My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[LogicTech]

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done :) .....snake oil salesman.

 

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate :)

 

What does that have to do with anything related to AGW?

 

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

 

 

Among my many debates with so-called global warming "skeptics" (oh, how I hate how they refer themselves as one since they clearly are not...), this is by far the most common "rebuttal". It's getting quite old too

 

 

Global warming refers only to the rise in average global temperatures, not localized events. The atmospheric temperature of the Earth has risen by over 1 C over the past 120 years, and is predicted to rise by alot more this century (3-5 C). And they correlate so strongly with CO2 data that it is just plain silly to believe that it couldn't be the cause.

[LogicTech]

I'm personally looking forward to our fine land leaving fossil fuels, especially oil, for clean, green electrons. Then we'll finally be free of our cancer causing, climate changing, economically vulnerable oil dependency and moving into the "electron transport economy" so that we'll never be impacted by oil shocks or have to "bring democracy" to another oil exporting nation ever again. :)

 

We have been procrastinating on making the big switch for over 150 years now. So the real question is, when will we finally have the will to move on...

 

I can't seem to post the link, but I'll try anyways: www1 eere energy gov solar pdfs solar_timeline pdf

 

Just put the appropriate periods and other marks in place

[Flying Binghi]

Aparently CO2 is the cause of all evil. Heres a very relavent clip of just a few of the claims (to cover all would take many hours)

 

YouTube - Global Warming Causes More Sex http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q

 

And one wonders why more and more people are getting sceptical.

 

A couple of interesting graphs at the end of the clip.

[Flying Binghi]

What does that have to do with anything related to AGW?

 

What does due diligence have to do with anything.... :)

 

Among my many debates with so-called global warming "skeptics"

 

I am a firm believer that the climate does, and is always changing. I dont know of anybody who doubts it. LogicTech, perhaps you can provide a link to a climate change skeptic site/article. Put the word "Anthropogenic" in with a reference to CO2, and it will be a large number of links.

[Flying Binghi]

I doubt you’ll ever get an exact answer to this question, because the conditions it describes are so unlikely to ever occur that it’s of little importance.

 

However, it’s not hard to arrive at a reasonable approximation. Rephrasing the question from speaking of average temperature, which is problematic to define and measure, to the temperature of a tropical island such as one of the Hawaiian islands, we can take the daytime high (about 30 C) and drop in temperature that normally occurs when the sun “turns off” there over roughly a 12 hour period each night (5 to 10 C) to reach an estimate of 72 to 36 hours (30•12÷5 to 30•12÷10). Noting that nearly all (99.978%) of the Earth’s power comes from the Sun (ie: Earth’s power budget), that there’s not much difference between 273 and 303 K, and that atmospheric heat travels much more slowly than the Earth rotates, we can reasonably ignore other sources of power, non-linear temperature effects, and day/night heat transfer for an approximation of this order. Because 30 to 0 C is within the normal range of temperatures on Earth, we can ignore the possibility of significant phase transition effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

 

The question is not a climate question, because the sun being turned off or disappearing is not within the realm of reasonably likely climate-effecting occurrences. Though interesting and easy, it requires no knowledge of climate beyond the data above and assumptions above. In short, it can be answered by a simple and reasonable extension of empirical data.

 

CraigD, it is a theoretical question to see if their is any real understanding of the Earths climate.

 

Your estimate is 72 to 36 hours ?

[Zythryn]

Aparently CO2 is the cause of all evil. Heres a very relavent clip of just a few of the claims (to cover all would take many hours)

 

YouTube - Global Warming Causes More Sex

 

And one wonders why more and more people are getting sceptical.

 

A couple of interesting graphs at the end of the clip.

 

FB, that is a comedy, a 'mockumentary' if you will.

How about a serious claim not some comedy?

[Eclipse Now]

What does due diligence have to do with anything.... :)

 

You see darling boy, "due diligence" is exactly what is missing from the sceptics. "Due diligence" involves admitting all the data, following empirical methods, and contributing to the peer review process. That's science.

 

See, in "the world in which I live" there is a discipline to science and rules to observe. We don't blame serious climate scientists for silly newspaper reports and poor journalism. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and the baby in this situation is objectivity. We don't ignore serious data because, in that famous phrase of Pauline Hanson, "I don't like it".

 

I am a firm believer that the climate does, and is always changing.

So are the climatologists. Don't try to claim any special unique status in this, or that it means more than it does... climate changes for a variety of reasons, and both natural Co2 variations in the "long carbon cycle" and unnatural Co2 variations are important forcings. Milankovitch cycles are another important forcing, but far longer term and not something that concerns us at this stage. There are many, many forcings, and guess what? I don't think you understand how small a range in Co2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings.

 

I'll just point out that I you replied pretty much exactly as I predicted in post 1017. However, you still haven't done your homework FB.

 

Quote:

Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:

A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)

:) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.

C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

 

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

[engineerdude]

I don't think you understand how small a range in Co2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings.

 

Well, I'd be willing to bet money that you and the global-warming people don't "understand how CO2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings" either. No one does. There is no "grand equation" published yet for how the earth's climate works. People speculate, postulate, make computer models, and no one can still tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow with any kind of accuracy.

 

We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere, it probably has no measurable effect on climate. AGW people think otherwise. Time will tell.

[Buffy]

We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere...

My. That sure explains a lot!

 

Could you explain what the AGW-is-crap folks think the atmosphere does contain?

 

Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there, :)

Buffy

[Essay]

...the global-warming people don't "understand how CO2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings" either. No one does. There is no "grand equation" published yet for how the earth's climate works. People speculate, postulate, make computer models, ...

We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere, it probably has no measurable effect on climate. AGW people think otherwise. Time will tell.

 

Review: Earth’s Energy Budget Terminology

 

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall05/nats101s54/lec7.ppt

Sunlight warms the earth’s surface only during the day, whereas the surface constantly emits infrared radiation upward during the day and at night. (a) Near the surface without water vapor, CO2, and other greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface would constantly emit infrared radiation (IR) energy; incoming energy from the sun would be equal to outgoing IR energy from the earth’s surface. Since the earth would receive no IR energy from its lower atmosphere (no atmospheric greenhouse effect), the earth’s average surface temperature would be a frigid –18°C (0°F). (b)With greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface receives energy from the sun and infrared energy from its atmosphere. Incoming energy still equals outgoing energy, but the added IR energy from the greenhouse gases raises the earth’s average surface temperature about 33°C, to a comfortable 15°C (59°F).

...

...a comfortable 59°F... before that balance with outgoing energy (due mostly to water vapor) is achieved.

 

Edude,

Do you "believe" this part of the story?

 

This is the basic introductory lesson on the theory of Earth's climate, at any university in the world.

 

There could be better wording, or more details on which heat is doing what in various parts of the atmosphere, but the basic idea is the same across the board.

Do you think this stuff is right?

 

Thanks,

~ :)

[Flying Binghi]

"...climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood..."

 

"Drastic, precipitous, and especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective..."

 

via, Roger Revelle, climate scientist, and according to a Scientific American article "the grandfather of the greenhouse effect"

 

( Al Gore called Revelle "a wonderful, visionary professor")

 

 

 

Extracts from, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon

[Moontanman]

Hey FB I gots to knows, did I answer your question about the sun being turned off?

[Eclipse Now]

Moontanman, I don't think FB was ever asking that question seriously. Nor do I think he will ever admit to it being answered, because as long as FB thinks "I don't like it" is a scientific response, and allowable forum protocol, he'll just keep on keeping on.

 

In the meantime, I wonder if FB has any evidence that Roger Revelle actually said any of that, or whether it was plucked out of context if he did? Because check out his wiki.

 

Global warming

 

Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle's directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.

 

In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time.[2] Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was "the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time."[3]

 

Revelle and Suess described the "buffer factor", now known as the "Revelle factor", which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry. Essentially, in order to enter the ocean, carbon dioxide gas has to partition into one of the components of carbonic acid: carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, or protonated carbonic acid, and the product of these many chemical dissociation constants factors into a kind of back-pressure that limits how fast the carbon dioxide can enter the surface ocean. Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry ... this amounted to one of the earliest examples of "integrated assessment", which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science.

 

Al Gore mentions Revelle as a personal inspiration in a segment of the Academy Award-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Roger Revelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Essay]

"Drastic, precipitous, and especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective..."

Extracts from, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon

 

"steps to delay... greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity...." -The Deniers

 

Yes, they CAN, if they are not managed well.

The recent corn/ethanol fiasco is one example of idiots running things, with no concept of the ultimate goal.

 

But....

The attempts to mitigate CO2 don't have to "cost jobs and prosperity."

These attempts CAN be specifically designed to increase jobs and prosperity.

 

For my, that's why it's been a no-brainer for so long--solving multiple problems with a single solution. Save the environment, ...and solve poverty at the same time. It's like a win-win situation, rescuing life and the economy simultaneously.

 

~ :)

[modest]

In the meantime, I wonder if FB has any evidence that Roger Revelle actually said any of that...

 

Yes, Revelle did. Notice Binghi's quote:

 

"...climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood..."

<...>

 

via, Roger Revelle, climate scientist...

 

Roger Revelle said this in 1988. The next sentence out of his mouth was:

My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.

Seeing as how 1988 + 20 = 2008, I thought that was.. well... interesting :)

 

a few days earlier Revelle said:

My own feeling is that we had better wait another ten years before making confident predictions.

Revelle died 3 years later.

 

-source quoting Environment & Climate News, January 2000

 

~modest

[Buffy]

I said it earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating:

 

There is so much money to be made on Green Technology that its silly.

 

The only problem is that the folks who run the "Old Energy" companies know that to maximize their short-term profits, they need to keep that technology at bay. These folks are Republicans/Conservatives and they have of course brainwashed all their followers that it's "bad for business" if we pursue these technologies, *especially* if the money for doing so comes out of their profits....something that if they were just a wee bit smarter, they'd be doing themselves in order to hide their "excess profits".

 

The problem really is that the idiots who run these companies got their jobs by knowing the right folks at the country club rather than actually knowing anything, along with no incentives being provided either by the market or government to encourage long-term investments.

 

Sad really.

 

Whenever you commend, add your reasons for doing so; it is this which distinguishes the approbation of a man of sense from the flattery of sycophants and admiration of fools, :)

Buffy

[REASON]

:phones: