Re: Global Warming Cont...
How about a few remarks from a UK scientist who is actually one of the official IPCC reviewers....................
here are some of his remarks I picked up from a board discussion on the AGW issue.
Richard S Courtney, Falmouth, Cornwall / 4:41pm 2 Apr 2007
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "consensus" of governments and not scientists. Many – perhaps most – of us scientists who are involved in the IPCC do not agree with contents of IPCC Reports.
The most important fact about climate change is that there is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, not any of any kind.
A claim that AGW exists is merely an assertion: it is not evidence and it is not fact. And the assertion does not become evidence or fact by being voiced, written in words, or written in computer code.
The existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it. At issue is whether human activity is or is not affecting the changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally. It is a silly mistake to confuse the effects of warming as being evidence of the cause of warming. Several of the above postings are examples of this mistake; for example, posting #11.
The fact is that any warming that may have happened during the last 100 years is within natural climate variability that has occurred in the past. And that warming could be a completely natural recovery from the Little Ice Age that is similar to the recovery from the Dark Age cool period to the Medieval Warm Period.
But the fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.
Climate varies: it always has and it always will. Governments need to prepare for possible climate changes whether those changes have an anthropogenic or a natural cause. And climate changes that can be anticipated include all the changes that have occurred in the past: not only the changes that are predicted by promoters of AGW.
There is a severe risk in preparing for warming and not cooling. And there is most risk in preparing for neither but trying to control the climate of the planet instead.
Several recent studies (e.g. Krotov, 2001; Klyashtorin & Lyubushin, 2003; Loehle, 2004; and Abdusamatov, 2006) suggest that we are entering a cooling phase. And global temperatures have not again reached the high they did in the El Nino year of 1998. Indeed, the global temperature trend has been global cooling for the last nine years. Global cooling would have worse effects than global warming.
Incidentally, industry spends almost nothing on climate research but governments spend $ billions per year on it, so I – like all others involved in the AGW business – have my snout in that trough. If there were any industry money then I would gladly take it.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
I have been appointed "judge" for this debate. Salty, you are losing. Any rebuttal?
Yeah, you should excuse yourself from being a judge because of prior statements indicating that you have already made up your mind on the subject. Also, that you drink beer with randerizer.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Well, at least the GW thread is in the right place on this board: the Political Forum. It certainly wouldn't last but a few seconds on a true Science Forum.
All of the real science ever been done on GW has come to one of two conclusions:
1). Man is not, and cannot, contribute enough to truly affect global climate
or
2). Whether man can, or cannot, affect global climate, at this point there is not enough evidence to lead us to make an assertion.
That's the science.
The politics is....up for grabs! Just pick a position and jump in. :rolleyes4:
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawgbitten
Salty....loosing? I don't think so. Just the past few pages:
(1)we have seen some trying to discredit scientists because they only make 100k a year and therefore must not be the best scientists studying this.
(2)CO2 is only 3/10 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, so it is such a small amount it can't be doing anything.
(3)"natural" cycles that took place "naturally" in 100 years.
(4)we are going to do okay because it is going to be so much warmer.
(5)it was cold in Russellville this week, so GW needs to hurry up.
Anything else I missed? Just go back listen to Rush if you need to add more. He has a great scientific mind. Just ask him.
I guess by grouping the really good arguments (like #3 and #2) with the ones that are either not serious or are not directly applicable to the discussion, you are hoping that the good arguments will appear weak?
What about:
Previous peaks in atmospheric CO2 as a result of the natural carbon cycle were most likely higher than they are now.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
In the end, Al Gore will come out of this looking dumber than he really is. The scientists are coming out of the woodwork all over the globe on this...and damned few are agreeing with Prince Albert!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Yeah, you should excuse yourself from being a judge because of prior statements indicating that you have already made up your mind on the subject. Also, that you drink beer with randerizer.
That is not a customary basis for recusal in the South.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Pup60
How about a few remarks from a UK scientist who is actually one of the official IPCC reviewers....................
here are some of his remarks I picked up from a board discussion on the AGW issue.
Richard S Courtney, Falmouth, Cornwall / 4:41pm 2 Apr 2007
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "consensus" of governments and not scientists. Many – perhaps most – of us scientists who are involved in the IPCC do not agree with contents of IPCC Reports.
The most important fact about climate change is that there is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none, not any of any kind.
A claim that AGW exists is merely an assertion: it is not evidence and it is not fact. And the assertion does not become evidence or fact by being voiced, written in words, or written in computer code.
The existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it. At issue is whether human activity is or is not affecting the changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally. It is a silly mistake to confuse the effects of warming as being evidence of the cause of warming. Several of the above postings are examples of this mistake; for example, posting #11.
The fact is that any warming that may have happened during the last 100 years is within natural climate variability that has occurred in the past. And that warming could be a completely natural recovery from the Little Ice Age that is similar to the recovery from the Dark Age cool period to the Medieval Warm Period.
But the fact that there is no evidence for AGW is not evidence that AGW is not happening. Simply, there is no evidence that AGW is happening, and there is no evidence that AGW is not happening, either.
Climate varies: it always has and it always will. Governments need to prepare for possible climate changes whether those changes have an anthropogenic or a natural cause. And climate changes that can be anticipated include all the changes that have occurred in the past: not only the changes that are predicted by promoters of AGW.
There is a severe risk in preparing for warming and not cooling. And there is most risk in preparing for neither but trying to control the climate of the planet instead.
Several recent studies (e.g. Krotov, 2001; Klyashtorin & Lyubushin, 2003; Loehle, 2004; and Abdusamatov, 2006) suggest that we are entering a cooling phase. And global temperatures have not again reached the high they did in the El Nino year of 1998. Indeed, the global temperature trend has been global cooling for the last nine years. Global cooling would have worse effects than global warming.
Incidentally, industry spends almost nothing on climate research but governments spend $ billions per year on it, so I – like all others involved in the AGW business – have my snout in that trough. If there were any industry money then I would gladly take it.
You know, BillPup, you got a point about the cooling aspect. We hit the high point on the solar/orbital controls about 11,000 years ago and since then the Earth should be going into a cooling phase, i.e., atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be going down becaue the Earth is receiving less solar radiation. In fact, if we had not been dumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere we would be looking at a serious drop in the average global temperature.
BTW, atmospheric physics establishes that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to higher average global temperatures. Seems to me that some new global temperature records were recently reported. That is, it is warmer now than in 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#Temp
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawgbitten
*"natural" cycles that took place "naturally" in 100 years.
If you look at the natural cycles it is not every 100 years (and I assume you mean 100k years). From peak to peak, starting about 410,000 years ago, the cycles appear to run as follows:
first cycle ~ 85k years, second cycle ~ 85k years, third cycle ~ 110k years, fourth cycle (up to present) ~ 130k years. You can average that out to be about one cycle every 100k years, but the peaks don't hit right on our "natural," base-10 queue.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
How laughable this seems when you look at the above numbers or the numbers on this chart:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
CO2 is only THREE HUNDRETHS of a percent of the atmosphere! It's crazy to suggest that the small percentage of CO2 levels caused by man can affect the earth in a major fashion! Seriously will .03% or .033% cause the temperature spikes Gore predicts over the next 20 years? LAUGHABLE.
You need to look at the physics of atmospheric gases. The increase in CO2 from 268 ppm to 380ppm has already produced a significant increae in global temperatures. The real seriousness of AGW is not measured in decades but in centuries. WE are currently dumping 7+ gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere but only 1/3 stays in the atmosphere, the other 2/3 is placed in the oceans and biomass to be released into the atmosphere later, over hundreds of years.
An atmosphere with a CO2 level of 600 ppm will seem downright uncomforatable for those of us use to 380 PPM.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You know, BillPup, you got a point about the cooling aspect. We hit the high point on the solar/orbital controls about 11,000 years ago and since then the Earth should be going into a cooling phase, i.e., atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be going down becaue the Earth is receiving less solar radiation. In fact, if we had not been dumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere we would be looking at a serious drop in the average global temperature.
BTW, atmospheric physics establishes that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to higher average global temperatures. Seems to me that some new global temperature records were recently reported. That is, it is warmer now than in 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...eb/global.html
Some record lows have also been reported. What is your point?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Some record lows have also been reported. What is your point?
Really????????????????????????????
Show me the record lows on a Global basis or for either the Northern or Southern Hemispheres during the past 10 years.
I'm not interested in record lows for a particular geographical location because it does prove anything.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Really????????????????????????????
Show me the record lows on a Global basis or for either the Northern or Southern Hemispheres during the past 10 years.
I'm not interested in record lows for a particular geographical location because it does prove anything.
First, tell me how to average temperatures for a hemisphere. :icon_razz:
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
First, tell me how to average temperatures for a hemisphere. :icon_razz:
It's all here>
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#Temp
I hope.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
You need to look at the physics of atmospheric gases. The increase in CO2 from 268 ppm to 380ppm has already produced a significant increae in global temperatures. The real seriousness of AGW is not measured in decades but in centuries. WE are currently dumping 7+ gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere but only 1/3 stays in the atmosphere, the other 2/3 is placed in the oceans and biomass to be released into the atmosphere later, over hundreds of years.
An atmosphere with a CO2 level of 600 ppm will seem downright uncomforatable for those of us use to 380 PPM.
So an increase from .036% to .038% will increase temperatures over the entire earth how much? What is the supposed (since it is conjecture) mathmatical relationship between the amount of CO2 caused by man and the increases in global temperatures directly related to increases in that CO2?
How much is the "significant" increase in global temperatures? I thought temps had gone up 1 degree F since the 70's.
I'm sure people will be real sad to get more rain everywhere but Seattle. Maybe then the Sparta Aquifer won't be depleted from watering crops, thats a much more pressing problem.
Your biomass statement is bollocks, if there is more carbon available plants can take up more of it but that won't affect the overall problem at all.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
So an increase from .036% to .038% will increase temperatures over the entire earth how much? What is the supposed (since it is conjecture) mathmatical relationship between the amount of CO2 caused by man and the increases in global temperatures directly related to increases in that CO2?
How much is the "significant" increase in global temperatures? I thought temps had gone up 1 degree F since the 70's.
I'm sure people will be real sad to get more rain everywhere but Seattle. Maybe then the Sparta Aquifer won't be depleted from watering crops, thats a much more pressing problem.
Your biomass statement is bollocks, if there is more carbon available plants can take up more of it but that won't affect the overall problem at all.
Ken, if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what would be the average global temperature?
The current average global temperature (in 2004) was 58.28 F.
