To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Another Stupid Global Warming Thread
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > General Science News
Pages: 1, 2, 3

paul h
If you take the time to read everything this site offers,
1: Your beard will be 3 feet longer by the time you finish it. (if you have one)
2: You should be given a PhD as an anti-GW theorist.

I mostly just wanted to you to have a well deserved laugh from the George Carlin video. ( a bit of bad language, ohmy.gif well it is George after all)

But this site has more stuff about the GW thingy than I have ever seen, all in one place. Something for every level.


http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technol...?showtopic=2050

makuabob
OK, I'll hop in, too.

Hi, Paul and,... uh,... Well, Hi!

I got a shock looking at the this October's Nat'l Geographic insert the other day. Next to a graph of heating, CO2, and sea levels over the Ages, was a line stating that, 'historically, the planet warmed and, afterward, CO2 levels increased.'

I mean,... that says it. Warming causes CO2 to increase. For what possible reason would someone misconstrue, invert even, that information. (Maybe Nat'l Geo is wrong there, 'cuz the article is about how global warming IS caused by increasing CO2 levels! Go figure!)

I suspect you have already seen the item Heat Stored By The Atmosphere. If there are counter-arguments, I'd like to read them.

Thanks for the link. Went for George right of the bat. Choice stuff!

Happy New Year!
paul h
Some say chicken and some say egg.
The two do seem to run together. But as for one leading and the other trailing well it looks to me that they do both at times.

user posted image
meBigGuy
QUOTE
I mean,... that says it. Warming causes CO2 to increase. For what possible reason would someone misconstrue, invert even, that information


The point of saying that is to point out that the current warming cycle is not following the patterns of past NATURAL cycles.

Here we have CO2 increase, followed by warming.

In past natural cycles, we had warming, causing the release of CO2.

So, this cycle is different, and therefore probably not natural, or, the increase in CO2 is a coincidence and we are also experiencing a warming cycle with a technologically undetectable origin.

It also points to the fact that we can expect the warming to cause additional increases in CO2 (for example releases due to thawing arctic tundra).

I'm still a skeptic, but I understand the arguments. The biggest blow to my skepticism was the recent report that the atmospheric CO2 isotope composition matches the idea that the increases are coming from the burning of fossil fuels.
barakn
QUOTE (makuabob+Jan 1 2008, 01:40 AM)
I suspect you have already seen the item Heat Stored By The Atmosphere. If there are counter-arguments, I'd like to read them.

I haven't closely analyzed the entire piece, but I see the usual dirty trick in part 9, where it is claimed that "Under the same conditions, water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide." That number might be approximately true, but what the author conveniently fails to mention is that water vapor can turn into water droplets. They want you to swallow their fact while ignoring the existence of clouds. Water in the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than carbon dioxide because it can exist all three phases, not just one, and thus can be a greenhouse gas or a solar shield.
Trippy
I notice that the plethora of papers disputing or disproving Svensmarks work have been left out.

As far as the Temperature change leading/lagging CO2 change goes. Every time someone points that out I want to say to them "You've heard of a positive feedback cycle haven't you?"

Just because something may seem to be an effect, does not implicitly rule it out as a cause for further change.
Sapo
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 1 2008, 05:46 PM)
As far as the Temperature change leading/lagging CO2 change goes. Every time someone points that out I want to say to them "You've heard of a positive feedback cycle haven't you?"

Just because something may seem to be an effect, does not implicitly rule it out as a cause for further change.

The facts that the graph scale in the Y axis will need to be changed before it can represent meaningful data, as well as the slightly lengthening period of the maxima need to be addressed before this tired, old topic can heat up again, too. Anybody done a Fourier analysis to find what our final cooking temp will be? sad.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
the current warming cycle is not following the patterns of past NATURAL cycles.



forget the past
what is happening today to the climate is unique and has never been experienced before.

CO2 has very little effect because it does not attract latent heat.

Water in all its forms is the ultimate moderator of climate

take that water away and you have the outcomes experienced with the climate we see today.

This is much more serious than you are led to believe.

CTYankee
A very complex and controversial subject.

Interesting article here.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489
Zarkov
from above link

QUOTE
Attempts to maintain the focus against CO2, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous


CRIMINAL, IMO

reason? to protect the oil industry, and to lay blame on every citizen of the world.

kiss your arse goodbye guys!
CTYankee
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 24 2008, 01:38 AM)
from above link



CRIMINAL, IMO

reason? to protect the oil industry, and to lay blame on every citizen of the world.

kiss your arse goodbye guys!

Much of the warming documented in the United Sates is based on weather stations taken from The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) sites recorded, in some cases back to 1900.

These were based in locations in urban and rural areas, although some were in cities, many were established in areas prior to paved roads, the abundance of automobiles, and other modern day technologies that could influence their accuracy.

The site which I will link below has used the USHCH guidelines for placement and construction they were audited for compliance. Many were found sadly lacking in meeting these "guidelines".

This post is not to discredit or profess a belief in Global warming/climate change but to expose some of the scientific data as less than credible.

Here are some of my favorite photos taken of the stations.

Keep in mind, some of these stations have been relocated after the USHCN was alerted to violations of placement etc. In each photo is a little white house (as I like to call them) where the thermometer shelter is housed.

Photo one:User posted image

Located in a parking lot at the University of Arizona which is operated by science faculty members at the University of Arizona.

Photo two:

User posted image

Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station and yes those A/C units so nearby.

Photo three:

User posted image


This one was located in Lovelock, Nevada. An airport.
(Derby Field)

Okay, one more.

User posted image

See the white pole attached to wooden deck near a sea of tarmac? that's where the temperature sensor is located. In addition, the building with the deck is only six feet away, the air conditioners exhaust hot air on the south side. Prevailing wind direction is from the south, so that means when wind hits that wall, it will spread out the hot a/c exhaust east and west.

These are classic examples out junk in/junk out.

Are the stations gathering data around the globe as deficient as some of the examples shown above? One can only wonder....

I encourage people to visit this site: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

As well as the National Climatic Data Center maintained by NOAA. These pages contain guidelines on proper placement, calibration maintenance etc. of stations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...shcn.html#INTRO

Cheers!

paul h
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

nuff said. wink.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
they're worried about global cooling, not warming.


LOL, funny how THE ESTABLISHMENT changes its mind to follow what is slowly unfolding

They have no idea

As if the space craft can not detect drastic changes in the output of the Sun
NASA refutes the "Sun theory"

The rulers of this world are playing games... changing logic at every turn...

The whole "public reasoning" is total BS

Only the oil membrane on the sea explains all that is happening..

it is not CO2, not the Sun, it is human stupidity... and the truth is now totally hidden from view.

What a deceitful world we live in.

Yes an Ice Age is at our doorstep
Zarkov
The problem with explaining global climate change by appealing to the irradiance of the Sun
overlooks the simple fact that Earth, unlike all other planets has water in abundance

Because water on Earth exists in all its phases and has an inherent high latent heat;
water is a massive moderator of incoming solar heat.

It behaves like a spring, absorbing all the incoming heat of the day with muted change only to release it at night. Cloud cover effectively ensures there is a huge negative feedback response to increased heat.

I find the scientific communities flip-flopping, claiming even silly assertions that climate change is caused by sand patterns on the beaches, LOL, is remarkably irresponsible....
and IMO smacks of a massive cover-up

Are the people of this world ready for extinction ?

Are they ready to give up oil, their lifestyle ?

Even if they were willing, the stone is rolling and it can not be stopped

Something very criminal is occurring ph34r.gif
Zarabtul
Frankly after having MY Nobel Peace Prize stolen by Al Gore to be treated the way I've been treated by the scientific community and the sheer lack of rationality shown by the human race I would have to agree a course correction is not needed at this time. I guess everyone can moll that one over for a few. On top of that you can look at the glaciers melting and that needs to be fixed which they are working on with my ideas of using Nuclear reactors and oil wells to change the atmosphere back to where it should be. I know this as I know that my picture of my Guardian on the wall behind me in front of the Portage Glacier is there watching it. My Aunt Pat Hatfield, the lady who cleaned up the Exxon spill on their video and even fell in the crude, when they had that first big spill when they figured out Dawn Dish soap was the right ingredients to clean it up with. I will explain one last time to this country how dead serious I am about seattle.


l8,

Zap
•SHEOL•
unsure.gif Welcome "Earth" to the (possible future) atmospheric resemblance of the sun's two closest planet, "Mercury" (297.67 F --to-- 800.33 F) or "Venus" (400 F --to-- 872.33 F).unsure.gif
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 31 2007, 09:40 PM)


But this site has more stuff about the GW thingy than I have ever seen, all in one place. Something for every level.


http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technol...?showtopic=2050

Thanks Paul;


When I saw your post with GW in it, I immediately thought you were pooh-poohing Gravity Waves....that's the usual abbrv. that is used.....

Since the Greenies have perverted physics (and kidnapped my favorite abbreviation), as I have said before, I've decided to fight back by buying two more fossil fuel guzzeling Hummers (just to give Al Gore a heart attack).... laugh.gif

Hopefully that will do him in. If not, someone please write him while he is in the hospital and tell him I've decided to keep my AC thermostat (in my 5000 sq. ft. home) at a constant 55 degree setting for the entire summer (or until all the freon leaks out). laugh.gif

I invite everyone here to please join me in my campaign against 'global warming'....its called 'Chill Out'...... Everyone across the country lowers their thermostat by 10 degrees...Here's your chance to do something for humanity by changing the face of the ENTIRE planet. tongue.gif

JW

P.S. Great post CTYankee; your pictures illustrate vividly the biased (and scientifically flawed) nature of most so called 'global warming' nonsense.
paul h
Just Wonderful,
>Everyone across the country lowers their thermostat by 10 degrees...

Alrighty then but, It will be your fault next year when they start saying that the next ice age has started. tongue.gif
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (paul h+Feb 11 2008, 10:41 PM)
Just Wonderful,
>Everyone across the country lowers their thermostat by 10 degrees...

Alrighty then but, It will be your fault next year when they start saying that the next ice age has started.  tongue.gif


The Chinese ALREADY think its a new ice age....just ask the one hundred million Chinese who practically froze to death last week in what the media said was a once in a hundred year freeze out.....(betcha no one in the mainland believes in 'global warming'). rolleyes.gif

Besides, Just to 'balance' things out, I have a new campaign for the winter months.....it's called "Burn Out".
Everyone is invited to chop down an extra tree from their backyard and use it for firewood in their fireplace for winter .

The extra heat to the outside will go a long way in preventing another impending 'ice age'. Besides... 1 billion Chinese will really appreciate it. dry.gif

It just another global effort to reach out to our international neighbors and show 'em how much we REALLY care. smile.gif laugh.gif

JW
lengould
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Jan 1 2008, 01:14 PM)

I'm still a skeptic, but I understand the arguments.  The biggest blow to my skepticism was the recent report that the atmospheric CO2 isotope composition matches the idea that the increases are coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

In re your scepticism on industrialization being the cause of recent increases in atmosp. CO2 levels. WHAT???! I mean, really, buy yourself a slide rule. Haul out the abacus. Re-study kindergarten. Do it yourself, it's easy. Tons coal / yr x (14 + 16 + 16)/14. Moles of CO2 * 10^6 / Moles in atmosphere = ppmv.

You sceptics REALLY discredit your position with stuff like that. Man!! dry.gif
paul h
lengould,
I don't think anyone here ever said that CO2 has not gone up,, and yes we did it. but, you won't find many here that think we are all going to die from the man made G.W. thingy. It's just a way for some to get rich selling movie tickets and books. not to mention extra taxes from us rich Americans.
paul h
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm


Damn, I thought it would take at least 10 more years for this news
adoucette
QUOTE (paul h+Feb 26 2008, 04:57 PM)
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm


Damn, I thought it would take at least 10 more years for this news

Actually, those who study the Sun have been fairly pessimistic for some time.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Arthur
paul h
>Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats."

As did some here.
barakn
Apparently a great number of posters are unaware of the distinction between weather and climate. There also seems to be too few neurons making the connection between La Niña and cold temperatures.
StevenA
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Feb 12 2008, 12:44 AM)

The Chinese ALREADY think its a new ice age....just ask the one hundred million Chinese who practically froze to death last week in what the media said was a once in a hundred year freeze out.....(betcha no one in the mainland believes in 'global warming').  :rolleyes:

Besides, Just to 'balance' things out, I have a new campaign for the winter months.....it's called "Burn Out".
Everyone is invited to chop down an extra tree from their backyard and use it for firewood in their fireplace for winter .

The extra heat to the outside will go a long way in preventing another impending 'ice age'.  Besides...  1 billion Chinese will really appreciate it. <_<

It just another global effort to reach out to our international neighbors and show 'em how much we REALLY care. :)  :lol:

JW


Oh no, you forgot that the Earth is going to freeze from global warming! LOL :D

(I've seriously read comments like this that claim effectively that by warming the Earth changes in convection can cause freezing elsewhere. This is similar to trying to claim you can cool areas of a room by turning on a heater and having the warm air push air elsewhere ... well displacing something doesn't make it colder and if CO2 is assigned to be the cause it's not a localized effect that encourages convection anyway as sunlight and CO2 don't sit at isolated positions of the Earth. I can't believe that there were even hype tactics claiming that Europe would freeze due to melting glaciers - cold water sinks and doesn't affect air temperatures as significantly as warmer, rising waters and if icebergs were to melt next that would require warmer air in the first place. The levels some people will stoop to pawn off propoganda. I even saw a movie based upon the idea of a freezing due to global warming and there's a show on Nickelodean I can't let my youngest daughter watch because it appears to be training for what I assume are hopes by some of some sort of new generation of global ecowarriors - do we need counter programming on television to "battle off" this new breed of eco fascism?).

We still haven't set a new record high in the U.S. for national temperatures in something like 60 years and the oceans are rising at the, oh so not life threatening, rate of less than an inch a decade, which has been rather constant since measurements began, or at least for close to 100 years, and yes, well before SUVs :lol: (apparently the glaciers aren't actually melting as claimed or we should see the Al Gore hype of 20 foot numbers etc.). I think taking one step backwards from the ocean every 30 years or so should provide everyone adequate safeguards against being flooded by a rising ocean (and we've come out of a colder period in history and we should expect that ocean levels would naturally be affected by these cycles ... the "runaway" greenhouse effect that initially appeared to be the hype du jour is obviously false as the Earth was both more temperate, with an ability to support large forms of life with a higher concentration of CO2 and the Earth never had enough solar input to even maintain that situation much less positive feedback to reinforce more extreme conditions).

Notice how Bush suddenly jumped on the global warming bandwagon when the prospects of having a global agency controlling energy resources arises (Gore and Blair etc. simply play their part as if they disagreed on issues but when it comes down to it they're all pushing for the same global control over resources and the hype is politically motivated).
adoucette
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 26 2008, 06:02 PM)
Apparently a great number of posters are unaware of the distinction between weather and climate. There also seems to be too few neurons making the connection between La Niña and cold temperatures.

Actually, this is a year long GLOBAL trend, which is really not the same as weather.
And actually, 1998, the 'peak' had about the same strength La Nina episode as 2007
This most definately appears to be climatic in nature, caused by a combination of internal (ocean circulation patterns, snow cover) and external (solar activity)CLIMATIC factors.

For El NINO/La Nina (positive values are El Nino, negative values are la Nina)

1998
2.3
2.0
1.4
1.1
0.4
-0.1
-0.7
-1.0
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.5


2007
0.8
0.4
0.1
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.5
-0.8
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4

Arthur


Zarkov
QUOTE
the Earth is going to freeze from global warming!


I can understand your confusion

but yes the coming Ice Age is caused by Global warming... really The Death of (rain) Clouds

and with the consequential drought, comes a rise in Ice Clouds
and then HELL.... an ocean above our heads, extending all the way to space... filtering the Sun's heat and plummeting air temperatures, of the already very dry air.... ultimate freezer!

and you still drive your oil powered car !

Fools of the highest order. I expect that 90% of the world's population will cease soon, then in a short time after the rest will join them.

Funny thing, the world authorities are still driveling shite re Global Climate Change caused by "emissions".


It was once "greenhouse gases" ie CO2 etc..... now "emissions"... vaporized oil is an emission, but not an admission....... nice play on words to hide the truth. People still think CO2 is the culprit.

Oil is at record prices, and Oil companies are making record profits
while the world withers and dies

enough is never enough

If y'all don't call REVOLUTION, y'all will just end up ....... I was going to say 'history', but with world extinction there will be no history.

sad.gif
adoucette
what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

Arthur
Zarkov
LOL,

Oh,where have all the WISE MEN of this world gone
long time passing
gone to toxic states everyone
when will they ever learn
not until they are all dead

LOL


If you ever wondered if the WISE MEN of this world know anything at all look to their PREDICTIONS

Now you must realise that the experts of fools y'all trust have no idea at all


and you still walk with them into the future

fools... have fun in the cold ultra-dry atmosphere,.... fur coats won't help

LOL
adoucette
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
have fun in the cold ultra-dry atmosphere


Except January 2008 had the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008, just slightly larger than the previous largest anomaly of January, 1985.

Snow requires MOISTURE in the atmosphere.

Zarkov is WRONG AGAIN

Of course, who is surprised by this?

laugh.gif

Arthur



Zarkov
QUOTE
Northern Hemisphere snow cover



oh yes snow did fall didn't it ohmy.gif

but that was only because of the massive ice-melt happening up there

and when the Ice Clouds fell to earth, everything went white
biggrin.gif

Don't worry there is a lot of drying and dying to go
Did U want a take-away?
adoucette
More Zarkov made up bull.

The melting at the Northern pole occurs during its SUMMER.

There currently is over 13 MILLION sq kilometers of NH polar ice.

Thats over 10 MILLION more than the low point this summer.

So, the point Zarkov, if you actually cared about the FACTS, is the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008 also occurred while over 10 MILLION sq kilometers of polar sea ice formed.

Arthur

Zarkov
only God knows what your problem is

I just write you off
adoucette
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 27 2008, 05:51 PM)
only God knows what your problem is

I just write you off

Oh No,

Please don't throw me into the briar patch.

laugh.gif

Arthur
Corvidae
Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison
Nasif Nahle
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 1 2008, 05:07 PM)
I haven't closely analyzed the entire piece, but I see the usual dirty trick in part 9, where it is claimed that "Under the same conditions, water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide." That number might be approximately true, but what the author conveniently fails to mention is that water vapor can turn into water droplets. They want you to swallow their fact while ignoring the existence of clouds. Water in the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than carbon dioxide because it can exist all three phases, not just one, and thus can be a greenhouse gas or a solar shield.

Please, as a scientist, I don't want you to swallow anything. It's my obligation to tell you that in the topic No. 9 there is not trick because I'm referring only to water vapor, that is, the water in gaseous phase found in the atmosphere in a normal day (around 3%). Sorry, but your argument is a well known misleading practice from AGWists, not from scientists.
paul h
QUOTE (Nasif Nahle+Mar 7 2008, 06:25 PM)
Please, as a scientist, I don't want you to swallow anything. It's my obligation to tell you that in the topic No. 9 there is not trick because I'm referring only to water vapor, that is, the water in gaseous phase found in the atmosphere in a normal day (around 3%). Sorry, but your argument is a well known misleading practice from AGWists, not from scientists.

Nasif Nahle,
Thank you for taking the time to post in my "Stupid Global Warming Thread"
I know you are replying to barakn for his remarks about your statements but, as he has not answered yet let me ask you reply to his questioning with regard to the water vapor condensing into droplets. Both of your points seem viable.
BigDumbWeirdo
In the Interest of Accuracy:
In one of these global warming threads, a few months back I briefly argued that global warming was predominantly caused by natural processes, with human influences not a major factor. I argued from this position based on information I had been shown in the form of an IPCC report on global warming, ostensibly dated 2001. I have since then discovered that the report I read had been falsified with regards to the date: It was a report initially published in 1990. Since then, the IPCC has issued at least two subsequent reports (1995 and 2001) which took the opposite stance: that human influence is a major contributing factor in global warming. Because of this, I want to change my position, and say to anyone who argued with me (I forget who, exactly) that you were right.
All of this just goes to show how thoroughly one must check their sources, and that even reputable sources cited by disreputable folks cannot be trusted at face value.
Not that it matters too much, but I'd rather post this now than have someone dredge up my part argument to use as ammunition against me in some debate, without having saved for myself the ability to demonstrate that I can and do correct my own errors.
Nasif Nahle
QUOTE (paul h+Mar 9 2008, 03:55 PM)
Nasif Nahle,
Thank you for taking the time to post in my "Stupid Global Warming Thread"
I know you are replying to barakn for his remarks about your statements but, as he has not answered yet let me ask you reply to his questioning with regard to the water vapor condensing into droplets. Both of your points seem viable.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your interest. biggrin.gif

When we talk about the solar energy incoming or leaving the Earth, we take into account the condensed water vapor in clouds (stem, droplets, etc.), which have an effect on albedo. We know that the main absorbers of shortwave infrared radiation are water vapor and ozone. The remainder components of the atmosphere are transparent to the shortwave IR, i.e. carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. The ozone in the troposphere has a very low concentration, so the water vapor (gaseous phase, not droplets) is the main absorber of IR. The mean of the concentration of water vapor (again, the gaseous phase of water) in the troposphere is 3%, although it can be higher (up to 7%) or lower (1%).

The absorptivity-emissivity of water vapor is higher than the emissivity of carbon dioxide. While the a-e of water vapor at 1 atm-m is 0.75, the a-e of carbon dioxide is sensibly low (0.00092, or 0.001 rounding off the cipher). Besides, the density of the water vapor in the atmosphere is 0.026 Kg/m^3, while the density of carbon dioxide is 0.000155 Kg/m^3.

By applying the laws of heat transfer obtained by observation and experimentation, the carbon dioxide cannot absorb more heat than the water vapor in the atmosphere. If we consider the specific heat of water vapor and compare it with the specific heat of carbon dioxide we find that the carbon dioxide cannot transform the absorbed heat into latent heat because the CO2 loses the absorbed heat almost immediately after it has gained it, while the water vapor keeps the absorbed heat like latent heat for long periods of time. The heat absorbed and stored like latent heat will be transferred when the water vapor condenses to form droplets, snow flakes, etc. in the upper troposphere.

The effects of clouds on the warming of the medium and lower troposphere are well known because of their reflectivity, but this phenomenon has nothing to do with heat stored, which is the theme managed in my article. The storage of heat is based in the specific heat, the total emittancy, the absorptivity and the emissivity, and the laws of heat transfer of the materials.

Another thing is if we talk on climate, where the water in its three phases is an important, although not the unique, driver.

I have to tell you that the referred article was peer reviewed by scientists and engineers, and the errors, which resided on units and mathematical issues, were corrected.
Grumpy
BigDumbWeirdo

That is real big of you,em...er Weirdo??? But that is how the scientific method works.

Grumpy cool.gif
paul h
Nasif Nahle,
I thank you for the reply. I have went back and re-read your article and the posts of this thread that have led up to this point very carefully. I remember the 1970's with all of the talk of the up and coming ice age and now 30+ years later the tide has shifted to a warming trend. I must say that as a very concerned layman, with much to loose (taxes, et al) this time around it is nice to find your work. I have taken three statements you made and pasted them below. I would love to know if you will not only comment on them but please give your summary of the current state and the future of the co2 based GW "theory" Given that the average global temp (I think) has not gone up for ~ 6 or 8 years and the ~1 deg. (f) gain of the last 100 years was given up this year alone.


Quote:
To cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.52 °C (average global temperature anomaly in 1998; UAH) required 1627.6 ppmv of CO2, a density of atmospheric CO2 which has never been recorded or documented anywhere in the last 420,000 years. (Petit et al. 1999)

The total change in the tropospheric temperature of 0.75 °C was given for the duration of one minute of one year (1998) (UAH); however, CO2 increased the tropospheric temperature by only 0.01 °C. We know now that 1934 was the warmest year of the last century. Where did the other 0.74 °C come from? Answer: it came from the Sun and from the remnants of supernovas.


We could fail if we think that the change of temperature was caused by the CO2 when the reality is that the Sun was what heated up the soil. The carbon dioxide only interfered the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but the carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Do never forget two important things: the first is that the carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun.

Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on _03_(month) _10_(day), _2008_(year); from http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html

Zarkov
Face it guys
y'all know nothing about what is happening in the world's climate

Your "predictions" are useless, they change from day to day... depending on what you read.... so your logic is paltry, you have no idea what is happening, and the bogus science sprouted to "explain" unfolding observations is just leading y'all down the garden.....

You have been following "reports" by idiots (or worse, rouges) and you have failed to see through them, so you thrash around..... signifying nothing.

Wait until next year, then you can refine your ideas.... LOL, so much for understanding !


What is happening is ultra serious... Big Oil is laughing at y'all...

andsoamI

LOL
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
y'all know nothing about what is happening in the world's climate


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE
your logic is paltry, you have no idea what is happening,


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
your logic is paltry, you have no idea what is happening,


Look in a mirror.

You have been following "reports" by idiots (or worse, rouges) and you have failed to see through them, so you thrash around..... signifying nothing.


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE
LOL


Yes, we are laughing at you laugh.gif
barakn
In part 1 of Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on March 10, 2008; from http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html, Nahle says this:
QUOTE
Convection:

Δq/ A = k (σ) (T1^4-T2^4*K^4)

Where Δq is heat variation, A is the area in square meters, k is the convective heat transfer of a given substance, σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4), and T1^4-T2^4*K^4 is the difference between the higher absolute temperature to the fourth power and the lower absolute temperature to the forth power.

Notice that this formula as stated is dimensionally incorrect -- the *K^4 does not belong where it appears or we would be trying to subtract a temperature to the 8th power from a temperature to the 4th power. Also note that it is actually the Stefan-Boltzmann Law with corrupted constants and therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with convection. The true formula for free convection is q = k A dT as seen here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convecti...sfer-d_430.html

Nahle says
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Convection:

Δq/ A = k (σ) (T1^4-T2^4*K^4)

Where Δq is heat variation, A is the area in square meters, k is the convective heat transfer of a given substance, σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4), and T1^4-T2^4*K^4 is the difference between the higher absolute temperature to the fourth power and the lower absolute temperature to the forth power.

Notice that this formula as stated is dimensionally incorrect -- the *K^4 does not belong where it appears or we would be trying to subtract a temperature to the 8th power from a temperature to the 4th power. Also note that it is actually the Stefan-Boltzmann Law with corrupted constants and therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with convection. The true formula for free convection is q = k A dT as seen here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convecti...sfer-d_430.html

Nahle says Thermal Conductivity of CO2 (k) = 0.016572
and that
QUOTE
k CO2 = 0.016572 W/m^2*K
Notice that this number does have units that would appear to be a convective heat transfer coefficient (thermal conductivity has units of W/mK and emissivity is unitless). The value of k for air is usually somewhere between 10 and 100 W/m^2*K so the value seems quite a bit too low. When Nahle uses k in the formula for "convection" it appears without units:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
k CO2 = 0.016572 W/m^2*K
Notice that this number does have units that would appear to be a convective heat transfer coefficient (thermal conductivity has units of W/mK and emissivity is unitless). The value of k for air is usually somewhere between 10 and 100 W/m^2*K so the value seems quite a bit too low. When Nahle uses k in the formula for "convection" it appears without units:

Δq = k A (σ) (T1^4-T2^4*K^4)

Δq = 0.016572 (1 m^2) (5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (53946055.485 K^4) = 0.05 W


If we remember to include the units (ignoring the extra *K^4 in the original formula just as Nahle seems to have ignored it) then:

Δq = 0.016572 W/m^2*K (1 m^2) (5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (53946055.485 K^4) = 0.05 W^2/m^2

This gives us the wrong units for Δq.

The Principles of Thermal Sciences and Their Application to Engineering by John Clifford Jones states that 0.016572 W/m*K is the thermal conductivity of CO2 at 300 K, so Nahle wasn't right when he included units or when he left them out. He took a thermal conductivity, switched the units to those of a convective heat transfer coefficient, then stripped out the units entirely so as to mimic an emissivity. Nahle's paper is nothing but useless mental masturbation, and the claim that it was vetted by "engineers and scientists" is dubious. Given the severity of the errors in only the first two sections, it would be a waste of my time to continue critiquing it. Nasif Nahle should stick to biology.
Thomas676
Global warming really is only a theory, not a fact

You have to be fair - for the sake of completeness you have to say, that scientific research of global warming is still in the beginning. "Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect." Global warming really is only a theory, not a fact

Best regards,
Thomas



Sinister Utopia
Hi all,

(IMO) Whatever the truth is about the cause or potential threat of GW, we have a choice.

Either we take heed of the warnings and do everything we can to minimize our impact on GW or we ignore.

If we take heed, but later down the line we discover that the threat prediction was overblown and in fact there is no danger, in which case we can all whinge because the extreme changes we made were unnecessary or we can ignore the warnings and risk the threat being realized and effectively in our ignorance contribute to all the perceived problems that are associated.

Which is to be?

Kind regards
adoucette
The problem is to do "EVERYTHING we can to minimize our impact on GW" would theoretically mean banning the burning of all fossil fuels, stop the making of concrete, eliminate the use of refrigerants, eliminate the use of Nitrogen Fertilizer, ban the use of air conditioners, stop the raising of cattle, stop the growing of Rice etc etc etc

If you truly mean EVERYTHING.

Since I suspect you don't actually mean EVERYTHING, then:

What EXACTLY should we do?

Who EXACTLY should do it?

How FAST should these changes be made?

and

What other IMPACT will it have on OTHER aspects of our lives?

Arthur
Sinister Utopia
A fair point.


Ok, exchange 'everything' for 'anything'

Re: your other questions, well I guess you are highlighting what perhaps should be the focus of debate.

I fully admit that I do not have the answers but my question still stands.

which is to be?

NB: To turn a corner or avoid an obstacle it is not always necessary to go into reverse.
Trippy
Let's not talk about temperature.
Let's talk about Rainfall.


I think I've raised this point elsewhere, but here's what I know - the 12 different climate modeling programs give their most accurate results when you model historical data, when you include a mixture of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic forcings.

Here's what I want to know, and it's more a point to those that are not (yet) convinced on the AGW issue.

Should local government plan for it? My point is this, AFAIK, they're not just talking about a shift in mean, they're talking about a shift in variance. The predictions are (at least for the part of the country that I'm in) that there will be less over all rainfall, and that that rainfall will come in the form of longer dry spells between 'weather bomb' events.

The point is this - storm water systems are designed around a certain return period (I think it's a 5 year return period for a 24 hour event, not 100% sure on that), however, predictions based on (I think) the average of the 12 models, is that by 2080, what is now a 20 year storm, will become a 5 year storm.

I hope this makes sense, but what I'm getting to is this - Most local governments seem to plan to a 50 year horizon (roughly 2060) so should your local government, as it works through the process of upgrading your stormwater systems, be planning for a 15-20 year even happening on an increasingly regular scale?

Also, this has profound implications for pollution of stormwater - during dry spells, road seal accumulates heavy metals (for example Zinc, Copper, and lead (in those places still using unleaded fuels)), Suspended Solids, PAH's, the list goes on, most of which is washed off the road surface in the first inch of rainfall during any rainstorm. The point here is this, with increasing road surface (as we continue to subdivide, put in more roads, etc), and with, if these models are correct, with dryspells between rainfall events increasing in length, the problem is only going to get worse (The levels of Zinc on most roads are already comparable to Landfill leachate). Then there will be, for example, increased pressure on landfills (the swales on the sides, of in the middle of the roads, designed to help treat stormwater runoff from roads will have to be replaced more often, and currently 'treatment' involves removing them to the 'special contaminated waste' areas of landfills).
adoucette
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 11 2008, 12:06 PM)
A fair point.


Ok, exchange 'everything' for 'anything'

Re: your other questions, well I guess you are highlighting what perhaps should be the focus of debate.

I fully admit that I do not have the answers but my question still stands.

which is to be?

NB: To turn a corner or avoid an obstacle it is not always necessary to go into reverse.

I'm not sure I see a distinction between 'anything we can do' and 'everything we can do'

At least its not any clearer what changes in our lifestyles you suggest we make and how we go about making them?

Arthur

Gorgeous
I think the best thing to do would be to wait until the air turns black and our children's children are choking to death, and then just blame 'god'!

Job done (to a frazzle!)


g.
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 11 2008, 04:24 PM)
I think the best thing to do would be to wait until the air turns black and our children's children are choking to death, and then just blame 'god'!

Job done (to a frazzle!)


g.

Well, CO2 is odorless and colorless (and even at 10 times its current level of ~380 PPM would not cause our children's children to choke to death), after that comes Methane, also odorless and colorless and less than 1/10th the concentration of CO2, the remaining GHGs are so low on the impact level they can essentially be ignored, so I'm not sure what you are referring to that causes Global Warming that is supposed to be turning the air BLACK.

If you are referring to SOOT (mainly from burning Coal, wood and Diesel fuel) then I'm totally with you in that we need (for health reasons) to clean the air of these fine particle emissions (see China for Soot Gone Wild videos),

But, unfortunately, since SOOT is NOT a Greenhouse Gas it doesn't come under the Kyoto protocols and it barely gets any mention as a factor in GW by the IPCC.

Arthur

Zarkov
QUOTE
I think the best thing to do would be to wait


well that is what is happening, meanwhile the seas are getting hotter and hotter.

The massive droughts are yet to hit the Northern Hemisphere, they are only a couple of ice melts off...

There is nothing the authorities will do, there is nothing you can do, any attempt to prevent the new Ice Age has to be international

and I am not talking greenhouse gases

That is the illusion foisted by Big Oil

Oh sorry, there is something y'all can do...... lobby the government to BAN oil !!!!!

LOL, no car... no joy, no go.......

its your oil driven car or your death..

you chose
N O M
With a champion like Zarkoff against it, "global warming" is doomed laugh.gif
adoucette
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 11 2008, 05:27 PM)
With a champion like Zarkoff against it, "global warming" is doomed laugh.gif

It seems no matter what topic is under discussion, Zarkov always manages to illustrate his inability to understand anything about it.

Arthur
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2008, 09:17 PM)
I'm not sure I see a distinction between 'anything we can do' and 'everything we can do'

At least its not any clearer what changes in our lifestyles you suggest we make and how we go about making them?

Arthur

Again, I do not have all the answers, I could speculate but my point is that the general thrust of this debate appears to be debunking the need to respond to concerns raised by Scientists etc who know more about it than I do.

For me to dismiss their concerns I would have to perform experiments that are beyond my capacity and knowledge in an effort to demonstrate that their concerns are not warranted.

So should we ignore the warnings, safe in the knowledge that they are incorrect? or do we address the causes as raised and perhaps risk our convenience?

This is the logic we employ when eg; A Tornado appears to be headed for a population.
If the tornado misses then we can all argue that the Scientists don't know what their talking about and we all eg; evacuated for nothing. Or it hits and we say that the Scientists were not insistent or convincing enough and now we have a big problem.

In regards to GW I feel the Sciences could be utilized to both minimize the causes by creating viable alternatives that allow us to continue our growth, however if we do nothing we might lose valuable time in which to create and implement alternatives that make enough difference, which leaves us in a position where a full reversal of attitudes are now required.

I hope that you are correct in your assumptions but I remain sadly unconvinced.

regards.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2008, 10:15 PM)
Well, CO2 is odorless and colorless (and even at 10 times its current level of ~380 PPM would not cause our children's children to choke to death), after that comes Methane, also odorless and colorless and less than 1/10th the concentration of CO2, the remaining GHGs are so low on the impact level they can essentially be ignored, so I'm not sure what you are referring to that causes Global Warming that is supposed to be turning the air BLACK.

If you are referring to SOOT (mainly from burning Coal, wood and Diesel fuel) then I'm totally with you in that we need (for health reasons) to clean the air of these fine particle emissions (see China for Soot Gone Wild videos),

But, unfortunately, since SOOT is NOT a Greenhouse Gas it doesn't come under the Kyoto protocols and it barely gets any mention as a factor in GW by the IPCC.

Arthur

Forget the soot, wilful ignorance is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

The point is that if we know that damage is being done, at what point do we start to do something about it? Why wait at all?




g.
paul h
Sinister Utopia,
This is a very confusing issue due in part to the fact that the scientist DO NOT agree. My concern is that in true government fashion the answer to any problem is to tax it and that will NOT fix anything. only drive up the price of EVERYTHING.
Look closely at the Kyoto protocol penalties. As for stopping GW that's easy detonate quite a few nuclear bombs the ash will block enough of the sun light that this will stop GW in it's tracks. That is no more drastic than some of the other things people have suggested. The only question is where to detonate them?
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Forget the soot, wilful ignorance is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

The point is that if we know that damage is being done, at what point do we start to do something about it? Why wait at all?



Sorry, my bad, how am I to know you don't really mean what you write.

So what are your answers to the questions I posed earlier?

Arthur
Zarkov
QUOTE
if we do nothing


y'all die, y'all will freeze to death, no water no food no hope

All that was will be gone for naught

LOL, don't worry, I will carry on tongue.gif

Sometimes it is wise to listen to the drunk in the gutter.... or at least check out the claims made.

LOL, looks to me though, with the level of confusion, with the claims and counter claims, with the climate taking no notice of the computers, with no accepted theory even realising at least one prediction, with very powerful vested interests crapping all over y'all,

and with the general population rapidly going deaf from too much crap... and are only interested in hearing LIFE WILL GO ON REGARDLESS.............. LOL wink.gif , she's right mate

y'all have no hope in the Universe to get it together... so LIFE on Earth's fate is well and truly sealed

laugh.gif I can only laugh at the abysmal level of stupidity
Gorgeous
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2008, 12:15 AM)
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Forget the soot, wilful ignorance is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

The point is that if we know that damage is being done, at what point do we start to do something about it? Why wait at all?



Sorry, my bad, how am I to know you don't really mean what you write.

So what are your answers to the questions I posed earlier?

Arthur

Probably far too drastic for you to take them seriously, as they would involve the richest people giving up most of their life-styles.

Ain't gonna happen is it?



g.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (paul h+Mar 12 2008, 12:11 AM)
Sinister Utopia,
This is a very confusing issue due in part to the fact that the scientist DO NOT agree. My concern is that in true government fashion the answer to any problem is to tax it and that will NOT fix anything. only drive up the price of EVERYTHING.
Look closely at the Kyoto protocol penalties. As for stopping GW that's easy detonate quite a few nuclear bombs the ash will block enough of the sun light that this will stop GW in it's tracks. That is no more drastic than some of the other things people have suggested. The only question is where to detonate them?

I agree it is a very confusing issue or maybe it's a confused issue.
But do you see my predicament as a layperson? That is why I have to consider positive action. I cannot afford to wait and see.

However and this is my reading of events, the disagreement among Scientists is not that eg; abnormal climate change exists, but more there is controversy regarding the causes? Again I am in no position to assert who is right or wrong here but while we hopefully still have a choice and a controversy we might yet have time to act.

But maybe this is a good thing for us and our environment as regardless of the threat or the cause it might help us realize that we are responsible for the upkeep of the planet and pass on that meme to future generations.

As for the politics well, maybe if previous generations had taken a more pro environmental stance then this debate would not be required.
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 11 2008, 07:26 PM)
Probably far too drastic for you to take them seriously, as they would involve the richest people giving up most of their life-styles.

Ain't gonna happen is it?

g.

Well, it just sounds like an excuse for class warfare.

The absolute number of rich people is nowhere near large enough to be the issue and being well off is not the same thing as being wasteful.

As to actual numbers, put it in perspective, in 2001, in the US, the top 1% of earners earned over $238,000 and the top 5% earned over $107,000

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003202

So, I'm not sure where you think RICH starts, but clearly, it doesn't look like you can solve the emissions problem by attacking such a small part of the population.

Arthur
paul h
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2008, 09:10 PM)
Well, it just sounds like an excuse for class warfare.

The absolute number of rich people is nowhere near large enough to be the issue and being well off is not the same thing as being wasteful.

As to actual numbers, put it in perspective, in 2001, in the US, the top 1% of earners earned over $238,000 and the top 5% earned over $107,000

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003202

So, I'm not sure where you think RICH starts, but clearly, it doesn't look like you can solve the emissions problem by attacking such a small part of the population.

Arthur

Think globally, I'd GUESS that 50% of the world population live on less than $5.00 per day (no proof for that number) This means that every American and most of the population of any other developed country will be taxed .
adoucette
But is Income the issue or is it level of GHG emissions?

Wealthier countries tend to produce more INCOME using less energy per $ of GNP.

You might also consider that China is now the largest producer of CO2.

http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechang...ndposition.html

But also has an average GDP of ~ $7,000 per person.

Guess what, the Chinese want to live lifestyles like the people in the West.

They want to give up their bikes and switch to cars (and they are rapidly doing so based on growing income made from cheap products sold in MASS quantities to the West).

HOW is taxing the US and the EU going to change the desires of these 1.3 Billion people?

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 11 2008, 07:57 PM)
I agree it is a very confusing issue or maybe it's a confused issue.
But do you see my predicament as a layperson? That is why I have to consider positive action. I cannot afford to wait and see.

However and this is my reading of events, the disagreement among Scientists is not that eg; abnormal climate change exists, but more there is controversy regarding the causes? Again I am in no position to assert who is right or wrong here but while we hopefully still have a choice and a controversy we might yet have time to act.

But maybe this is a good thing for us and our environment as regardless of the threat or the cause it might help us realize that we are responsible for the upkeep of the planet and pass on that meme to future generations.

As for the politics well, maybe if previous generations had taken a more pro environmental stance then this debate would not be required.

Well there is good news.
Its not that important if the scientists are right about GW or not.

That might sound strange, but consider, there are other VERY GOOD reasons for cutting back on fossil fuel use and that all the other GHGs (besides CO2) are in fact pollutants, and no one has ever claimed there is any redeeming value to the release of NOx, CH4, SOx, CFCs or Soot.

So there ARE things you can support that are both good for the ECONOMY and good for the ENVIRONMENT (and future generations)

For instance, you could

Support a multi-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (where a small, per kWh, tax credit is given to companies who produce electricity via renewable resources (wind, solar, geo, hydro etc)

Support a Production tax credit for electricity from Clean Coal plants (produce 20% less CO2 per kWH and no soot but at a slightly higher fuel cost)

Support a tax exclusion for income derived from allowing wind turbines to be sited on your land.

Support a tax exclusion for income derived from allowing electrical transmission lines to cross your land (needed to encourage distributed power generation).

Support a construction tax credit to encourage the building of more Nuclear power plants.

Support an Excess Consumption Fee based on a sliding scale of electricity usage, such that the cost of electricity goes up after ~ 500 kWh per month and it increases per every additional 100 kWhs.

Support an Excess Consumption Fee based on non-commercial vehicles with over X g/CO2 per mile.

Ban residental zoning laws that prohibit solar or small wind turbines.

Force all Electical generation companies to allow net metering (ability to spin meter backward based on home production)

Support a tax rebate for proven energy saving alterations (increased insulation, improved windows, heat pumps etc to private or public buildings based on actual reductions in annual energy consumption.

Fund multiple annual X prize type programs for useful innovations in various key areas of domestic energy use. Example 10 million to the inventor who designs a wind turbine that can produce 10 kWhs per day at the lowest price per kWh (cost averaged over 10 years)

etc, etc, etc

Arthur
Zarkov
QUOTE
etc, etc, etc


No, there is nothing that can be done to avert the oncoming Ice Age

other than

(1) Banning the general use of oil, and declare it a noxious substance that if used had to have the exhaust scrubbed and the sludge suitably disposed of via bacterial fermentation.

(2) An international concerted effort needs to be made to remove the layer of oil covering the waters of this world; this can be done via enhanced bacterial means through seeding the ocean surface.

(3) Coal is a preferred fuel at this point in time, and efforts to lower the salt concentration of, and remove oil off coastal waters could avert some negative effects of the coming drought. Certainly soon enough, coal could be suitably cleaned, but at present extinction is at hand, and as they say, foul air is better than no air.

In future SALT would offer a no footprint energy solution for this world.

Unfortunately it will be a battle and a half even if action was started NOW,,,, yesterday etc etc sad.gif

The Ice Clouds are already forming

But even now, no one will do anything, y'all so arrogantly know THEY have it in hand...... or are y'all just gullible and will believe anything you are told, except the truth.

You are up against the most powerful company in the world Big Oil, and your enemy is money, cause life is cheaper than dirt

NOW WAKE UP !!!!!!!
Extinction of LIFE on this hunk of rock is more than a distinct probability, it is almost certain; human kind ? no hope at all.

Hey there is a cheery side, coinage might be found long into the future, so THEMS know we once existed. Planet of the Apes
blink.gif
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Well, it just sounds like an excuse for class warfare.

The absolute number of rich people is nowhere near large enough to be the issue and being well off is not the same thing as being wasteful.

As to actual numbers, put it in perspective, in 2001, in the US, the top 1% of earners earned over $238,000 and the top 5% earned over $107,000

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1003202

So, I'm not sure where you think RICH starts, but clearly, it doesn't look like you can solve the emissions problem by attacking such a small part of the population.

Arthur



Your wilful ignorance of the matter has been well noted. I just hope you are being paid adequately.




g.
PIATLAS
The true/real effects of Global warming are masked by Global Dimming. Global dimming is soot, carbon particles in the atmosphere working like a mirror reflecting suns rays into space and causing evaporation rates to drop. That has been scientifically measured in the Indian Ocean around the areas of Mauritius Islands that soot from coal-fire industries in India have harmed the atmosphere in the Indian Ocean dimming the rate of sunlight evaporation from a container of water compared to similar clear-sky longitudinal areas. If there was no Global dimming then the smog emission heating of the planet would sky-rocket. However the carbon particles work as a mirror to the suns rays beaming them into outer space and causing less evaporation and droughts in the heat of the summer.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Well there is good news.
Its not that important if the scientists are right about GW or not.


Yes, I agree.

QUOTE
So there ARE things you can support that are both good for the ECONOMY and good for the ENVIRONMENT (and future generations)


That would be the ideal strategy that I believe and hope we still have time to implement.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So there ARE things you can support that are both good for the ECONOMY and good for the ENVIRONMENT (and future generations)


That would be the ideal strategy that I believe and hope we still have time to implement.

For instance, you could

Support a multi-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (where a small, per kWh, tax credit is given to companies who produce electricity via renewable resources (wind, solar, geo, hydro etc)

Support a Production tax credit for electricity from Clean Coal plants (produce 20% less CO2 per kWH and no soot but at a slightly higher fuel cost)

Support a tax exclusion for income derived from allowing wind turbines to be sited on your land.

Support a tax exclusion for income derived from allowing electrical transmission lines to cross your land (needed to encourage distributed power generation).

Support a construction tax credit  to encourage the building of more Nuclear power plants.

Support an Excess Consumption Fee based on a sliding scale of electricity usage, such that the cost of electricity goes up after ~ 500 kWh per month and it increases per every additional 100 kWhs.

Support an Excess Consumption Fee based on non-commercial vehicles with over X g/CO2 per mile.

Ban residental zoning laws that prohibit solar or small wind turbines.

Force all Electical generation companies to allow net metering (ability to spin meter backward based on home production)

Support a tax rebate for proven energy saving alterations (increased insulation, improved windows, heat pumps etc to private or public buildings based on actual reductions in annual energy consumption.

Fund multiple annual X prize type programs for useful innovations in various key areas of domestic energy use. Example 10 million to the inventor who designs a wind turbine that can produce 10 kWhs per day at the lowest price per kWh (cost averaged over 10 years)

etc, etc, etc


At least you appear to recognize that something needs to be done, however the figures and percentages you present might not translate Globally, this is a Global issue afterall. I do not know what country you live in, so I cannot say whether I believe your proposals are adequate.

I do appreciate the change in language and attitude from some of your previous posts and as I see it if we can focus the debate on addressing concerns rather than dismissing them as false, then perhaps there is still hope. All I would suggest is that you expand your strategy to apply to the World and not just a particular economy, You obviously have some interesting ideas that in principle I am in favor of as we need those that think and apply strategy locally. But again the Environment does not recognize borders as we do.

kind regards


adoucette
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 12 2008, 04:59 AM)
I do appreciate the change in language and attitude from some of your previous posts and as I see it if we can focus the debate on addressing concerns rather than dismissing them as false, then perhaps there is still hope. All I would suggest is that you expand your strategy to apply to the World and not just a particular economy, You obviously have some interesting ideas that in principle I am in favor of as we need those that think and apply strategy locally. But again the Environment does not recognize borders as we do.

kind regards

My position on GW hasn't changed, in fact I think those who hang all their reasons for change on the FACT of GW are in for a real let down as the world appears headed into a cooling period as our sun goes quiet.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

But my position isn't based on if GW is true or not.

I've CONSISTENTLY stated that there ARE things you can support that are both good for the ECONOMY and good for the ENVIRONMENT (and future generations) and result in burning a whole lot less oil and cleaning up our use of coal.

I've referred to this as a NO REGRETS strategy and have posted about it on this forum for years.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=162215

While its true that the NO REGRETS strategy is mainly for the Industrialized West and China, but then those countries are by far responsible for most of our CO2 emissions and pollution.

Arthur
Gorgeous
QUOTE
But again the Environment does not recognize borders as we do.


Humans invent concepts of things that do not exist in Reality, and then try to make them 'true' to prove themselves 'correct'.

What does not exist cannot, therefore, be recognized from the perspective of the greater Reality. Humans can only continue the pretence until the greater Reality can take no more of it. This is because Human pretence is such a virtually unnoticeable event in a flexible Reality, that it does not register as much to be concerned about for a while. Same with 'viruses' that affect us; we do not know we have them until the symptoms start to show...



g.
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 11 2008, 07:26 PM)

QUOTE
So what are your answers to the questions I posed earlier?
Arthur

Probably far too drastic for you to take them seriously, as they would involve the richest people giving up most of their life-styles.

Well no one will ever know unless you post them.

Arthur
barakn
I'm still waiting for makuabob, paul h, or Nasif Nahle to reply to my comments on Nahle's paper.
paul h
barakn,
As you know when I replied to Nasif Nahle I ask him to defend his paper because of things that you had said. You also know that I said that the both of you made valid points. Only Mr.Nasif Nahle is in a position to reply to your latest rebuttal. In this rebuttal of yours you pointed out (again) what you feel to be inaccurate math. I am a bit confused by two things. In your first accusation you said that while the water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide." That number might be approximately true, but……
If it is approximately true, Then what is the problem with how he came to that number? It seems to me that would support his claim. The other thing is that in your second rebuttal you pointed out several mathematical issues that a layman like me would not be able to determine who is correct. So why instead (or in addition to) pointing this out, why didn’t you show the corrected results that would support your position? Could you please do that? After all if you are going to debate him it would help your case more to have a correct answer than to only point out his mistakes.
barakn
Good point. I hadn't even begun to analyze the math when I made the comment about the water vapor, and now I must admit I don't know why I said it was approximately true. I'm not sure what number I thought I was comparing it to. One of the reasons I had to read the paper again....

I doubt I'll post corrections of his work. It would involve a major rewrite of the entire paper, and even if one ignores the major errors made while applying formulas, he made so many assumptions and shortcuts that my final version would be much longer than his. I don't even know if I could post my corrections easily, as it would probably contain an Excel or Open Office spreadsheet. Who in their right mind models an atmosphere as only two layers, one at the surface and the other only 1 meter above that? Who ignores the strongly wavelength-dependent emissivity and absorptivity of CO2 and H2O?
paul h
barakn
>I don't even know if I could post my corrections easily,

No one thinks it will be easy. But to quote Carl Sagan, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mr. Nasif Nahle obviously put a great deal of time into his paper to support his Extraordinary claims . For you to attack it without a solution just seems to fall short of extraordinary proof,,,,, Just think when your done ,,, you'll be famous.
Come on Buckie you can do it. The world may depend on you stepping up to this plate. ---- "Ask not what you can do for ... well you get the point. give it a shot.
Zarkov
QUOTE
Humans invent concepts of things that do not exist in Reality, and then try to make them 'true' to prove themselves 'correct'.

What does not exist cannot, therefore, be recognized from the perspective of the greater Reality. Humans can only continue the pretence


wow, there is at least one sensible poster here....
smile.gif

This problem in science may never be solved, but I will try ph34r.gif
barakn
QUOTE (paul h+Mar 13 2008, 12:26 AM)
But to quote Carl Sagan, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mr. Nasif Nahle obviously put a great deal of time into his paper to support his Extraordinary claims . For you to attack it without a solution just seems to fall short of extraordinary proof,,,,, Just think when your done ,,, you'll be famous.
Come on Buckie you can do it. The world may depend on you stepping up to this plate. ---- "Ask not what you can do for ... well you get the point. give it a shot.

Well there you go. I didn't make any extraordinary claims. I simply pointed out that Nahle muffed some very basic equations at the beginning of his paper, and I've already provided enough proof that anyone with basic physics skills could see it (though you apparently are not one of those people).

I never claimed I was going to provide the solution, I was merely pointing out he couldn't possibly come up with the right answer starting out the way he did. Ordinary claims only require sufficient proof.
Gorgeous

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7293376.stm



g.
paul h
barakn
>Well there you go.

Oops,, I would have felt better if you had put a biggrin.gif or tongue.gif behind this.


>(though you apparently are not one of those people).

Embarrassingly sad,, but from day one here I made that clear. sad.gif


>Ordinary claims only require sufficient proof.

OK, I hear ya,,, Just trying to motivate you into greatness.
barakn
Well there you go. tongue.gif biggrin.gif
paul h
QUOTE (barakn+Mar 13 2008, 01:48 PM)
Well there you go. tongue.gif biggrin.gif

Thanks man,,, wink.gif
Gorgeous
Well, it seems to be a very 'hot' and urgent subject for some reason...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7293436.stm




g.
Zarkov
QUOTE
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has their monthly global temperature dataset out through Feb. 2008 (it starts in Jan. 1880).

January was only 0.12 degrees C above the 1951-1980 mean (for that month) and a full 0.74 degrees C colder than Jan. 2007 (the warmest January record).

But Feb. 2007 was 0.26 degrees C above the monthly mean, and a mere 0.37 degrees C colder than Feb. 2008.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has their monthly global temperature dataset out through Feb. 2008 (it starts in Jan. 1880).

January was only 0.12 degrees C above the 1951-1980 mean (for that month) and a full 0.74 degrees C colder than Jan. 2007 (the warmest January record).

But Feb. 2007 was 0.26 degrees C above the monthly mean, and a mere 0.37 degrees C colder than Feb. 2008.


The year 2008 smashed the record for most January and February tornadoes, with 368. The previous record was set in 1999, with 235 January/February tornadoes. Reliable tornado records extend back to 1950. The 232 tornadoes reported in February of 2008 was a record for the month of February. Second place goes to 1971, with a relatively paltry 83 tornadoes.


Basically Global Climate Change is an insurance nightmare, forget about the human cost!

But who cares it is a ll fringe dweller effects so far

unsure.gif
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 14 2008, 04:21 AM)
Well, it seems to be a very 'hot' and urgent subject for some reason...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7293436.stm

g.

Yeah, but that article missed the point of this last minute addition to that agreement:

A draft final statement at a two-day summit, called for cost-effective and flexible mechanisms to reach energy and climate policy objectives, adding the tell-tale phrase "so as to avoid excessive costs for member states".

and the even MORE telling line was from Fr Pres Sarkozy who told reporters: "The main concern is implementing a mechanism that will hit imports from those countries that don't play the game

Can you say Taxation by Tarriffs?

You do realize that Europe ALREADY claims to be half way to this new goal don't you?

And that the US is also stopped its growth in production of GHGs from year to year.

2000 to 2006 (in Tg CO2)

2000 - 6,523
2001 - 6,348
2002 - 6,312
2003 - 6,316
2004 - 6,381
2005 - 6,435
2006 - 6,318

ANY YET, there is NO CHANGE in the UPWARD growth of CO2 levels.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/...2_trend_mlo.png

Hmmmm?

I WONDER what the answer is to this seeming paradox.

Arthur
Gorgeous
Well I make no excuses for other people's quality of journalism!

The point is that people are having to take notice at all. I don't suppose for one minute that anything very effective will come of it.

Too little too late, as usual...



g.
adoucette
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 14 2008, 10:05 AM)
Well I make no excuses for other people's quality of journalism!

The point is that people are having to take notice at all. I don't suppose for one minute that anything very effective will come of it.

Too little too late, as usual...



g.

The point is the people in the EU haven't really changed their lifestyle one bit but are patting themselves on the back as if they have actually accomplished something.

The growing global levels of CO2 are proof that this is a lie.

The reason its still going up is that manufacturing is rapidly moving to those countries that were left out of the Kyoto protocol (mainly China, but also Mexico, Brazil, India etc), and what's worse is their electrical production, that drives the factories, are less efficient and thus produce MORE CO2 (and much more pollution) per unit of product than the manufacturing they displaced in the West.

Arthur
philip347
This past winter, there were super cell cold areas, within the continental United States.
My guess, although it might not be a popular one, is that we are going right smack dab, into another ice age.
paul h
I think this is why the name "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change"
tongue.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
we are going right smack dab, into another ice age.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
we are going right smack dab, into another ice age.
I think this is why the name "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change"


yes GLOBAL climate change

and instead of talking about greenhouse gases
THEY have changed to "emissions"

Big OIL is grabbing what it can before oil is banned.... STUPID and CRIMINAL

but then again no one will stop this ice age, so an expensive fur coat will be nice to have to die for !!!!!!!!!

Earth, your controllers are playing double games
you haven't got long left before panic starts... then war....then
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
you haven't got long left before panic starts... then war....then


Then I realize I was reading one of Zarkov's posts and I turn back to reality.
philip347
Why I have contributed to this thread, is the fact that whatever the reason for said global warming, there has to it seems, be a counter-reaction via planetary climatic mechanics.
If one warms and then thins the general atmosphere, and this causes a global trend in warming, then this would it seems tend to make the entire climatic atmosphere, unstable.
There could be a swing back and this might equal some sort of ice age trend.

I don’t think that Mars is going to be it, as there seems to be a nagging problem of showing artifacts from the civilization that once lived there long ago, on NASA’s exploring robots. Not only that, but a crater filled with water, that they released from the Mars global explorer, about two years back.
So the motto should not be, (Onward, let us go and explore Mars!), but more like raise a few condos now and please don’t trip over the artifacts? Sheesh?!

The other insurance issue, is Superstar Eta Carina.
This nearby giant star is enormous, too close to us and does currently show signs of gross instabilities.
If this star explodes, this will pretty much cook us.
*If you can, use a pressure gradient telemetry device, via current methods of astronomy to gauge what the pressure is, just about a quarter of a light year out from Eta Car?
Your will find that environmental pressure gradient is very high.
Eta car is not safe to itself, nor to Earth which is a stones throw away.
Well’ how’s that disclosure project coming and is NASA or whoever’s in charge, gonna speed things up a bit on the space exploration front?
Are they going to do this, or is there a plain old stupid plan, for those in charge not to take any responsibility euthanizing us all?
Gorgeous
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 14 2008, 03:30 PM)
The point is the people in the EU haven't really changed their lifestyle one bit but are patting themselves on the back as if they have actually accomplished something.



Arthur

Yes, I agree with this. Even more reason for nations such as the Americas to step up a notch, and perhaps show the EU how hypocritical they can be?


g.
adoucette
Which brings us right back to the question that I asked earlier (and for which there have been few answers)

What EXACTLY should we do?

Who EXACTLY should do it?

How FAST should these changes be made?

and

What IMPACT will these changes have on our lives?

Note that last question isn't to say that we shouldn't expect changes or that we shouldn't do things that have negative impacts, but we do have to explore the impacts a change will have to decide if the pain is actually worth the gain or if the pain is reasonably shared among the population.

Arthur
philip347
Adoucette said> What EXACTLY should we do?

Who EXACTLY should do it?

How FAST should these changes be made?

and

What IMPACT will these changes have on our lives? \

Philip347 answers; I don’t approve of mass euthanizations.it’s a bad policy that gets you into trouble, say if you want goods and services later on.

Did you see the off world contacts list for the years 1950s, 60s, 70s?
There are listed in a number of web search engines and what you will find, is that many of the offworlders landing here, at these times,. Did things like try to attempt friendships and even show who they contacted, a little bit of the galaxy as it was mentioned in these contacts.
But look at the contacts now?
Something’s changed.
Thery're all uniform or standoffish, which might mean we as a society have passed an opportunistic point.

Like I said, in regards to a nearby super star, that shows levels of instability.
Maybe it’s a bond issue?
Maybe what allot of offworlders that use to come here are thinking, “Well them dumb Earthlings, they are so corrupt, that they cant even establish a mass off world space program, so that they can relocate some of their people, if Eta Carina goes”?!

It’s a bond issue. Well what would those up high say in the event of non-off world fluency of travel, how about a couple of ultimate destruction scenarios.
The statement that when we meet offworlders, that its going to be a great and glorious experience is out the window.
Those heydays are past.
There are probably lots of offworlders that would once take some of our numbers, who figure “They sure screwed their own planet up, so let them sit in it“.

*If we wanted to, as a society we could change to electric or hybrid autos, almost overnight?
Trippy
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 12 2008, 07:16 AM)
Let's not talk about temperature.
Let's talk about Rainfall.


I think I've raised this point elsewhere, but here's what I know - the 12 different climate modeling programs give their most accurate results when you model historical data, when you include a mixture of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic forcings.

Here's what I want to know, and it's more a point to those that are not (yet) convinced on the AGW issue.

Should local government plan for it? My point is this, AFAIK, they're not just talking about a shift in mean, they're talking about a shift in variance. The predictions are (at least for the part of the country that I'm in) that there will be less over all rainfall, and that that rainfall will come in the form of longer dry spells between 'weather bomb' events.

The point is this - storm water systems are designed around a certain return period (I think it's a 5 year return period for a 24 hour event, not 100% sure on that), however, predictions based on (I think) the average of the 12 models, is that by 2080, what is now a 20 year storm, will become a 5 year storm.

I hope this makes sense, but what I'm getting to is this - Most local governments seem to plan to a 50 year horizon (roughly 2060) so should your local government, as it works through the process of upgrading your stormwater systems, be planning for a 15-20 year even happening on an increasingly regular scale?

Also, this has profound implications for pollution of stormwater - during dry spells, road seal accumulates heavy metals (for example Zinc, Copper, and lead (in those places still using unleaded fuels)), Suspended Solids, PAH's, the list goes on, most of which is washed off the road surface in the first inch of rainfall during any rainstorm. The point here is this, with increasing road surface (as we continue to subdivide, put in more roads, etc), and with, if these models are correct, with dryspells between rainfall events increasing in length, the problem is only going to get worse (The levels of Zinc on most roads are already comparable to Landfill leachate). Then there will be, for example, increased pressure on landfills (the swales on the sides, of in the middle of the roads, designed to help treat stormwater runoff from roads will have to be replaced more often, and currently 'treatment' involves removing them to the 'special contaminated waste' areas of landfills).

IN a similar vein - I notice nobody's discussed this yet.
Trippy
Oh, and for the record, if you're going to worry about a star going supernova, η Carinae is the least of your worries (we see it at a significant angle, so most of the energy should in fact miss us). Might I direct your intention instead to Wolf Rayet 104: http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2181
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.