LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotedouble post.... sorry
I don't:Originally Posted by dalem
I'm saying, should you be demanding proof of a correlation between climate change and CO2 emissions, or should you be demanding evidence of a strong chance?
Considering that if there is a strong chance, then the gravity of the perceived consequences would warrant preventative action.
Last edited by Ramo; 21 Aug 07, at 05:45.
double post.... sorry
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 21 Aug 07, at 07:46.
Well dalem, I am only asking one question at a time. Sorry to get you this defensive. The question (and only question) on the books is:
Do you believe that C02 absorbs longwave radiation that is emitted by a body, and re-emits that absorbed longwave radiation in the IR spectra. Yes, or no.
What I am doing here is simply ascertaining the "specific" points, on a point by point basis, on whether you agree with them. If you don't, feel free to explain why.....
If you noticed, the first question deals solely with the body of work started by Arhennius over a century ago, and has not even addressed the role (if any) of the basic physics in that climate model.
*You* are the person that demands "proof." I am filling in the tableau to see what (if any) evidence should be brought forth. But I would consider your first response as a "I dont give a sh-t what is said" answer.....
So, yes or no. Should be easy.
Btw, I do know that you a fellow science type. (Geologist background, right?) I would suggest that the more appropriate approach to the scientific analysis is not a "proof". A "proof" (having a math degree in addition to to my hard science stuff) is more appropriately reserved to geometry and the other mathematical sciences. "Proofs" *are* absolute. Period.
In the scientific method, the "balance of evidence" and theories that can explain that evidence are the important matters. Scientists predict outcomes, and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in. As you will remember from your geology, there is no "proof" of of continental drift.... or "proof" of evolution..... just confirmations, modifications, and or contradictions based upon the evidence at hand.
The purpose of the questions is to see *how much* of the individual items out there you either agree with or disagree with. Doesn't do anyone much good with something as complex as the theory (yes "theory") of GW, or more particularly, AGW for someone to simply yell "I dont agree" and run back inside. With all due respect, that is somewhat exactly what your post has just done.
My apologies if my individual questions tire or bore you, but you *are* the one who is demanding "proof", are you not?
Cites please. (btw I am aware of the Berylium studies, but you would also note that the Be studies are all pretty much at odds with one another.....)2) The confirmed fact that the Sun has been extremely active over the last few centuries, and especially the last few decades.
In fact, many studies relating to solar output go opposite to your assertion.
Well..... prove: a) that the temps are rising; b) that this has nothing more than a hill of beans to do with the question. I mean, you wish to have "proof" of links between GW and CO2 levels, but interestingly fail to provide the same level that you request with your *ahem* snippet and the supposed (I assume) solar largess that you allude to in your last point. So, please prove not only the temperatures rising on the bodies, but please prove your assumption that is implied in your last statement (i.e. that the Sun is the driving force in each and every instance on each solar body that you allude to....)3) Temperatures also rising on Mars and other planetary bodies.
But I would rather get back to the simple first question I asked about the basic physics properties of CO2 in response to longwave radiation, before we get carried off on multiple tangents.
Btw dale, since you ask for "proof", what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels? I would be very interested to hear *exactly* what you would consider as proof....
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 21 Aug 07, at 08:05.
There is only a correlation so far, about the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere and the rise in global temperature.
There has been some sketchy evidence in the past that suggests this as well. However, there have been doubts on the data presented linking past events.
Even today, who's to say that "we" are the major source of CO2 in the atmosphere? When the earth gets warm, the ocean gets warm. There's CO2 dissolved in sea water. How much of the increased CO2 is from the ocean water vs. from human activities?
How much effects does 350 parts per million vs. 250 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, on a planetary scale, on our planet?
Think about this. How much is 350 ppm? That's 0.035% of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Rev. Al and the Global Warming Cult likes to compare this to Venus, which has a "runaway" greenhouse effect. Do a research on Venus. Its atmosphere is 90 times thicker than ours and composed of 95% CO2.
Now think about that number for a minute. What we have here is less than insignificant. To go from 250ppm to 350ppm sounds like a lot. But that just means we're going from insignificant to slightly more than insignificant.
I'm not saying this increase has no effect. It just has negligible effect when compared to increased solar activity, earth's positioin in space, the sun's position within the galaxy...blah blah blah.
Earth has been warmer. Earth has been cooler. The earth gets warmer when it wants to and cooler when it wants to. We really have no say in it.
Here's another example of "environmental" science scaring people.
Ever heard of "nuclear winter?" Supposedly if we have a full scale nuclear exchange, the blasts will kick up so much dust that the earth will experience another ice age.
Well, that was a crock of bull. Krakatoa in 1815 put up more dust than our entire nuclear arsenal combined ever could. And it lowered global temperature in 1816 by a degree or 2. That's actually a lot in one year. And it was unpleasant. But the earth went back to normal 2 years after that.
Trust me. We aren't that powerful. The global warming cultists are practicing what is called egocentrism. They think we are powerful enough to influence the planet. It's about the same as people who think god/gods/deities really care about us on a personal level.
No offense to religious folks here. I don't mind religion as long as it's not trying to alter my way of life.
Last edited by gunnut; 21 Aug 07, at 07:55.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
The former, of course.
-dale
Tanq-
You are correct about the exact meaning of the term "proof" - I have posted on this topic here (and elsewhere as you know) too many times to go through the details of argument each and every time, so I merely use "prove it" as a colloquialism. After all, the burden of "proof" lies woth the proponents of new theories, does it not?
But instead let's focus on evidence, and the weight thereof. So far there is no evidence of human effort affecting global climate. None. There are simple correlations that are not consistant, and there are other, already-known mechanisms that affect global climate - continental drift, orbital mechanics, vulcanism, and solar output, for instance.
Poorly-based semi correlations of Carbon levels do not begin to counter those known mechanics. Someday, with enough study, we may discover a solid relation between industrial output and global climate, although I personally doubt it.
So I am not advocating less study, merely properly-directed study without the scary worst-case stories.
Check the "I love being right about global warming" thread for some of the links I've posted about both Solar output and temps of other planetary bodies, and the known problems with some of those data as well.
-dale
We arent the major source. "Natural" sources of CO2 are estimated to make up about 150 Gtons/yr. Anthropogenic sources make up between 5.5 and 7 Gtons/yr.
But, that *isnt* the correct question to ask, and the raw outputs are somewhat misleading when the real question is asked.
Almost none.When the earth gets warm, the ocean gets warm. There's CO2 dissolved in sea water. How much of the increased CO2 is from the ocean water vs. from human activities?
First, the oceans are acting as a carbon *sink*. While CO2 must be released from the ocean (laws of physics), in order to be a sink *more* C02 must be absorbed by them than they release. Since the C02 content is rising, they cannot be a net source for the cycle. The increased sea CO2 has been observed in more than 20 published studies using 6 independent methods.
Well..... that ties back to question #1 I asked. CO2 has been shown to be a quite active absorber of longwave radiation, and re-emiter of that radiation. Again, you ask the wrong question. That tiny percentage of C02 can be shown to be quite good and effective in the total absorbtion/reemmission equation in a columnar atmosphere. Estimates of the .035% effect on total greenhouse effect run from 10% to 30%. But, in order to appreciate the effect, you have to understand the physics behind it. The simple statement that it only constitutes .038% doesn't even begin to touch on the physical principles that are involved, would you not agree?How much effects does 350 parts per million vs. 250 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, on a planetary scale, on our planet?
Think about this. How much is 350 ppm? That's 0.035% of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Actually it is significant in terms of greenhouse effect. This is epecially so since the CO2 does most of its work in the topmost levels of the atmosphere, where water vapor really doesnt exist.Now think about that number for a minute. What we have here is less than insignificant. To go from 250ppm to 350ppm sounds like a lot. But that just means we're going from insignificant to slightly more than insignificant.
The radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 - the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%. Again, by looking solely at absolute levels without bothering to consider the physics behind them does not do your argument any favors.
And by the way, the present concentration is more at the 385 level.
I dont think I have put forth *any* "case study, have I? In fact, I haven't even made a single refernce to climate effects in this single question, have I? So back to the original question, do you agree that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and re-radiates it in the IR band?
Simple yes or no.
And, what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?
btw, I would throw a "strawman" foul at you for claiming (presciently, apparently) that what I am asking or will ask (or will relate) would be any form of a "loosely based correlation", ala Al Gore........
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 21 Aug 07, at 09:02.
Why is it that every opponent of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change is required to come up with proof of it not happening.
Why should we provide you with the 'proofs' you seek?
If, and of course this is a gross assumption on my part given your cautious approach, you are a proponent of human factors affecting the global climate, I'd like to see a proof please, not waste my time arguing against scotch mist.
Ok, thanks.
Here's a question for a few of you guys:
In which scenario would you believe a reduction in carbon emissions is warranted, assuming the effects of global warming were on par with what the more sensible climate-doomers are predicting:
1. Scientists prove that humans are significantly contributing to climate change through CO2 emissions.
2. 100% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
3. 90% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
4. 80% of scientists are 99.99% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
5. 100% of scientists are 90.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
6. 100% of scientists are 80.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
7. 100% of scientists are 70.00% sure that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.
Do see where I'm going? At which point do you consider the risks of the possibility of climate change to outweigh the benefits of limitless carbon emissions?
Oh, and gunnut, what gave you the impression that I believe humans are causing climate change?
while everyone is debating this ,i read that the pole has dropped even lower and melted faster than anticipated ,there are islands coming out of the sea now, they where not there 2 years ago ,i think we are in for a bumpy ride,if motor cars are causing this climate change and i believe it is then we must stop using things that cause co2 omissions right now ,full stop.its no use cutting back ,its like someone who smokes 40 a day cutting back to 10 aday
he is still doing himself harm ,i think we are too late and nature always reclaims what is hers anyway.
Your a numbers man are you?
Your scientific number crunching sounds pretty persuasive only for those not thinking. Let me explain....
You fail to understand some simple facts about 'ole mother earth that Dale and Gun keep telling you.
1. The earth has been hotter than present many times before. Fact. that can be backed up by fossil and ice core data.
2. The sun is in a very active state, for a few decades it has been hotter than the recent years prior to solar radiation increase. Fact.that can be backed up by sensors on Mars, sensors on space probs, and sensor aimed at the moon. Fact. That can be backed up by reading taken by scientist at JPL and Nasa and earth based sensors and sensor in the upper atmosphere
3. Historical evidence, Vikings living ranching and farming Greenland. Abandon Villages found under the frozen Siberian North. Frozen men found in the Alps thousands of years under the ice to be un-iced by this new period of global warming. Fact.
4. Coral reefs that are many meters higher than the oceans current level. Fact.
These are just a few indisputable facts we can all understand with commonsense and active Grey matter. Not Puffed headed numbers and theories put forth to get us to vote for world socialist systems and egotistical theories designed to talk over the heads of those exhibiting some practical application of knowledge.
What on Venus causes such an abundance of CO? Could it possibly be its higher temperatures and proximity to the sun? Of course you will answer that if its proximity to the sun is a factor then why would not Mercury have such high amounts of CO? When hydrocarbons combine with oxygen in the process known as combustion (burning), they produce carbon dioxide, water vapor, and heat. The chemical components of Mercury and Venus might simply be different enough to produce a different result. And perhaps the burning heat of the sun reacting on The chemical composition of Venus is creating CO2 and not the other way around. One thing commonsense would dictate about Venus is that it is hotter because of its proximatey to the sun.
A practical example could go like this; It's a cold night in my house so I turn on my wall furnace. Standing next to it it burns my buns but when I walk across the room there is a noticeable cooling effect. When I walk into the back room I am down right cold. So I go back to my wall furnace and turn it up more. It now warms me from across the room. So I go test the back room again and low and behold it's warmer than before but still to chilly to read 'Earth in the Balance'. So once again I go to the furnace and adjust the heat up even more and go across the room now to warm my hind end. Back in the back room it's so cozy I turn on the TV and watch my new DVD 'An Inconvenient Truth'. I get so wrapped up in the numbers and theories and Al's unquestionable knowledge on global warming that the wall furnace is bringing my front room to a flash point. Then it happens that smoke starts rolling into my room, the fire sprinklers come on and the water starts to rise. It's out of control! The house is burning, the basement is flooding and kills my gerbils first. As the water rises ever higher Tippy the dog drowns.The roof caves in and the freezing temperature that was outside is now inside. It's all a total loss, my world and all the animals in it has been destroyed.
The fire chief asks me, "what happened?" I answered, "Duh!" "like the CO levels rose to high in here because of the gas company ran this pipe to my house twenty years ago". "It caused my walls to burst into flames". I told the chief and everybody I saw from that day forward, " Vote for Al Gore in '08' because he's going to save Venus from sure disaster because the Gas company has already ruined this world". "The fire chief must be a conservative cause he just rolled his eyes at me and muttered something under his breath.
IVAN
Last edited by brokensickle; 21 Aug 07, at 11:50.
If more people know what you know, were in for a bumpy ride indeed...Please tell me where you found these facts, I like bumpy rides.
Tell everone what you know or were all doomed! Make sure nothings lost in the translation.
Ivan
when i log on to my e-mail account i read the news on UK and Ireland Yahoo,thats where i read that islands are appearing because the ice is melting quicker than expected.
I am sorry that some of your "pet" theories about why AGW might not be happening are not borne out by "the numbers" and the underlying hard science behind those numbers.
So, do you disagree with those "numbers" and observations as they pertain to the counter theories on C02 that they were presented in response to? If you do, I would be all ears as to why the "damn numbers" *don't relate to th specific theories presented.
Now, you present some counter-arguments, actually "counter-stories" since you fail to cite any basis for them aside from that "Dale and Gun told us."
Let's turn to them.
Well first of all (as indicated above) you present no specific citations to the studies that show this. Please provide them. I, for one, "think" (as opposed to what your snarky aside says.) Accordingly I require evidence to support that. (much like Dale, interestingly enough.) So now, much like Dale, I suggest that you "prove" your statement. I mean, what is good for the goose *is* good for the gander, right?1. The earth has been hotter than present many times before. Fact. that can be backed up by fossil and ice core data.
In fact, I'll start and spot you one:
source: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The DataIn summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today,
(starting to get the drift?)
However, the cite also goes on to say:
This gets to my second point. There may very well have been "warmer periods" in the Earth's history. Now, please point out the driving mechanisms behind *all* of your (as yet unnamed) warming periods. Next, please point out *why* the mere existence of any unsourced warming trend in any way, shape, or form counts as evidence against AGW theories. Please try to remember "causation". The mere fact that "a warming trend occurred" many years ago is absolutely worthless in characterizing anything that might be happening today. In fact, that is probably far worse than the "cheesy correlations" that Dale deemed were unworthy."More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. "
Remember, per Dale's instructions above, "cheesy correlations" are *not* good. To wit, without any basis to tie the mechanisms of any cited warming trend, the existence of *any* previous warming trend provides not one iota of proof for or against the theory of AGW.
Again, instead of trying to "prove" by "a story I heard", provide references. Again, "prove it". (Funny how I hear that over and over again from one side, yet that same side inthe argument tries to do without....)2. The sun is in a very active state, for a few decades it has been hotter than the recent years prior to solar radiation increase. Fact.that can be backed up by sensors on Mars, sensors on space probs, and sensor aimed at the moon. Fact. That can be backed up by reading taken by scientist at JPL and Nasa and earth based sensors and sensor in the upper atmosphere
Well then, let me toos you one specific (among many) that are just opposite:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
I will be happy to provide you with others. So, at the very least, I would back away from asserting that "solar is the sole cause of excess warming" as "fact".Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
And, again (like #1) this supposition is fact only in the sense that it might show that a portion of coastal regions in Greenland in that time period were free of ice. Again, aside from the explicit evidence of that fact, this tasty little morsel (again) has no value in assessing the physics of CO2, nor of the many other issues that might have happened.3. Historical evidence, Vikings living ranching and farming Greenland. Abandon Villages found under the frozen Siberian North. Frozen men found in the Alps thousands of years under the ice to be un-iced by this new period of global warming. Fact.
You in relating a tale that tells us nothing more than a specific thawing of a specific region of the world. Good for you.... Its scientific value as to the theory of potential CO2 warming effects is nil.
Let me put your "historical" narratives in perspective. I am driving down the road in my Ford Explorer and it stalls. Let us assume that the battery cable has gotten loose. However, the parties (right now) don't know the reason, but I suspect (but don't know) its the cable.
The guy behind me stops and says "Gee willikers, my Ford Explorer stalled on me 22 years ago. I don't know why it stalled out on me. And without even relating or knowing the symptoms of my stall 22 years ago, I can tell you that the reason my car stalled 22 years ago and why yours is now stalled is the same reason."
Do you understand *now* why your "proof by story" really doesnt rise above the level of a nice anecdote?
See #1, and #3 above. Hmmmm...... I know of outcroppings that have radiocarbon dates that are older than those that are below them. Does this automatically mean that they were deposited on top of the newer ones (but somehow older).4. Coral reefs that are many meters higher than the oceans current level. Fact.
I am glad that there are reefs that are many meters higher. Too bad you don't see the many thousands of reasons that this occur. Interestingly you fixate on this as proof that AGW doesn't happen. How, I don't know, but you seemingly do.....
And if you had some, it would be blindingly obvious that while these items *might* be facts (remember that citation and proof thingy.... right?), that they are no way "proof" of anything related to carbon cycles.These are just a few indisputable facts we can all understand with commonsense and active Grey matter.
Correct. They are puffheaded and rash conclusions on your part.Not Puffed headed numbers and theories
If you knew the first thing about me (which you do not, btw), you would realize that I am a true capitalist at heart. Stunningly so. But why let that fact get in the way of your sweeping generalizations...put forth to get us to vote for world socialist systems
no, just basic physics, and basic scientifically reported studies and facts. Sorry that you cannot recognize them.and egotistical theories designed to talk over the heads of those exhibiting some practical application of knowledge.
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 21 Aug 07, at 18:05.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: