Printable View
I present that it doesn't matter, to a degree, that the earth warms up. The world has not always been the same. There was the tropic period, the ice age, blah blah blah. It always changes and it's no big deal if it keeps changing.
It is important to develop alternatives to fossil fuels for much more important reasons than global warming.
I agree that global warming isn't the ONLY good reason for ending dependence on fossil fuel.
However, can you tell me how many periods of temperature extremes have occurred during the evolution of human beings? What extremes can we survive? What changes will we be able to adapt to? Our lives are all about soil, water and air. The plants and animals we depend on have to survive for us to survive.
Mankind survives in deserts, islands, frozen wastelands, paradise, and moderate temperate zones.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
It's no question as to whether we would survive. The question is whether we would stomach the changing natural environment, ie the tropic zone plants and animals would be able to flourish in a wider range, etc.
The problem with your theory is that this MAN MADE change is exponentially greater than natural changes in the past. It's not even comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
And this is by far the largest flaw in your reasoning. Why do you say this? What evidence do you have that makes this case, and is not made into evidence using deeply flawed assumptions, such as the ones I have attacked on the ice core measurements?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
I agree it's not comparable - but it's not comparable because we don't have a technique to adequately compare... not because its so much greater than in the past.
Hey Salty.........
Just wondering......did you ever figure out what the "A" in AGW is???? I asked this several weeks ago and (unless I missed the answer, which is entirely possible) I still haven't received a reply.
A = Anthropocentric
Well Salty, You're right that we can't trust the "data". But the real reason is that -- even if the CO2 concentration data were real and not manufactured psuedo data -- it represents an almost infinitesimally small portion of the planet's surface. It is amazing that all of this so called CO2 data from long ago is coming from only 2 places where the ice cores were analyzed. To say that this represents the entire earth is ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Then to come up with so called Average Temperature graphs that go back 400,000 years is even more ludicrous. First, there is no such thing as an "average earth temperature". Temperature is an INTENSIVE property. It cannot be properly averaged. There is no more an average earth temperature than there is an "average earth telephone number"!!! And that's true even if the temperatures that were averaged were real --- which they are not. When we go back to times before there were actually thermometers, most of this stuff comes from tree ring growth estimates which have ENORMOUS error bands. To say that we can detect extremely slight temperature field differences from tree ring growth is absurd. Tree ring growth can be influenced by many factors other than temperature.
This whole debate seems to be one in which the proponents have gotten so caught up in the evangelical message that a lot of seemingly intelligent people can't seem to see the forest for the trees!!! Or perhaps for the $$$$$ signs..................
Thanks... meaning 'caused by man' I suppose.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So I guess this means that since the new rallying cry is "AGW" we are told to believe that all global warming is caused by man.
It continues to get more and more absurd.................
Your info caused me to visit another source and I found this as another interretation of the "A"..................anthropogenic .................... essentially means the same thing.
Sorry, you are right - Anthropogenic is the word for human-caused. Anthropocentric is the word used to express a human-centered (some say biased) view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I was watching the Discovery-Science Channel, a show called "The Real Mars" (as if someone was out there promoting a fake Mars, or something). Anyway, the cold surface temps on Mars, the show stated, is due in part to the high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can not hold in the heat. Now! admittedly I was distracted as I was also looking at some of my work, but I could have sworn that's what was stated.
Isn't part of the whole GW hysteria over the increasing % of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere that traps heat?
Of course, it's interesting to note that Earth's atmosphere is basically 79% N2 gas, 20% O2 gas (that adds to 99% for you mathematically challenged folks), and traces of other gasses, which includes, in tiny amounts CO2 gas. So, my question is, even if CO2 doubled...that would mean it might go from being .2% to .4% how much difference can that make...really?
Now, Venus really enjoys the greenhouse effect! I need to research it, to find out the composition of Venus' atmosphere. Is it methane gas? Maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Martian atmosphere and temperatures.
Quote:
Atmosphere
Mars has an atmosphere that’s very thin compared to Earth’s. Mars’s atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide, about 3% nitrogen, and about 2% argon. Also, there are traces of other gases such as oxygen, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. Earth’s atmosphere is quite different. It’s 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .3% carbon dioxide along with traces of other gases.
Mars has three different types of clouds: large pink clouds made up of dust, blue clouds which scientists think are made up of ice crystals, and white clouds which are thought to be made up of water vapor.
Quote:
What is the typical temperature on Mars?
The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to
-200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.
The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.
In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C and the coldest is -15 Celsius in the Guisev Crater.
Thanks Double D!
So, Mar's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and its mostly very cold. That's interesting. Of course it is 50% further away from the sun than the Earth, which places it about 140 million miles from the sun (the Earth is 93 million miles) thus it receives less direct solar energy. But! Venus is further from the sun than Mercury and Venus has higher surface temps.
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.
Bill Pup, you already have the answer but here it is again: Anthropogenic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
No, not all greenhouses gases are directly produced by mankind but a significant portion of them are.
Speaking out of your ass again, Salty... What % of GHG emissions are you arguing are caused by mankind?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
As a % of the specific gas, and overall...
Water vapor?
Methane?
CO2?
NOx?
etc.
Ken, you're a LA Tech graduate, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
Not quite, but in May I will. I wait in suspense for the impending joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Oh, just that you are young and still learning.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
Let's cut to the chase and just say that the reason why atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing year after year is because of our burning fossils fuels and deforestation. It is this increase in CO2 levels that is responsible for higher levels of water vapor and possiby methane.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Why don't you tell us why you think CO2 levels are increasing every year?
Uh, the carbon cycle?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Water vapor is most definately a greenhouse gas...but what is the correlation between CO2 and water vapor? Methane?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And my tender young age of 24 can't reasonably fathom a legitimate threat out of the current CO2 levels....tell me how your ripe old age has allowed you better reasoning on this subject. Tell me how increases on the order of hundredth of a percent is a reason to dramatically curb industrialization in our country.
You haven't done anything that I've seen to prove your years are any more packed with wisdom than mine.
His argument will be that increasing CO2 increases temperature, which increases water vapor, which increases temperature even more. So its a feedback response to increasing temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
So an increase of 0.01% in atmospheric CO2 (and a total increase in atmospheric GHG of something like 0.0000000001%) causes an increase in temperature of X degrees, which causes an increase in water vapor of Y%. :icon_wink:
uh, wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
It takes an awfully simple mind to accept that the carbon cycle balances on an annual or near-annual timescale. Even the simplest feedback mechanisms (tree growth, etc.) is perhaps best judged in timescales hundreds of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It takes an awfully simple mind to accept that un-naturally injecting 7+ gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year has no consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
I have no doubt that injecting 7+gigatons of CO2 into a small area that was initially empty of CO2 would do a lot. But...Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1) how many gigatons of total "atmosphere" do we have?
2) how many gigatons of CO2 is pumped into the air each year naturally?
3) how much total volume does that CO2 get pumped into?
I have been appointed "judge" for this debate. Salty, you are losing. Any rebuttal?
Salty....loosing? I don't think so. Just the past few pages:
*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.
*CO2 is only 3/10 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, so it is such a small amount it can't be doing anything.
*"natural" cycles that took place "naturally" in 100 years.
*we are going to do okay because it is going to be so much warmer.
*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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
What about:
Previous peaks in atmospheric CO2 as a result of the natural carbon cycle were most likely higher than they are now.
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!
That is not a customary basis for recusal in the South.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
An atmosphere with a CO2 level of 600 ppm will seem downright uncomforatable for those of us use to 380 PPM.
Some record lows have also been reported. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Really????????????????????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It's all here>Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#Temp
I hope.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
The current average global temperature (in 2004) was 58.28 F.
what do you think it would be? I'd assume that the day-night swings would be greater, but I'm not sure exactly what the average would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
We'd probably all have skin cancer by the time we were 3.
The estimates for the average global temperature are from 4F to 15F. Probably the souther limit of the northern ice cap would be very close to Ruston.:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
So basically you don't know the answers to my questions? I imagine with no greenhouse gases it would be very cold. The weather today in Ruston is chilly and rainy.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1. The current atmospheric content of CO2 at .036% produces a 54F to 44F degree increase in the average global temperature. Pretty amazing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
2. 1F degree increase is not very much, but what about a 4F or 5F degree increase? Does that get your attention?
3. Who says more rain for the Sparta Aquifer? Maybe Drought City will be teh new kid on the block.
4. If plants could absorb the incresed amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, then why is the level of CO2 gone from 263 ppm to 380 PPM?
See above post. Take a trip to the North Pole this summer.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
(1) Nope - your ignoring wator vapor, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.. The CO2 effect is relatively small.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
(4) because the natural carbon cycle is resulting in a net increase in carbon injected into the atmosphere. given time, the earth, oceans, etc. will begin to absorb more CO2 than emitted, and we'll go the other way.
First, Salty...... It was not MY "point about cooling." It was from a post I copied to BB&B from Dr. Richard Courtney, a British scientist who happens to be part of the IPCC gang.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Second...... there IS NO LAW OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS which states that an increase in CO2 causes a rise in global temerature. All you have "discovered" is a very crude correlation based not even on true property measurements but on inferred and calculated "data" which can easily be manipulated (or cherry picked) to get the answer you want!!!
A "law of physics" is a relationship that can be meaured absolutely and replicated and gives exactly the same result time after time, regardless of who is doing the experiment. An example would be Archimedes Principle which states "that an object immersed in a fluid will experience a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid." Another would be the ideal gas law PV = nRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What's the average global temperature?
Well, Salty, there was a lot there. Here's an example from one of the papers in the link which deals with techniques to "resolve" ( e.g. get rid of) troublesome discontinuities in station temperature data just between time periods. Here's the first part of the abstract.......Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"The utility of a ‘‘first difference’’ method for producing temporally homogeneous large-scale mean time series is assessed. Starting with monthly averages, the method involves dropping data around the time of suspected discontinuities and then calculating differences in temperature from one year to the next, resulting in a time series of year-to-year differences for each month at each station.
These first difference time series are then combined to form large-scale means, and mean temperature time series are constructed from the first difference series. When applied to radiosonde temperature data, the method introduces random errors that decrease with
the number of station time series used to create the large-scale time series and increase with the number of temporal gaps in the station time series." ..........................
Bottom line: there's either missing data or data that we don't like so we drop it and then calculate some data that "fits" better.
1. Nope the CO2 effect is quite large. That is to say, a little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere goes a long way. Cutting the current level from 380 ppm to 190 ppm (without any feedback affects to the GHGs) would reduce the average global temperature by 1C or 2C degrees. Totally eliminating CO2 would result in those numbers increasing by a factor of 6, or a cooling of 6C to 12C degrees. That's because of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere there is maximum CO2 absorption over much of the region of the spectrum where it absorbs solar radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
As CO2 levels go up or down, its effects the other greenhouse gases.
4. True, but that balance point is hundreds of years away even if we stopped dumping all CO2 into the atmosphere today.
Actually, there is no such thing as an average global temperature. Temperature is an intensive property that cannot be "averaged." The temperature field for the earth's surface could actually show extremely large areas of truly increasing temperature changes but an "average" of all of the data could show "global cooling".Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
The atmospheric temperature field exists in all 3 dimensions, so to have a ideal measurement that could properly be averaged for say every cubic meter, would take over 8,000,000,000,000,000,000 measurement points. But since the atmosphere can be reasonably measured with satellite proxy measurements, this leaves only the surface, which is about 500,000,000,000,000 square meters. To really accurately measure the temperature field would require measuring devices in each square meter. But that's not practically possible so there have to be fewer points. But how low could the number go and still be provide the necessary accuracy density.
Actually we have only 5,000 such points today. So each point represents 100,000,000,000 square meters. That would make each one about 300 kilometers apart. But that's only if they were evenly distributed, which they are not. Most are densely clustered around large cities and airports leaving vast areas of the surface with measuring stations thousands of kilometers apart. this creates huge problems for the averaging process. And this is just for one point in time. When we add the time dimension and have to deal with gaps, etc. the problem gets infinitely more complex. And this is just for the fairly recent past. To go back before there were thermometers, all sorts of weird proxy data starts being used and from even more sparsely dispersed sampling points.
And with all these problems, (which virtually all of the IPCC true scientists will agree with privately) we come up with the "famous" T-REX hockey stick which is virtually void of any true meaning.
Thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
If most temperature sensors are in cities, are the measurements taken in cities flawed due to the "urban heat island effect"? The urban heat island effect can cause a deviation of in temperature readings because urban air can be 2-6 degrees C hotter than the surrounding rural areas. Is this effect factored into a global average temperature calculation that includes city temps?
1. Salty, have you ever taken any spectroscopic measurements of CO2 (IR, UV-VIS, etc.)? Have you actually compared that data with that of water vapor, ozone, etc.? Do I have to dig all of that up for you? As far as effecting the other greenhouse gases, the only way you get there is through temperature (or alternately, that NOx is also a byproduct of most industrial processes, so increasing CO2 means increasing NOx at the same time).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
4. We do not have enough data with respect to carbon cycles to make any such claim. Carbon cycle peaks are not spaced evenly, as Guisslap has pointed out. It averages to roughly every 100k years, but the standard deviation is pretty high.
Al Gore has Salty in his pocket, and that is how Salty likes it!
You mean .036% versus 0% raises the avg global temp 44-54F? I highly doubt that. If that were the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming then temperatures would have gone up way more if the greenhouse gases have increased so dramatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Waaaaah, gigatons, gigatons, waaaaah. There is no data that conclusively proves humans are causing significant GW through gas emissions. This has been stated many times and it doesn't change despite your repeated bleating.
Well, gee, a 50F swing would get my attention but there's no data to support it.Quote:
2. 1F degree increase is not very much, but what about a 4F or 5F degree increase? Does that get your attention?
More vapor = more rain. Maybe? Maybe? So these dire consequences of our actions are uncertain?Quote:
3. Who says more rain for the Sparta Aquifer? Maybe Drought City will be teh new kid on the block.
I didn't say plants could absorb it I was talking about how your biomass absorbing more CO2 statement was irrelevant.Quote:
4. If plants could absorb the incresed amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, then why is the level of CO2 gone from 263 ppm to 380 PPM?
To be fair to Salty, Ken, I should add that a low overall density of material with favorable scattering properties can result in significant total scattering of radiation. For example, the concentration of colloids (mostly fat-based) in milk is pretty small on a volumetric basis, but that low concentration is sufficient to completely scatter light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
But, this is not a scattering phenomena, it is an absorption phenomena. And absorption (assuming only one material is present) is directly proportional to the number of like molecules present, within certain limits.
Yes, the urban heat island effect is a very significant factor. I really don't know how many of the various GW averaging techniques try to account for this. And there are numerous techniques to try to account for this. In the petroleum insustry ( as well as in the mining industry) accounting for this "nugget effect" is one of the more daunting tasks facing engineers and geologists. The best tools for handling this are based in modern geostatistical methods such as Kriging. But even using these techniques you can get widely varying answers with just a slight tweaking of input control parameters. But it does give the best chance of properly accounting for the nuget effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
I would like to think that these techniques were being used -- and I can't say they're not --
but of several IPCC modelers I have had discussions with, none even knew what I was talking about. My guess is that they do try to account for this but probably with some simple point weighting technique, which can really lead you off course. But then if it gives you the answer they really want I guess they're happy with it.
The bottom line is that average global temperature is going up and you can see that in the retreat and disappearance of the glaciers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
The weather service takes temperatures around the world surfaces and oceans and averages them all out for the year or month. At least that is my understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
I give up. The average global temperature is goin' up because of all the hot air from Rush and Fox "News".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
Why don't you buy a textbook on AGW and read it.
There is no definitive book on AGW because the highly disputed assertions are just that, instead of facts. If this were pure fact then this whole debate wouldn't be raging.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
That isn't the main argument. A slight increase in global temperature has unknown effects, may or may not be caused by humans, and may or may not have been more extreme in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
randerizer, you're a scientist so you should be able to figger out what the average global temperature would be if all CO2 were remove from the atmosphere. In fact, it should be a piece of cake for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
What is required is that the total energy radiated by the Earth plus the atmosphere should remain the same.
Once you have that figger out, we can figger in what impact the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere would have on the other GHGs,
Good luck! (But you really don't need it because this is really elementary science.)
Wrong. There are several college level textbooks on AGW. If you weren't attending LA Tech you would probably know that.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
I don't know if this was posted on this thread yet but I'm not going to read 100 pages so..
The Great Global Warming Swindle (1hr +)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+swindle
well, it depends on more than that if you want better than a simple approximation. You would at least have to take into account some of the energy input from the sun, the ability of the surface of the earth and the oceans to absorb energy (wavelength dependent), etc... I'd also need to know something about the curvature of the earth and atmosphere, etc.). I'm just not interested in solving that problem at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
But I would not use the approximation that radiation in = radiation out. energy is absorbed by the earth itself.
And, this would assume that I have some suitable way to average temperatures. I'd suspect that nighttime temperatures would be changed to a greater extent than daytime temperatures. It's not beyond reason for me to think that daytime temperatures might actually INCREASE without GHGs. There is no doubt that it would be colder at night. But how do those balance into an average temperature for a single location, not to mention globally?
Copying my avatar again, Salty?
That statement just shows how little you know and/or understand about the complexities of "averaging", Salty!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Salty, there are a lot of "college level" textbooks out there that are complete BS!!!!! Now as far as AGW, what exactly are those titles and who wrote them???????Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
His AGW textbook has all the info anyone would need to know, right Salty? :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Typical liberal (eg cultural Marxist ) reply when confronted with an argument they can't answer!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Props for using the Marxist "bourgeois" analogy. :thumbsup: That is a classic Marx argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
106 pages and.....Has anyone changed their minds?
Yes. I was on the fence and generally indifferent. Now I think there are very significant gaps in awareness/discussion on the pro-AGW side. For example, the cyclical nature of the carbon cycle, and the problems with treating historical CO2 data (from ice cores, etc.) as absolute concentrations. Given the data that has been presented (and that I have researched since I became involved in this thread), all of the evidence suggests that we are nowhere near a peak CO2 concentration with respect to the natural carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
And that doesn't even begin to discuss the holes that I now see in the AGW side.
i have. i used to think there was no way someone with virtually no understanding of science would continue to argue with scientists and engineers about something scientific for over a year and a half!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
thanks, salty, for proving me wrong.
by the way, has anyone with a background in science or engineering or any applicable field offered their expertise on this subject in favor of agw?
What kind of engineer are you? And what courses did you take in Climatology while at Tech? Also, weren't you one of the ones who believe in the earth being 6000 +/- years old and dinosaurs floated on the ark? If not, my appologies.
I won't answer for Bob, but I'm not sure which of us you are referencing. I sure hope you don't think I believe in a 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs floating on an ark. Believing in 2 of each kind floating on an ark is an entirely other matter... :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I'm a highly trained chemical engineer, with a pretty good background in mass/heat transfer, fluid mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, basic modeling and simulation, etc. I also have extensive background in absorbance/scattering theories (think greenhouse effect) and related measurement techniques, chemistry, etc.. So I have no specific training in climatology, but I am probably better trained in 80% or so of "climatology science" than a typical climatologist that might be represented on the IPCC.
Oh, and I have no association with the oil industry, although I don't really think that being a part of the oil industry is a valid reason to disregard the arguments presented by others.
i am a chemical engineer, and i have discussed several times on this thread and its predecessors what my qualifications are to critique global warming hysteria. as for my beliefs, that is for another thread. belief in the supernatural has no bearing on this subject. we are talking about the purely natural and scientific. science alone is all we have, and all we need to resolve this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
my qualifications and beliefs don't matter. i'm not the only scientist/engineer on this board that has voiced opposition to agw. the fact that not one single person trained in the sciences agrees that agw is a significant threat should tell you something. in fact, i don't think i have ever heard of a pro-agw scientist who does not get his generous paycheck by creating global warming fear.
Don't know who you're referring to since you seem to be challenging credentials.... but I have BS and MS degrees in Petroleum Engineering and a PhD in Chem E., with minors along the way in Geology and Operations Research. Now retired , I have over 40 years experience in industry and I'm among the pioneers in use of computers to numerically model all types of fluid flow systems. This has involved the use of the largest and fastest supercomputer systems available. For several years I actually managed one of the largest supercomputer centers in the world, at the time running 3 of the largest Cray machines and 2 of IBM's largest supercomputers. Along the way I have developed and used discretized finite difference three dimensional models to simulate complex thermodynamic systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
So, I am very familar with the same type models that climate and weather modelers use since we often met and exchanged ideas at various supercomputer conferences. I have in the past exchanged ideas with a number of these scientists and still have contact with a few of them. I have the utmost respect for the folks actually trying to do the computer modeling as they probably have the most difficult modeling job that exists. the ones who ACTUALLY do the modeling are very upfront (in private) about the model limitations and what they actually produce. For every model result that gets summarazied in an IPCC "Official" Report, there are many runs from the same model that are not picked to publish!!!!
^ BillPup, with your high education in Engineering, do you think you are capable of figuring out what the
Earth's average global temperature would be if all CO2 were eleiminated from the atmosphere? After all, it's a 2nd year college question.
I asked our scientist buddy to do it but so far no respond.
Are you trying to suggest that if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no greenhouse effect, thus all IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface would be transmitted into space?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Sure, are you also buying collegiate level books written in Iran saying that the holocaust was made up to take land from the muslims and give it to the jews?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Are you comparing LA Tech to colleges in Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
I'm not suggesting anything. Just asking our highly trained scientists and engineers to figure out what would be the average global temperature if the atmosphere had no CO2 in it. The answer can be with or without figuring the feedback from the other greenhouse gases. Guiesslapp, you might want to try your hand at it since you seem to possess above average intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The current average global temperature is about 54F.
Typical bogus reply when refusing to recognize valid science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Typical nonsense from somebody who should know better.:bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Ah, so you did find the average global temperature!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Congrats.
Salty...............Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I have stated numerous times on here that there is no such thing as an"average global temperature". Temperature ia an intensive property which cannot be simply averaged either in space or in time. There is a temerature field which can depict large temperature gradients within a relatively small spatial realm and our earth is full of just such scenarios.
No, I am not capable of figuring out what an average global temperature is under any condition, for just the reasons I've cited above. If all CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, none of us would survive for very long, since CO2 is as essential for all plant life as oxygen is for us. Without CO2 we would have nothing to eat except ourselves.
As for the simple 2nd year college remark, since you think it's so simple why don't you tell us?????
I was trying to help Bill Pup or randerizer. Anyway, the average global temperature (in 2004) was about 58F, not 54F.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
And going up.
And show your "math."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You need to exercise your little gray cells. And show your math.
Remember, I asked you first.
Hey, Bill, you don't have to make up weird story about "temperature gradiants." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Besides, it is a scientific exercise designed to test your knowledge of atmospheric physics of global warming.
Anyway, I'm driving out to Las Vegas for a couple of weeks tomorrow. If none of you "whiz kids" can or won't do it, then I guess I will when I get back.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Still hoping that randerizer can do it.
Well, Salty, temperature field gradients (pay more attention to the spelling next time) are not weird. What's weird is the entire concept of an average global temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
My knowledge of atmospheric global warming doesn't need testing, especially by you!!!!! If you want to go back and read all my posts on this subject you will see that I have never claimed to be an expert on climatology as a whole. What I have pointed out on numerous posts is that there are serious problems with how the very basic data has been manipulated to form the basis for subsequent work by other ( probably very well meaning) scientists
who assume what they are working with is "accurate."
What I do have a fairly high level of expertise in is the mathematical simulation of multi dimensional thermodynamic systems on computers using discretized finite difference techniques. It is based on this background and my personal contacts with some of the IPCC modelers that I comment on the complete lack of true scientific validation of most of the crap that is being spewed by the likes of Al Gore and you!!!!!!
Well Salty, we're going to hold you to it when you get back from Vegas. BTW, why don't you just write down some of the dice results you get out there. that data will probably be just as good as some of the stuff currently parading as absolute "proof" of GW.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg