Saw an inconvient truth, one big problem with all those who argue GW

[Sh@i'tan]

The climate models are based on 650,000 years. Which isn't even a percent of the earth's existent. How can anyone come to a conclusion that the climate changes are not natural when you have no evidence besides speculation based off less than 1 percent of the earth's history? Planning on a better post but i gotta go, post more later.

[keith123]

yeah, i guess it would be "normal" if the earth became a molten ball of lava then too.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The climate models are based on 650,000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The climate models aren't based on 650,000 years. The models are based on the laws of physics. The last 650,000 years just add even more proof that the models work. Hansens model was made almost a decade before the Vostok Ice core.

[Sh@i'tan]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, I guess it would be "normal" if the earth became a molten ball of lava then too.

[/ QUOTE ]

when is it going to happen? how do you know its going to happen? a link to an article supporting this theory? Models say CO2 levels are still significantly lower than they were in the past, yet back then the earth wasn't a molten ball of lava.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The climate models are based on 650,000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The climate models aren't based on 650,000 years. The models are based on the laws of physics. The last 650,000 years just add even more proof that the models work. Hansen’s model was made almost a decade before the Vostok Ice core.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, tell me the avg earth temperature two billion years ago along with the change in the avg earth temperature between two billion years ago and 1,999,900,000 years ago.

the temperature is continuing to get warmer due to the natural phase we are in. The end of the 19th century marked the end of the Little Ice Age, and the temp has been rising ever since. We have yet to hit a period where the avg temp is warming than it was during the MWP.

Can anybody quantify the effect of the added CO2 from burnd fossil fuels in the atmosphere? How much hotter the temp gets for each 100 PPM?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
tell me the avg earth temperature two billion years ago along with the change in the avg earth temperature between two billion years ago and 1,999,900,000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 billion years ago the earth's atmosphere was devoid of oxygen. That earth isn't comparable to todays earth. We were closer to Venus back then.



[ QUOTE ]
We have yet to hit a period where the avg temp is warming than it was during the MWP.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody quantify the effect of the added CO2 from burnd fossil fuels in the atmosphere? How much hotter the temp gets for each 100 PPM?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more complicated than that. There is a huge delay and there are many feedback mechanisms. Look at this graph and remember that the alps may not have a winter this year.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/01.17.htm

Ski lodges are advertising hiking trips for the season.

This is an ok intro to climate models made for the beginner:
http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz

Start reading realclimate.org if you have a decent amount of confidence in your ability to read technical material.

All the info you need is located here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

It's probably a little too advanced reading but that is what every major scientific society endorses. Not sure what else to say.

[arahant]

wow...that is a lot of info, Wacki...thanks.

I have to say, I have a problem with the global warming debate. I HAD come to the conclusion that it's almost impossible for the public to form a meaningful opinion on the subject, because the media increasingly treat it as a debate. I kind of just want to see a poll of climatoligists somewhere from an unbiased source...know of any?

On a different note, until Al Gore started preaching that the end was nigh, I had a much greater belief in global warming. [censored] arguments and grandstanding really give me pause. Until Gore, it seemed like all of them were coming from people like Chrichton (State of Fear = worst book ever).

It does seem to me that the actions being taken to prevent it are silly and inconsequential. From what i've read, the amount of reduction in CO2 emmission needs to be much more dramatic than is likely to occur. Without speaking for Gore in particular, it seems like all the 'advocates' support things like Kyoto and emissions trading, which would be a trivial drop in the bucket if fully implemented.

[AvivaSimplex]

Ooh, wacki squishes a troll!

[hmkpoker]

Wacki-

Can I get your opinion on this? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=80 41432&Searchpage=1&Main=8041432&Words=celestial+Bo rodog&topic=&Search=true#Post8041432)

Looked impressive when I read it, but I don't know [censored] about any of this stuff.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of just want to see a poll of climatoligists somewhere from an unbiased source...know of any?

[/ QUOTE ]

scan this:
http://tinyurl.com/ymdfdg

From 1993-2003 there were no climate journals that disagreed with the consensus. The debate has gone from "if" to "how much". In all honesty I view those that are still stuck in the "if" phase as either uneducated on the subject (which is often no fault of theirs), morally corrupt, or mentally challenged. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is so well established it's really not worth discussing.

[ QUOTE ]
On a different note, until Al Gore started preaching that the end was nigh, I had a much greater belief in global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al Gore's movie is pretty accurate and has been endorsed by NASA employees. I still think Al Gore did a crappy job of making that movie though. He focused way too much on himself. Overall Al Gore is the last person I'd pick to be a spokesman for this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
Chrichton (State of Fear = worst book ever).

[/ QUOTE ]

Crichton is a loon. Read his book travels. He believes he can bend spoons with his mind, see auras, go to the astral plane, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
From what i've read, the amount of reduction in CO2 emmission needs to be much more dramatic than is likely to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only source I'd pay attention to is the IPCC or the national academy of sciences. There are wayyy too many bogus think tanks out there. The good news is that high end sensitivity is being downgraded. So the "end of the world" scenarios are far less likely to happen. Then again with the melting rate observed by GRACE satellites I have to wonder. The changes in ice are so fast. In all honesty I think this debate is moving from a catastrophe scenario to a moral scenario. Although I could very very easily be wrong on that one. We will know in Feb when the next IPCC comes out. It is very possible that the planet will experience one of the greatest mass extinctions in geologic time because of fossil fuel emissions. The poor people and low lying countries will get hit really hard as well. The US will likely move on through this problem without too much hassle though. Things can change though.

EDIT: Not all people scientist Kyotto. I know I don't support it. In fact I don't think the scientists that designed Kyotto support it anymore. It's tuff to tell by their talks.

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]

From 1993-2003 there were no climate journals that disagreed with the consensus. The debate has gone from "if" to "how much". In all honesty I view those that are still stuck in the "if" phase as either uneducated on the subject (which is often no fault of theirs), morally corrupt, or mentally challenged. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is so well established it's really not worth discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but do our emmisions of it really matter THAT much? Is a slight climate change just a result of natural changes or of our emmisions. Just because it's a greenhouse gas doesn not mean we are in serious trouble yet or will be in the near future. There is still no absolute proof, the climate hasn't changed that much. Sorry I'm still in the 'if' phase.

I've attened meetings and some pretty prominent scientists visited this school once and gave a a two hour speach. I'm still not convinced. He proved a corralation between C02 levels over the last bajillion years and temperature only. Perhaps this connection is spurious and there is a 3rd vairable which causes NATURAL C02 and temperature. After all, with the insane spikes in C02 levels in the last 50 years, if temperate followed it exactly as it did in the past it would be a million degrees out right now. But it isn't, it's a few degrees hotter on average, gee wiz lets elect Ralph Nader President.

Global Warming either is a natural process not caused by us and even if it is caused by us it isn't that big of a deal yet, probably won't be for a while, and by then we will be able to do something about it. I'm not worried.

[Hobbs.]

Bob,

The physics explaining why increasing CO2 levels in the stratosphere will increase the heating rate at the surface of the earth has been long standing. Given a brief understanding of quantum mechanics you can see why.

The major point for the 'if' people, as wacki labels them, is that nobody in our field right now can accurately quantify all the various feedback loops that are present in the Earth system. Here is a link to a theory that has been around for a while on how the Earth will regulate itself ( GAIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis) ), and while there are definately holes in the argument it's very difficult to quantitatively prove one way or the other.

I can understand, while I'd disagree, with somebody who questions the results of long term surface warming as a result of increases in CO2 based on large questions marks in feedback processes, but one is just ignorant if they claim not to believe humans have caused large scale increases in CO2 levels and that CO2 itself warms the earth.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob,

The physics explaining why increasing CO2 levels in the stratosphere will increase the heating rate at the surface of the earth has been long standing. Given a brief understanding of quantum mechanics you can see why.

The major point for the 'if' people, as wacki labels them, is that nobody in our field right now can accurately quantify all the various feedback loops that are present in the Earth system. Here is a link to a theory that has been around for a while on how the Earth will regulate itself ( GAIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis) ), and while there are definately holes in the argument it's very difficult to quantitatively prove one way or the other.

I can understand, while I'd disagree, with somebody who questions the results of long term surface warming as a result of increases in CO2 based on large questions marks in feedback processes, but one is just ignorant if they claim not to believe humans have caused large scale increases in CO2 levels and that CO2 itself warms the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have made a lot on money in my life knowing exactly what it is I do not know.

Global climate modeling strikes me as a black art. Tough to use such a thing for global energy policy. It's a feedback-ridden, non-linear cluster [censored].

[Hobbs.]

[ QUOTE ]
I have made a lot on money in my life knowing exactly what it is I do not know.

Global climate modeling strikes me as a black art. Tough to use such a thing for global energy policy. It's a feedback-ridden, non-linear cluster [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Statistics, ever heard of them?

Just because something can't be said absolutely does not mean the estimates of that something are completely worthless.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have made a lot on money in my life knowing exactly what it is I do not know.

Global climate modeling strikes me as a black art. Tough to use such a thing for global energy policy. It's a feedback-ridden, non-linear cluster [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Statistics, ever heard of them?

Just because something can't be said absolutely does not mean the estimates of that something are completely worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I've been known to make a few dozen decisions every hour based on incomplete, probabilistic information. It's not non-linear, feedback-ridden and semi-chaotic, making my decisions several orders of magnitude more sound. My models are quite simple and reasonable. Your climate models are not entirely convincing.

Ultimately, the grand global climate equation, relating risks and costs and chances of success, is full of uncertainty and some hazy estimation. You'd be hard pressed to sell some of these action plans to an engineer. No problem selling them to alarmists, politicians, moonbats and a lot of scientists, since each cohort is only concerned with a fraction of the problem. But integrate the whole and there's no objective economically correct path.

[Al68]

If global warming is really a big problem, we can blame Al Gore and his pals for the fact that we did nothing about it.

They have such a history of lying about it that we have no reason to believe anything they have to say now.

Especially Gore's claim that the debate is over. The fact is, there is a lot of disagreement among the experts. Gore just claims otherwise to get his way without a debate. I guess that's better than his old ways, trying to get his way with lies and deceit.

I can only hope that global warming is not a problem, since it will never be fixed with liars like Al Gore leading the charge against it.