Global Warming?

[skspurling]

...

The Nature paper certainly doesn't contain anything damning of AGW greenhouse gas hypothesies. Kirkby in the lecture he gave (I posted the link last night) makes zero claims about dismissing CO2 as a major factor in AGW and in fact shows a graph demonstrating what a big impact CO2 has on warming. He doesn't address either the continued warming trend over the past 25 years in a period of increasing cosmic radiation which should, by the cosmic ray theory, result in cooling. ...
.

Okay, this is the question I have about this CO2 issue that no one has been able to answer. What is the mechanism? All studies I have glossed talk about a relationship, but according to studies about the effect of CO2 on IR absorption and reflection, there should be a lot less of an effect. The graphs linking temperature to CO2 are ridiculous. You have two observations that may or may not be related other than they look similar. I was always told in all my science and engineering classes that you NEVER assume that two graphs that look similar are related in any way unless you can describe and reproduce the nature of the mechanism that connects the two. In reality, we could probably associate an increase in surface water and atmospheric water vapor with the increase in temperature, and connect that to human activity. Water is a strong acting green house gas, and we are pumping from underground sources faster than they are refilling. We are building and replacing surface water reservoirs.Why CO2? CO2 could be a product, not a cause, and you would never know the difference.

Then comes the political arm of the AGW crowd. There have been too many people who have been made examples of by the AGW establishment, that results that don't meet their muster have to be spun in such a way as to not offend those in the know. Why do the CERN researchers have to bend over backwards to talk about CO2, when the focus is on what effects cosmic rays have on atmospheric patterns? Because if that connection is made, or if CO2's effect is put in doubt, they risk serious career damage. This is not good. I'll tell you why it is CO2. It's CO2 because that can be regulated and is politically expedient. If it isn't, I would really like to know how a weak greenhouse gas suddenly became such a demon.

 

[toppop52]

The San Joaquin Valley use to be the bottom of the ocean, was that AGW?

 

[IslandTractor]

The San Joaquin Valley use to be the bottom of the ocean, was that AGW?

Ever heard of plate tectonics? I don't know specifically about San Joaquin but certainly there are non climate related reasons for such changes.

 

[toppop52]

I would really like to know how a weak greenhouse gas suddenly became such a demon.

It's the same with R-12, which is heavier than air and lays on the ground when released, yet it was blamed for holes in the ozone layer 15 miles or so up. Later, the main proponent of this admitted that he was wrong, but that was after untold billions were spent switching to R-134 which as bad or worse overall, and is it's self now being phased out for an even more expensive and less efficient replacement. How much money and how many jobs are the AGW people going to piss away before they are smacked down?

 

[toppop52]

Ever heard of plate tectonics? I don't know specifically about San Joaquin but certainly there are non climate related reasons for such changes.

Yes, yes there are. Well said, now apply that other places.

 

[IslandTractor]

Okay, this is the question I have about this CO2 issue that no one has been able to answer. What is the mechanism? All studies I have glossed talk about a relationship, but according to studies about the effect of CO2 on IR absorption and reflection, there should be a lot less of an effect. The graphs linking temperature to CO2 are ridiculous. You have two observations that may or may not be related other than they look similar. I was always told in all my science and engineering classes that you NEVER assume that two graphs that look similar are related in any way unless you can describe and reproduce the nature of the mechanism that connects the two. In reality, we could probably associate an increase in surface water and atmospheric water vapor with the increase in temperature, and connect that to human activity. Water is a strong acting green house gas, and we are pumping from underground sources faster than they are refilling. We are building and replacing surface water reservoirs.Why CO2? CO2 could be a product, not a cause, and you would never know the difference.

Then comes the political arm of the AGW crowd. There have been too many people who have been made examples of by the AGW establishment, that results that don't meet their muster have to be spun in such a way as to not offend those in the know. Why do the CERN researchers have to bend over backwards to talk about CO2, when the focus is on what effects cosmic rays have on atmospheric patterns? Because if that connection is made, or if CO2's effect is put in doubt, they risk serious career damage. This is not good. I'll tell you why it is CO2. It's CO2 because that can be regulated and is politically expedient. If it isn't, I would really like to know how a weak greenhouse gas suddenly became such a demon.

Here is the IPCC report link for your first question: 2.1 Introduction and Scope - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Regarding your second concern about politics and AGW. I think the notion that science is stifled is over blown by the deniers. There is little doubt that popular theories get more funding but that is very different from the notion that any science that might possibly contradict existing theory is suppressed. Look at the CERN study on cosmic rays. That was a very expensive study done at a premier physics institute with CERN funding. How is that suppression of evidence? I would turn the question back on you: why do skeptics rely on oil industry funding? Could it just possibly be that the oil industry would like to discredit greenhouse gas theories because there are negative implications for their corporate profits? Does the analogy with the American Tobacco Institute funding of various skeptic groups on cancer and cigarette smoke not ring a familiar bell?

 

[Dustier]

In reality, we could probably associate an increase in surface water and atmospheric water vapor with the increase in temperature, and connect that to human activity. Water is a strong acting green house gas, and we are pumping from underground sources faster than they are refilling. We are building and replacing surface water reservoirs.Why CO2? CO2 could be a product, not a cause, and you would never know the difference.

Then comes the political arm of the AGW crowd. There have been too many people who have been made examples of by the AGW establishment, that results that don't meet their muster have to be spun in such a way as to not offend those in the know. Why do the CERN researchers have to bend over backwards to talk about CO2, when the focus is on what effects cosmic rays have on atmospheric patterns? Because if that connection is made, or if CO2's effect is put in doubt, they risk serious career damage. This is not good. I'll tell you why it is CO2. It's CO2 because that can be regulated and is politically expedient. If it isn't, I would really like to know how a weak greenhouse gas suddenly became such a demon.

You probably have a point on the greenhouse effect of water in the atmosphere, but not likely underground aquifers or lakes, excepting perhaps, the Great Lakes. But the cycle of evaporation from the Earth into the atmosphere and redeposited as rain is not an issue - yet, although Venus looms large as an example of the possible runaway effects.

Frankly, the closer one focuses on the minutiae the more flexible scientific conclusions become. Hurricane Andrew began the realization of climate change due to its size and $25 billion dollar price tag - about to be eclipsed by Sandy. Weather events, though, are just single events, but they make up a trend that looks remarkably like climate change, i. e. a lot of rain where it usually does not fall or dry weather where rain should be the norm. Comparing the latter referenced trends along with other data like temperature, regional abnormalities, melting glaciers, expanding deserts, and the destructive nature of pumping tons of various toxins into the atmosphere and human history, simply has to result in some effect on the environment.

The CO2 factor, we were warned about for years, was one suggesting a tipping point from which irreversible damage and natural/environmental blow back would be triggered. I believe it was 400 parts/billion - we have topped that and the increase continues apace. So, in a sense, industrialized countries have irreversibly damaged the atmosphere, land and water to such an extent, we, as inhabitants of this planet, will have to learn how to survive in a new world order being imposed by nature itself.

 

[murphy1244]

It's the same with R-12, which is heavier than air and lays on the ground when released, yet it was blamed for holes in the ozone layer 15 miles or so up. Later, the main proponent of this admitted that he was wrong, but that was after untold billions were spent switching to R-134 which as bad or worse overall, and is it's self now being phased out for an even more expensive and less efficient replacement. How much money and how many jobs are the AGW people going to piss away before they are smacked down?

What are they switching R-134 too????Where do you get this info??

 

[toppop52]

Hurricane Andrew began the realization of climate change due to its size...

Andrew was quite small and compact, so if we are to get called to the carpet for misstatements, let it hold true for all.

 

[toppop52]

R-134a is being targeted as a greenhouse gas and the current testing in the Kyoto Treaty signed nations such as the EU and Japan a few years ago was a hybrid C02, the hybrid part I do not know. That's why that although there is no real shortage of R-134a prices have gone through the roof, companies arn't ramping up production of something that most of the world will be eliminating ASAP.