Thread: Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Well, yes if we were talking about car crashes, but we're not. What we're talking about is the claim of an unprecedented warming period.
The more we examine the historical record, the more we see that it is not.

In terms of an "unprecedented" warming period, you would be correct; but you also realize that the MWP would be evidence against solely the adjective "unprecedented", right?

So, please explain your apparent belief as to the causation of the MWP? And how this relates to the current "temperature anomaly"?

I will readily concede that not *every* warming (and or cooling) event is "caused" *exclusively* by a "trigger" of CO2. The record has many examples of other events that may have been "caused" by non-CO2 events (methane releases, sunspot minimums (and maximums), etc.). Conversely, the record also shows temperature events that may have been caused by CO2 triggers.

So, granting even if the MWP is/was more than a Northern Hemisphere and time-localized event (which it very well could be), the MWP is, all in all, very good evidence of a potential non-CO2 warming event; which is inline with the many others. Using it to "disprove" a potential CO2 trigger for this period is not very "seaworthy"......

Originally Posted by Helium

*sigh*

A message to those who do not believe in global warming, especially to Dalem

In using the word "believe" above he exposes the fact that Global Warming is a "belief" not a fact.

Otherwise it would be incumbent upon him to prove it not on me to disprove it. This is called the scientific method. You should really read about it some time the way that I did in first grade. It will totally rule out the global warming assertions of the ignorrant pseudo-scientists of our day.

How cleaning up America dried up the Amazon - earth - 07 May 2008 - New Scientist Environment

Originally Posted by Helium

*sigh*

A message to those who do not believe in global warming, especially to Dalem

What happens to the carbon and carbon monoxide releasd from factories and vehicles?

Nothing. They emit ZERO heat.

Originally Posted by Helium

I have and others given our cause and effect of how we BELIEVE global warming occurs. But so far I have not heard a point by point cause and effect of...I guess you would say....'How Global Warming does not occur'. I have seen lots of poking holes in the theory of how it does occur eg, we do not have records that measure anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not a static environment and experiences flutuation due to many variables - winds etc.

Then come up with a working model. Taking into account of ALL variables on the planet. Don't just discuss this subject as if the earth is a controlled system where only 1 variable (CO2) changes and affects nothing else.

Originally Posted by Helium

So is anyone able to explain to me what they think happens to carbon/monoxide once it leaves the factory or exaust pipe, step by step?

They emit ZERO heat.

Originally Posted by Helium

Remember that this is a scientifically proven rule/occurence:

Right. Scientific principle. Come up with a working model, control ALL variables and only change one at a time (CO2), use it to verify history and current status before trying to predict the future.

Originally Posted by Helium

The main part I am curious about is what you believe happens to the significant amounts of carbon released annually from foosil fuels and vehicles, literally where does it go, does it get to the atmosphere, absorbed etc?

So if your step by step explanation includes carbon getting to the atmosphere, I am most curious if solar winds or other variable of the atmosphere affect the carbon/destroy/transport it?

You seem to think carbon heats up the earth. That's not the case. The sun heats up the earth. The earth reacts in ways we don't fully understand. It's not cut and dry like we pump x amount of carbon into the air and the earth heats up by y degrees.

I'm sorry. Don't mean to nitpick

Thanks, getting things right is what is important, my mishap

Originally Posted by LetsTalk

Dale, you make such great arguments)

I do. I really do.

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

Why don't I believe you?

Pollution only exists in my imagination.

What does pollution have to do with "global warming"?

Renewable energy is bad for the economy, who really needs it, let’s just burn more coal and oil!

Renewable energy isn't "bad", it's just not very marketable right now. And what's wrong with burning 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.)

What's our energy import percentage?

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! ) ) )

How much of the current per bbl price is driven by gasoline demand? Seriously, I don't know.

-dale

Originally Posted by dark-alias

208 years, the sun is getting hotter, bigger, and brighter all of the time. It is a red giant, and is also middle age. It is going to keep expanding and getting hotter until if burns out. This has a minor impact, but impact just the same on global temp. Mind you over a spand of 1 billion years the sun gets hotter by 10% every billion. Also we have a very dynamic climate which has been stated numerous times. I agree with the fact the humanity has an impact of earth, but in regards to its atmosphere i disagree with the severity of hypothesis.

This is all wrong. All of it. Where did you get this information???

-dale

Where did you get this information???

Griffith Observatory

Originally Posted by svguy

And how this relates to the current "temperature anomaly"?

What temperature anomaly?

Originally Posted by svguy

The ultimate "driver" is the sun; CO2 is a component of thermal retention via absorption of longwave radiation. Has been for (well, as long as CO2 has been around....)

Of course, since we are seeming to ignore that physical, rather immutable aspect of this basic compound, tell me, when does CO2 stop having the *fundamental* properties of CO2? (Especially given the relative mild regimes that are found in the atmosphere...)

Seemingly you have previously agreed earlier that CO2 is a longwave emitter, then seemingly state here that it might *magically* stop this behavior..... This kind of flies in the face of almost all physics that I have ever seen or learned about.....




I can point you to several (hundred, thousand, tens of thousands) of occurrences each and every day of adding (or deleting) a polyatomic compound (either polar or linear) to an environment to affect the temperature (and pressure) of that environment.

I will agree with you that the delta_T with CO2 in the atmosphere may not be accurate, but I will guarantee you (unless *something* magically shuts off the inherent longwave absorption and re-emission) that there will be a corresponding delta_T of some sort (up and until 100% saturation of all the absorption bands, which, I can assure, has not happened in our atmosphere at all).

So please, I would very much like to know your theory of how the absorption/re-emission characteristics of CO2 will not "operate" at the present concentrations? From this perspective it seems exceedingly implausible.

edited to read: the change would not be a relatively large one;

there are app. 700 gigatonnes aloft right now, so the 1 million tons would be a proverbial drop in the bucket....

and be not a huge increase over the 6 billion metric tons added by the US alone yearly....

We're not really disagreeing here. I understand the mechanics of heat trapping and greenhouse and the rest, I just don't believe that CO2 emission is something we need to worry about because its effect is negligible. There is zero evidence that suggests it is anything but negligible. That's all.

-dale

Originally Posted by svguy

Your logic is false. You are seemingly stating that "since a rise in CO2 doesn't always precede a rise in temp, CO2 can never be a temperature rise mechanism."

There are numerous mechanisms that could lead to a first rise in temperature that directly leads to an ocean CO2 outgassing. The first event could be a slight blip in solar activity. Or a methane hydrate release.

So while it might be instructive to look at past warmings (and coolings), it should also be understood that each may be the result of a different genesis. Just like looking at the Medevial Warm Period as contra-evidence of *current* CO2 effect. That is a fallacious assumption. The Medevial Warm Period is great evidence of..... well..... the Medevial Warm Period. There is no evidence to link the genesis of that to the current period.

So, with all due respect, your logic is wrong above.

Wait a minute. You've just invalidated all of science with the above post. Pretty bold of you, I'd say.

-dale

Originally Posted by Helium

*sigh*

A message to those who do not believe in global warming, especially to Dalem

What happens to the carbon and carbon monoxide releasd from factories and vehicles?

I have and others given our cause and effect of how we BELIEVE global warming occurs. But so far I have not heard a point by point cause and effect of...I guess you would say....'How Global Warming does not occur'. I have seen lots of poking holes in the theory of how it does occur eg, we do not have records that measure anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not a static environment and experiences flutuation due to many variables - winds etc.

So is anyone able to explain to me what they think happens to carbon/monoxide once it leaves the factory or exaust pipe, step by step?

Remember that this is a scientifically proven rule/occurence:


The main part I am curious about is what you believe happens to the significant amounts of carbon released annually from foosil fuels and vehicles, literally where does it go, does it get to the atmosphere, absorbed etc?

So if your step by step explanation includes carbon getting to the atmosphere, I am most curious if solar winds or other variable of the atmosphere affect the carbon/destroy/transport it?

Global warming is your theory, Bright Eyes. You need to tell us what the molecules do, not me.

And the point I'm trying to make which you and your partneer are so non-deftly trying to avoid, is that you don't know what the effect is of more or less CO2 on global temperature, so keening about the minutae of ppm and albedo and all the rest is meaningless right now.

You've got your cart waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of your horse at this point.

-dale

Originally Posted by Helium

Also on a side note this is a really interesting fact about the atmosphere.



This information gives even stronger credibility to the theory that the polar caps are more vulnerable than other ecosystems to the effects of Global warming and would be among the first ecosystems to display the effects of GW.

You mean to say that ICE is more likely to melt than DIRT?

Genius. Pure genius.

-dale

Originally Posted by dark-alias

Griffith Observatory

...of crack?

Seriously, that little bit of astronomy you dribbled out up there is utter crap, as others have already pointed out. Anyone who says the Sun is a red giant ought to be pushed down a flight of stairs with a bucket on their head. Our sun is likely to go through a red giant phase, probably in a few billion years or so, but that's it. As already stated, our sun is a boring old G2 Main Sequence star in early middle age. Quite stable with small amounts of variability (for a star) for the next long while. Good neighborhood.

-dale

Originally Posted by Parihaka

What temperature anomaly?

I will take it from that response that you do not believe that there has been an overall temperature rise over the last..... oh...... 55 years or so?

And/or I will take it that you do not believe that there has been an excursion in sea temperatures (and net energy in the sea) over that same approximate time?

Uhh...... okay........

So by your statement, global warming is not a problem, since there is no "warming"? Is that a correct assessment of your query above?

(i.e: most people who study this actually do realize that there is an upward movement in the temperature; the question is not whether the "anomaly" is occurring, the major questions are in the causation aspect of that "anomaly")

This is almost like the the story the attorneys tell about their training in law school about a dog bite case:

The defense states (all in one document):
"If the owner has a dog, it was in the yard and chained;
If the owner has a dog and it wasn't in the yard, it was controlled;
If the owner has has a dog and it wasn't controlled, there was no bite by that dog, it was another dog;
If the owner has a dog and that dog bit, then the complainer teased the dog;
If the owner's dog bit the person without provocation, there is only a slight injury;
If the owner's uncontrolled dog bit without provocation with more than slight injury, the defendant had it coming to them;
The owner has no dog;
Their was no bite -- ever."