gunnut

If it's true and humans have nothing to do with it, why all the fuss?

We have seen world wide temperature slightly drop over the last few years, should we worry about the next ice age?

Bottomline, earth's climate is always changing. We hve no say in it. One day, doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air right now, glaciers will reclaim North America, just like it did during the last ice age. Ain't nothing we can do about it.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Trovinras

Depending on ones point of view I'm in the middle I'm certain that what Humans are doing are having some effect but blame it all on humanity I think is a unfair assumption to make.

And seen it rise over the last couple of years it will go up and down, though I would say that from 1800 and until current time there have been a general increasing of the worldwide temperatur. I agree with that Earths Climate is changing which we have numorous sources of from the world history the frozen river of thems, Greenland being Green when the Wikings arrived and so on.

dalem

The concept of anthropogenic global warming is most certainly fiction.

-dale

dalem

From one of the many many threads we have on this topic (and you'll find me waving my arms, howling, and sometimes throwing my own dung in each of them ) where I summed it up for me:

"There's no proof that increased CO2 is bad, there's no proof that it's a driver and not a follower, and there's no proof that humans did, can, or could do anything to influence it in any meaningful way.

There is, however, solid proof that the people telling us that it's bad, a driver, and within our responsibility and capability are using bad data (Mann, Hansen), cooked conclusions (IPCC), and deliberate scare tactics (Al Gore) to sway opinion, control our lives, and make money.

That's why I think that anyone who falls for it is a bit of a ninny, at best a useful idiot, and at worst a social engineer of the worst sort.

That's as clear and concise a summary as I've ever come up with."

-dale

svguy

Potentially agreed with; but then again the term "bad" isn't a horribly objective one, is it?

That goes in the face of about 150 years of physics, chemistry, and a world of everyday pragmatic applications that deal with the thermodynamic responses of gases to longwave radiation.

Concentrations could well be a follower based on outgassing. And, of course, given the composition and structure of our little ball of blue, being a driver and a foloower are not mutually exclusive, as you tend to imply.

The C12:13:14 ratio studies indicate that, at the very least, humans *did* something to influence the CO2 levels to a decent amount.

Current usage does tell me that they, at the present time, that we cannot at this moment (or do not wish to) do anything about it.

Humans most assuredly could do something about CO2 levels.

(Or did you mean "it" as AGW effect of CO2 here?)

As to your previous request, in the absence of other phenomena, the "equation" for change in temperature due to added CO2 follows the form:

dT = A * ln (Co + dC/Co), where dT is a change in temperature, A is a factor that is derived using various "backfill" techniques (and has been derived in form or another since Arhennius), ln is a natural logarithm, Co is an initial concentration, and dC is a change in that concentration over the the time period dT.

As noted, the curve of this response is logarithmic.

Of course, as well, this takes into account no other phenomena and only describes the thermal response of CO2 due to longwave re-emission.

Of course, there is much debate over the proper "A", which have ranged from 1.1 (from the AGW opponents side) to 6 (Arhenius, we love ya.....) to about 3 - 3.5 (on the AGW proponents side). It should be noted that this factor as used in the "AGW wars" *is not* of CO2 by itself, but of CO2 which is assumed to be mixed in a wet atmosphere with other potential GHG (including good ol' water), which can overlap to a good deal with the absorption bands of these other components.

Sorry, but just about *any* multi-atom component is a "driver" in the sense that they absorb longwave radiation and re-emit it. Some more than others...

The debate does not center on "whether" CO2 is a driver as defined above, but on the extent of the effect it in light of other "signals" that compose the net energy flux.

dalem

Right. In a closed system, sure, put more free CO2 in the gaseous envelope and a body below should heat up at a greater rate than "mere" incident radiant energy would indicate. But planetary climate is not a closed system, so CO2 cannot be considered as a de facto driver for this "global warming" thingie.

-dale

svguy

This may be semantics, but it still would be a driver. It will still absorb longwave, and it will still re-emit. I have no idea what you consider to be a de facto driver. A driver is a driver is a driver, I have no idea what arbitrary line delineates a de facto driver from a de jure driver from a sunday driver.....

The question is not whether that happens or not, but to the extent it does. A "driver" (even if it has signal on the order of 10-9 thingamebobbies) is still a driver. The function does not change; it still acts to re-emit incident longwave; to act as a thermal re-source.

Even the staunchest skeptics typically do not take the stance that CO2 is not a driver; they will say that, due to absorption overlap (or whatever attenuation aspect they believe in), then the full driver "effect" is not met to the level that the proponents state.

If you want to say that the contribution of CO2 is not on the order of the IPCC estimates; nor on the order of the Arhenius estimates; nor for that matter on the order of the Lindzen estimates, that is one thing, and is the subject of a different line of science. It is quite another to say that it doesn't exist in our atmosphere.

7thsfsniper

Two opinions I absolutely agree with! When I mentioned earlier that the effect man has on global climate change was negligible. This is what I meant. Ryan summed it well. How absolutely arrogant of man to think we are such masters of our world that we can affect global clmate change good or bad. Now maybe if we all lit up all globally available nukes simultaneously I would admittedly call that AGW!

And the most nefarious point Dale has hit. Al Gore and his insider Gore-bots, its ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND FOOLS ARE GIVING IT TO HIM! But need I reiterate what they say about a fool and his money?!

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

LetsTalk

Lets assume global warming is not happening; or if it is happening, lets assume that it is not harmful.

So what is the harm of driving more gas efficient cars? Is the problem less pollution and less asthmatics? Less money for the Saudis, Iranians... and the oil companies?

What is the harm of producing more electricity using wind mills and solar panels? Less pollution? American technicians installing and maintaining these technologies?

Shek

Less pollution may not be a bad thing. It's all a cost-benefit decision, whether there is AGW or not.

However, we should be very careful not to confuse our economics. Green American technologies that displace dirty American technologies (like those bad ol' big oil companies) may or may not be a net gain. We shouldn't assume that new "green" technology is better, even if we put the "green" label on it. We shouldn't assume that we need to prevent "fill in coastal city name here" from being submerged under water in scenario ABC123. It may be more cost effective to move "fill in coastal city name here" inland.

I could rattle off many more examples, but the key point here is to not become myopic on either costs or benefits, but that we must look at both sides of the coin.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

dalem

I mean that CO2 is not a [idriver[/i] of "global warming" in the sense that it is decoupled from the temperature curves that we have extrapolated throughout paleohistory. Sometimes CO2 rises ahead of temp, sometimes it trails, sometimes it does nothing related. So it's clear that CO2 isn't driving global temp.

Again, you don't understand how climate works. No one does yet. So you don't know "whether it happens or not" either.

You assume an automatic "I add a million tons of free CO2 into the atmosphere and the global temperature WILL increase by some amount."

You can't prove that. Maybe someday, with enough climatological study, you will, but not right now.

-dale

dalem

Let's assume Rosie O'Donnel's doctor tells her that she is a big fat pig, and that she's going to die a painful death in a year unless she votes for McCain, stops eating whole goats and turkey legs, and gives a million dollars to the NRA.

Let's also assume that Rosie O'Donnel's doctor is lying, and that Rosie is actually pretty darned healthy, just a few pounds up.

Now, doing those things her doctor told her to are good things on their own - but at what cost to Rosie? She'll go through emotional pain, fear of death, may change personal relationships for no reason, may spend all of her money because she thinks she doesn't need it anymore, etc.

So my answer to you is that there is no harm in the specific actions you mention, but so the **** what? Pretending that human industry affects the planetary climate is stupid and silly and wasteful. Any scientist willfully and knowingly encouraging such a thing should be ashamed of themselves.

-dale

7thsfsniper

HAHAHAHAHA......Rosie!......BWAHAHAHAHA! Thats a great analogy Dale!

LetsTalk

Dale, you make such great arguments

OK, I am convinced Global warming is this huge global conspiracy.

Pollution only exists in my imagination.

Renewable energy is bad for the economy, who really needs it, let’s just burn more coal and oil! What is the harm we have done it for the last 100 years. Besides we import so much of our energy, why not continue, why mess with such a great thing. I love what the Saudis and Iranians are doing with the oil money.

Why make more efficient vehicles, and lower the demand for oil? Personally, I can not wait for $4 gas!!! I just can not hold my excitement!

7thsfsniper

Once again, well said Shek.

I have spent the extra money to equip my house with high efficiency fixtures(flourescent lights, high efficiency heat pump, extra insulation). I did this solely to save money. If it wouldn't have benefitted my wallet in the long run, I probably would not have done it. I have invested a bunch of money in my one ton chevy but will experience double the gas mileage when complete. Over 20 mpg on 87 octane. All that I do is good for me and the planet. See....I can compromise.

An example of what Shek is talking about could be electric cars. They are made just like a conventional autos, but have times more batteries. Batteries are very hazardous materials that contain lead and zinc. Most cars today have only one. Electric cars utilize up to 24. imagine if all the cars had that many batteries that require replacement every 3 to five years. An engine can go many years without replacement. New lithium-ion battery tech is promising in making electric cars lighter and last longer, but the manufacturing and disposal after use potential for pollution is still there.

We must make sure we actually go green and just not shift from one type of pollution to another that may seem OK now but may pose even more dangerous hazards in the future.

Lots of products are made from oil. Fuel is still the main one and most other products are made from the by-products of the fuel refining process.

So here's a question I think pertinent. Some of you Limbaugh listeners have heard this before. If you don't burn oil, what are you going to do with it?