Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

randerizer, the author of that EIR Science article does a great job of misinformation. For example, he states that the ice-core record is the foundation of the AGW theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The foundation of the AGW theory is the physics of the atmosphere. WE need to know nothing ice cores in order to know that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global warming.

Further mis-information on his part regards the current increases in atmospheric Co2 levels. We only have to look at the Hawaii samples taken over the past 50 years to see the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Notice that in his article not ONCE did he talk about the physics of atmospheric gases. He only talks about something that is really not critical to the AGW theory.

I'm surprised that you are so easily fooled by a lot of hot-air.

---

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

AND it could show that global warming is not caused by CO2 since higher levels of CO2 have existed in the past without the increased temperatures (at least not to the degree as predicted by the alarmists).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

---

First, the whole issue of the ice cores is a red herring. The vast majority climate scientists think that the ice cores readings are accurate. As i stated before, if CO2 migrated out of the ice air bubbles, such a migration would show up as a linear event, which it doesn't. Why you believe the tiny minority of industry paid scientific hacks that post articles in publications owned by Lyndon LaRouche is beyond me. Clearly, that article would not be published in a reputable scientific magazine that values its reputation.

Sure, the exact amount of temperature increased caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is not an exact number. Nobody ever said that it was. However, the REALLY important aspect of AGW is that we are headed into unknown terrority, of a huge scientific unknown where we have absolute NO CONTROL once we reach a critical junction point.

Sure, the arctic ice may disappear in the summer, most will not lose any sleep over that, but it points to other climate changes which may make future generations wonder what why we were so asleep at the switch.

You must be naive to think that dumping 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is not going to affect atmospheric CO2 levels give a stable carbon cycle. Naive is probably too kind of word.

Anyway, watch the Glen Beck show tonight.....you might learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

AND it could show that global warming is not caused by CO2 since higher levels of CO2 have existed in the past without the increased temperatures (at least not to the degree as predicted by the alarmists).

---

Guisslapp, wake up. Atmospheric physics prove that CO2 causes the enhanced greenhouse effect. Don't need ice cores for that.

The plain fact of the matter is that the current CO2 levels are the highest they have been in at least the last 400k years. (Not withstanding that Lyndon LaRouche endorsed mis-information article). (Of course, Lyndon LaRouche followers are swallowing every word of it as gospel).

The vast majority, eh? Have you personally taken a poll? BTW, how many scientists on this board agree with you? How many disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

First, the whole issue of the ice cores is a red herring. The vast majority climate scientists think that the ice cores readings are accurate. As i stated before, if CO2 migrated out of the ice air bubbles, such a migration would show up as a linear event, which it doesn't. Why you believe the tiny minority of industry paid scientific hacks that post articles in publications owned by Lyndon LaRouche is beyond me. Clearly, that article would not be published in a reputable scientific magazine that values its reputation.

You must be naive to think that dumping 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is not going to affect atmospheric CO2 levels give a stable carbon cycle. Naive is probably too kind of word.

---

1) The majority of climate scientists have made no effort to assess the validity of the ice core readings.

2) What scientific basis do you use to get a linear "migration" effect?

3) Who finances a scientific inquiry, or how many scientists say support a particular opinion, has little bearing on my views of the science.

4) The particular article would probably not be published in a high profile journal, because the relevant reviewers have their minds made up on the issue and money tied to their mindsets to boot.

5) Stable carbon cycle? Please present how that is historically demonstrated or an appropriate assumption?

Linear? You think the gases have the same solubility in water??? Wouldn't changes in concentration over time affect the "driving force" according to Fick's law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The vast majority, eh? Have you personally taken a poll? BTW, how many scientists on this board agree with you? How many disagree?

---

Sounds to me that you think the La TecH Sports Message Board is the center of scientific discourse in the world.

Don't worry, it will take some time for me to stop laughing.

Anyway, you two should present your insights to your local Congressperson so that he or she can be truly informed when it is time to vote on this important issue.

Sometimes I have to think that public education in the great State of Louisiana is not quite up to what it should be.

How absurd yet typical:


Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3740-8370r.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

---

Good points!! In addition, it's worth noting that the Hawaii CO2 data is taken at the crest of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Active volcanos continuously emit gases, one of which is CO2. Thus, one would expect that the concentration around the volcano would be higher than elsewhere.

The “Greenhouse” Effect

The so-called greenhouse effect has become such a widely used metaphor in discussing climate that it has become tossed about in rather reckless fashion. Most in the media and even some scientists have created in the mind of the lay public that our climate system works just like a physical greenhouse that you grow plants in. This in not the case.

To understand this, we need to understand how our earth receives and retains heat from the sun. This is the Earth Energy Flow Balance. It can be described as follows:

Solar Radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface, which acts like a heated radiator and produces Infrared Radiation. The amount of heat that is carried into the atmosphere by Infrared Radiation is roughly equal to the heat carried into the atmosphere by Fluid Dynamics, such as wind, other air movements, and liquid evaporation. The heat energy that is retained at any given locale is what produces the temperature at that locale.

A real greenhouse traps heat by blocking (or severely restricting) the Fluid Dynamics vector, by blocking it with plastic or glass. The so-called “greenhouse effect” that has been so mischaracterized by GW proponents that it has become a metaphor doesn’t work this way at all. It works by recognizing that certain gases (the so-called greenhouse gases) tend to block some of the Infrared Radiation. It totally ignores the equally important effect of Fluid Dynamics. By the way, the single largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for approximately 95% of the greenhouse gases. This component is also ignored by many of the AGW activists.

Now, it is true that the thermodynamic effect of those combinations of gases can be calculated by rigorous thermodynamic gas laws. (I suppose that fact is the reason Salty continues to keep insisting that there are “laws of Atmospheric Physics.”) That is – provided that no other thermodynamic effects are working on the earth’s systems. But wait, there are other effects -- caused by fluid dynamics. But there are no rigorous physical laws of fluid dynamics that allow us to calculate the effect of the equally important Fluid Dynamics vector. These effects are highly turbulent and we simply cannot analytically solve the governing partial differential equations. Further, attempts to numerically model those effects in climate models have had virtually no success. Our currently most sophisticated climate models cannot model a thunderstorm, one of our earth’s most powerful air conditioners. And there are thousands of them taking place around the earth at any given moment. Anyone who tells you they can actually model a thunderstorm is either a liar or an idiot. An attempt is made to compensate for the inability to model them by using heuristic rules in the climate models to account for them. These rules simply plug in whatever result the modeler wants on that particular model run. “Hey, Joe, what result did you get on run # 864”? “Whatever answer you want, Salty”

Most of the estimates of how CO2 increases atmospheric temperature are valid within the narrow confines of the closed experiments in which they are observed. However, none of those experiments consider the Fluid Dynamics component. They can’t because that simply can’t be calculated. So basically they are experiments that prove that a true greenhouse really works. (Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the Earth Energy Flow Balance). If you shut off the fluid dynamic flow and also decrease the infrared radiation by adding CO2 (or any of the other relevant gases) to the closed environment, the relevant equations will predict an increase in temperature which is correct.

As if the above didn’t make things complicated enough, there are still more complicating factors. The fluid dynamics component of the energy balance also affects the other 2 components - solar radiation input and infrared radiation output by carrying dust and aerosols and water vapor into and out of the atmosphere. So results of the fluid dynamics vector can add to or detract from the infrared vector and also the solar vector. Thus the amount of heat reaching the earth can be shielded by cloud formation, for example, as a result.

The bottom line here is that much of the current literature on GW is based on the “greenhouse effect” metaphor which ignores a major component in the Earth Heat Balance. So predictions of how much a given amount of CO2 will increase the atmospheric temperature in the real world are meaningless.

In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that increases in temperature -- say from increased solar activity -- causes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, just the opposite of the CGW’s mantra!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Hey, Guisslapp, I didn't know that you and Lyndon LaRouche were buddies.

EIR Science.......that's a gas.

---

Yeah it really is , Salty. A couple of years ago, you were referencing papers from "Science" like they were the Bible!!!! Guess it makes a big difference when a particular paper doesn't spout your mantra!!!!!!!

Hurricane season doesn't even begin until June 1, yet we have one brewing in the Atlantic.


http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TECH88

Hurricane season doesn't even begin until June 1, yet we have one brewing in the Atlantic.


http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html

---

a subtropical storm before june 1? that's unheard of! <gasp> :icon_roll:

pre-june tropical/subtropical cyclone activity in the last 50 years:

2003 (16 named storms) -- tropical storm ana -- max winds 60 mph
1997 (7 named storms) -- unnamed subtropical storm -- max winds 50 mph
1992 (6) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1981 (11) -- ts arlene -- 60
1978 (11) -- unnamed sts -- 45
1976 8) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1972 (4) -- unnamed sts -- 70
1970 (7) -- hurricane alma -- 80
1959 (10) -- ts arlene -- 60

it is interesting to note that early hurricane activity is not even necessarily indicitive of an active hurricane season. didn't we go through all this hurricane b.s. two years ago?