are a measure of energy. Food, and thus energy, comes from plants!

Mathematically, the calculations claim that the requirement for a steady state is

Energy In - Energy reflected = Energy Out

which sounds logical. But it does not reflect the energy used in other forms than heat. The actual equation is

Energy In - Energy reflected = Energy Out + Energy Converted

I remind you of the general equation for photosynthesis:

2n(CO2) + 2n(H2O) --> 2(CH2O)n + 2n(O2)

Notice that this is an endothermic process (for those reading who don't like big words, that is a chemical process that uses energy as opposed to an exothermic process which produces energy). The amount of energy used can be calculated from the Standard Heats of Formation:

6(CO2) + 6(H2O) --> C6H12O6 + 6(O2)
6(-393.5 kJ/mol) + 6(-285.8 kJ/mol) = -4075.8 kJ/mol
-1274.5 kJ.mol + 6(0 kj/mol) = -1274.5 kj/mol
(-1274.5 kJ/mol) - (-4075.8 kJ/mol) = 2801.3 kJ/mol

So every mole of C6H12O6 that a plant produces requires it to take from the surrounding climate about 2800 kJ of energy. A mole of C6H12O6 is 6(12.010) + 12(1.008) + 6(15.999) = 180.150 grams. It uses up 6(12.010) + 12(15.999) = 264.048 grams of CO2. If we divide this out, we discover that every gram of CO2 absorbed in photosynthesis also takes 10.6 kJ of energy from the surroundings.

There is where the energy is going. It is not all being trapped.

We can take this calculation farther: since we know that a mole of substance is equal to 6.022·10^23 molecules, and since we know that the absorption wavelengths as they apply to earth are on the order of 15 um, we can apply the Planck–Einstein equation to find out just how much energy can possibly be absorbed by this same mole of CO2.

E=hf where h = 6.626·10^-34
E = 6.626·10^-34 · (3·10^8 / 15·10^-6) = 1.33·10^-20 J

This is energy per molecule,so we multiply that by the number of
molecules in one gram of CO2:

1 mol CO2 = 12.010 + 2(15.999) = 44.008 g CO2
6.022·10^23 molecules/mol / 44.008 g/mol = 1.368·10^22 molecules/g
1.368·10^22 · 1.33·10^-20 = 182 J/g

So the most energy a gram of CO2 can hold while it is playing greenhouse gas is 182 Joules. If that same gram of CO2 is used for photosynthesis, it actually uses up 10,600 joules of energy by converting it to chemical energy.

Strange... it looks to me like allowing CO2 to be used for photosynthesis transforms more energy into chemical form than allowing that same gram to trap all the energy it can hold. It would thus appear that CO2 when allowed to be used in photosynthesis actually cools things off instead of warming them up.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by melatonin
............
It's not. A quick whois search will show it's the website of Monte Hieb, who works as an engineer in the mining sector in West Virginia. Who'd have thunk that? If I want an opinion on how best to dig a hole in the ground, I might just look him up.

You can find discussions from almost 3 years ago I've had with EU/muaddib on the issues he spouts about earlier. Sorry, I have better things to do than going round in circles with the rationally challenged.

Ciao.

What a load of crap... All you ever do, Al Gore Junior, is insult every real scientist who happens to have a job, and knows and understands this better than you.

You can continue trying to rig your conclusions, which is very easy and I have dealt with other people like you in the past, but the facts always escape the likes of melatonin aka Al Gore Junior.

Sorry Junior, but your masters have been caught, and even contemplated suicide as in the case of Jones the main master of Al Gore Junior aka melatonin....

Your lies, rigged data, the hiding of information etc has been caught, and shown to the public which makes your RELIGION DEAD...

But you go ahead and keep claiming every scientist who disagrees with you is an "oil kook" like you normally do...

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
............
Seriously though, the world could do well to return to the balmy conditions of the Medievil Warm Period or the Bronze Age. You know, those periods of history when crop production was through the roof and grapes were growing on the British Isles. The couple degrees of warming that the bogus IPCC predicts should be seen as a good thing, and its truly cooling we should be concerned with. (like the last 8 years)
...........

Which is another fact which the likes of melatonin like to ignore, or dismiss because it doesn't agree with his conclusions....

I wonder why the Medieval Warm Period, and the ROman Warm Periods were WARMER than the present yet there was less atmospheric CO2.... Of course melatonin, and his masters like to ignore how it is WATER VAPOR that produces a feedback effect which during warming cycles produces more water vapor which heats up the Troposphere and causes events like the Medieval Warm Period...

Of course, melatonin also loves to claim that the Medieval Warm period was only regional, when in fact I have posted research from all over the world which shows it was a GLOBAL event. Just like the Roman Warm Period....

But of course the likes of meltonin can't deal with facts, they just rig the data, and use other tactics so people are forced to believe in the AGW religion through lies, and the scam that is the AGW claim....

I am almost certain Al Gore Junior has some stocks in his father's company in "cap and trade" and other similar scams....

[edit on 27-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]