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.

 

[murphy1244]

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.

I think you mean R22.Found it. HFO-1234yf will be the replacement with very little problems.

 

[RobertBrown]

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?

Changing refrigerants creates a lot of jobs.........
Not that it's ethical.......but use your head, thats a lot of work, a lot of manufacturing.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

What is replacing R-134a?

 

[toppop52]

I think you mean R22.Found it. HFO-1234yf will be the replacement with very little problems.

No, I meant R-134a, why do people think they know what I mean better than I?

The home mechanic, looking at a can or two of R12 or R134a, may think that government concern over refrigerant is overblown. However, CFCs like R12 have been found high in the atmosphere, where they destroy ozone (since CFCs have been regulated, the ever-widening holes in the ozone layer have been healing themselves). In addition, R134a is 1,400 times as effective at trapping heat as carbon dioxide; a few leaks from a few cars would probably not have any serious impact, but there are an estimated (by the auto industry) 400 million mobile air conditioners out there.

Europe is phasing out R134a due to its relationship to global warming. Carbon dioxide, the current E.U. favorite to replace R134a, is the least powerful greenhouse-gas, but requires high pressures, and is less effective. However, in the United States, the approved replacement is HFO-1234yf. This new refrigerant is dramatically less likely to affect climate change than R134a, and while it will not be required until the 2017 model year, automakers can get greenhouse gas credits from the 2012 to 2016 model years by using it. The new gas was created by Honeywell and DuPont.

R134a, which replaced R12, lives for around 13 years in the atmosphere before breaking down; its “global warming potential” (GWP) is 1,400. 1234yf, on the other hand, breaks up in around 11 days, for a GWP of 4. It was developed to meet European Union directives, which demand a refrigerant with a GWP of less than 150.

Whether HFO-1234yf can be used as a replacement for R-134a is still unclear, but it seems unlikely, as R134a will not be banned; instead, it will have a hefty tax which will prevent frivolous use (e.g. putting in three or four cans a month) and tip the balance for many customers from “frequent refills” to “repair.”

 

[murphy1244]

No, I meant R-134a, why do people think they know what I mean better than I?

And???? I did clarify my statement.

 

[toppop52]

I think you mean R22.Found it. HFO-1234yf will be the replacement with very little problems.

Sorry, that was a clarification but not a clear clarification!

 

[Cat_Driver]

OH SO SORRY Liberals and tree hugger. BUT....NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature–NOT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

BUT go ahead suckers and Koolaid drinkers keep blaming HUMMERS and SUV's BWHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
For every scientis you say humans are the cause of Global warming I'll bring in 20 scientists that say you scientists are full of it.

 

[Cat_Driver]

OH SO SORRY Liberals and tree hugger. BUT....NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in natureé‹’OT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

BUT go ahead suckers and Koolaid drinkers keep blaming HUMMERS and SUV's BWHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
For every scientis you say humans are the cause of Global warming I'll bring in 20 scientists that say you scientists are full of it.

BEST LINE of the article:

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

 

[IslandTractor]

OH SO SORRY Liberals and tree hugger. BUT....NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature驪丹T from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

BUT go ahead suckers and Koolaid drinkers keep blaming HUMMERS and SUV's BWHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
For every scientis you say humans are the cause of Global warming I'll bring in 20 scientists that say you scientists are full of it.

BEST LINE of the article:

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can稚 do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Welcome back Cat. You must have had a good rest over the past few days. Now we see you are once again digging up old news that has been previously debunked. Did you bother to read the NASA study (which is hardly news having been published several years ago). Nah, you didn't read it because your frickin' blog site doesn't even give the reference. Congratulations Cat, I'd like to sell you a bridge. And you found yet another denier blog site. Congratulations on that too.

Did ya have fun last night? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Here is some information for you to consider on the sun and global warming.

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. During that period the earth is warming. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

Here is a chart showing recent sun activity and earth warming.



Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

 

[Cat_Driver]

This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

Here is a chart showing recent sun activity and earth warming.

View attachment 287915

OK first the "cheery pick"reference, pot meet kettle. The entire Global warming model is based on "Cherry picked" evidence and "fudged" numbers. remember the link to the 300 hacked e-mails proving FAKE data to prove Global warming. Why does any scientist need to fake data. OH I KNOW so they could get more GRANT MONEY, it's that simple.

Ya I may be 100% wrong, but I tend to side with the ..... 31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming?

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

More quotes...
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

Are you understanding my point at all?

My point is THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

The current argument ( which is hilarious ) is how many scientists believe WHAT. Admit it that's funny. THIS LINE ESPECIALLY ..scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence.

No longer arguing the science BUT what scientists believe what.

IF and I say IF Gullible warming was real then there would be 100% consensus, after all, data is data, math is math - right.

And with all this doubt, still, the government is so sure they want to collect money from me. NO nothing fishy there huh.

Like I said I can match scientist to scientist, web site to web site, fancy graph to fancy graph. Here's my fancy graph.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online