chasteh 0 #376 July 15, 2009 Oh yea, and it is still more likely that kallend has an accurate conclusion here than mnealtx. Just thought i'd rock your boat since that isn't even a topic of our posts anymore. "why is everybody making fun of my pants? Their just pants, why not give em a chance? I like the fit. I like the cut. I like the way they make me look when I strut-strut" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #377 July 15, 2009 QuoteMy basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up, with any argument that I've seen. I love to see numbers, and I'm not talking IPCC numbers. Simple thermo will suffice just fine. Your contribution to the discussion has been negative,. You have shown minimal understanding of the physics involved, presented "numbers" that are not relevant to the issue at hand, have steadfastly refused to look up existing literature, insist that very complex climate models be performed on a skydiving web site, and have not presented a single VALID argument as to why the IPCC numbers are incorrect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #378 July 15, 2009 Quote>My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents >don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up . . . Here are the basic numbers, then. Preindustrial CO2 level: 280ppm Today's CO2 levels: 380ppm Radiative forcing for a 50% increase in CO2: 1.8 watts/sq m Temperature increase for increase in heating by 1.8 watts/sq m (blackbody only): .8 deg C Actual temperature change over the past 100 years: .74C What doesn't add up for you? It won't satisfy him. Next he'll ask you to calculate the radiative forcing from first principles.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #379 July 15, 2009 QuoteOk. I'm sure you will also admit, when the time comes, that we won't have that option.. What do we have till, 2050? I might be alive that long. By then we will also know if todays predictions regarding global warming were correct. We shall see if Indonesia is still above water level at that point. >global warming - the reason for the proposal And petroleum costs/availability True. Note that Petroleum costs/availability aren't really an issue right now. Rather, it is predicted to be an issue in the future. As the resource becomes more scarce it becomes more expensive. And then it will be profitable and worthwhile to develop and alternative. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #380 July 15, 2009 QuoteJust thought i'd rock your boat since that isn't even a topic of our posts anymore. True. I'm just gonna be pissed off when a bottle of beer costs $8.99 because of the CO2 issues. I want to have my fine carbonated suds at a reasonable price. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #381 July 16, 2009 Quote Libertarian = honest. Let no one claim this thread is without humor.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #382 July 16, 2009 Picking one thing out is bad. We must view long term trends.. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #383 July 16, 2009 QuoteSince we are basically at equilibrium, Q accumulated is zero. Therefore, Q input = Q output. There lies the mistake of your argument.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #384 July 16, 2009 QuotePicking one thing out is bad. We must view long term trends.. See post #381 in this thread.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #385 July 16, 2009 > I'm just gonna be pissed off when a bottle of beer costs $8.99 because of >the CO2 issues. Well, flat beer will cost $8.99. They will actually pay _you_ to take carbonated beer, because they can get rid of some CO2 that way. Of course, you'll have to drink it in a greenhouse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #386 July 16, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Then you agree that CO2 acts to retain heat, That it CAN act to retain heat, yes. Show me a single example where CO2 does not act to retain more heat in an applicable system and you will win the Nobel prize for physics. Quote Quote that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, That it CAN retain still more heat. Demonstrate a single example where adding a capacity to retain more heat does not result in more heat being retained and you'll disprove thermodynamics and win a Nobel prize for physics. There is no can, it does every single time. Then, if I may, you are saying YOU can account for all the variables (even though there are very credible scientists who say they do not know or understand all the variables) and prove that just adding CO2 to the this planets atmosphere increases global temps? I cant wait to see that research"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #387 July 16, 2009 There are new words in here that I need to digest, billvon. I will. Thanks.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #388 July 16, 2009 Quote Your contribution to the discussion has been negative,. You have shown minimal understanding of the physics involved, presented "numbers" that are not relevant to the issue at hand, have steadfastly refused to look up existing literature, insist that very complex climate models be performed on a skydiving web site, and have not presented a single VALID argument as to why the IPCC numbers are incorrect. So, you're not capable of sharing your knowledge in reasonably simple terms. While I rarely agree with billvon on social issues, he blows you away technically. You clearly are not as smart as you think you are. QED. Henceforth, I will completely discount any and everything you may add to a discussion. Who needs to listen to someone whose best efforts are little more than name calling?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #389 July 16, 2009 QuoteWe were in Chamonix recently and took a trip to the 'Mer de Glace'. On the footpath down to the glacier, they have positioned signs with the dates that the gacier was last at that position .... It's an eye opener on how the glacier has receeded in very recent times (last 20 years!!). Well, it has happened before in history - the climate has always changed - this is why the hockey stick is such a con. It was probably warmer around the year 1000 then it is now.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #390 July 16, 2009 >credible scientists Credibility? The nerve! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #391 July 16, 2009 Quote>Yes, if the icecaps melt the rise in sea level would be huge. Not really. Melting floating ice does not change sea level. We could lose the entire northern ice sheet (which is coming close to happening) and not see any sea level rise. Greenland is a much bigger issue, and indeed melting is going up quite a bit there. Antarctica is even bigger, but fortunately temperature rises there so far have been minor. Firstly Antarctica holds something like 80% of the earths ice - so quite a bit bigger. And the ice has actually increased lately - completely contrary to the AGW alarmists predictions and the stories distributed by the media. Temperatures in Greenland have also stabilised lately and the last 2 winters were colder then previous. I now I am repeating myself - but the empiric data does NOT support the argument!--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #392 July 16, 2009 Very interesting. “Americans drink 13.15 billion gallons of carbonated drinks every year.” The doctor speaking in these dialogs is, Dr. McCay, the nutritionist at the Naval Medical Research Institute. Fuel consumption per year is up to 175 Billion gallons per year. I never thought of beer or soda pop that way, Misunderstanditron. Well done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #393 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuote Your contribution to the discussion has been negative,. You have shown minimal understanding of the physics involved, presented "numbers" that are not relevant to the issue at hand, have steadfastly refused to look up existing literature, insist that very complex climate models be performed on a skydiving web site, and have not presented a single VALID argument as to why the IPCC numbers are incorrect. So, you're not capable of sharing your knowledge in reasonably simple terms. While I rarely agree with billvon on social issues, he blows you away technically. You clearly are not as smart as you think you are. QED. Henceforth, I will completely discount any and everything you may add to a discussion. Who needs to listen to someone whose best efforts are little more than name calling? Kallend - that is really rubbish - the real empiric data since the first IPCC reports have not come true and you should know it. Some say it has been not time enough - but the truth is the temperatures are not moving along the predictions.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #394 July 16, 2009 >Firstly Antarctica holds something like 80% of the earths ice - so quite a bit bigger. Agreed! >And the ice has actually increased lately - completely contrary to the >AGW alarmists predictions and the stories distributed by the media. ============= Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica Published: January 21, 2009 That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet. Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models. In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations. “We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature. . . . . Dr. Steig and Dr. Shindell presented the findings at a news conference on Wednesday. They found that from 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally. In West Antarctica, where the base of some large ice sheets lies below sea level, the warming was even more pronounced, at 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit, though temperatures in this area are still well below freezing and the warming will not have an immediate effect on sea level. =============== Regions of Antarctica Melting Into Sea Feb. 25, 2009 -- Antarctic glaciers are melting faster across a much wider area than previously thought, scientists said Wednesday -- a development that could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels. A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula. . . . The biggest west Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said. The Smith Glacier, also in west Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said. All the glaciers in the area together are losing a total of around 103 billion tons (114 billion U.S. tons) per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, he said. "That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," Summerhayes said, adding that the glaciers' discharge was making a significant contribution to the rise in sea levels. "We didn't realize it was moving that fast." The glaciers are slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would normally stop them -- usually 650 to 980 feet (200 to 300 meters) thick -- is melting. ====================== >Temperatures in Greenland have also stabilised lately and the last 2 >winters were colder then previous. 2 winters does not a climactic trend make. I assume that if the next 2 winters are warmer you will come to the same conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #395 July 16, 2009 >the real empiric data since the first IPCC reports have not come true and you should know it. 1990: IPCC predicts .3 degrees C per decade rise in temperature. 1990 anomaly: .3C over baseline 2009 anomaly: .55C over baseline Actual rise: .16C per decade Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #396 July 16, 2009 Quote>My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents >don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up . . . Here are the basic numbers, then. Preindustrial CO2 level: 280ppm Today's CO2 levels: 380ppm Radiative forcing for a 50% increase in CO2: 1.8 watts/sq m Temperature increase for increase in heating by 1.8 watts/sq m (blackbody only): .8 deg C Actual temperature change over the past 100 years: .74C What doesn't add up for you? So what does this prove when temperatures are no longer following CO2 increase in the atmosphere (which they haven't for the last 10 years)? Why did temperatures rise before without Co2 increases? I find it interesting that the AGW side constantly changes the arguments when the empiric proves them wrong.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #397 July 16, 2009 >So what does this prove when temperatures are no longer following >CO2 increase in the atmosphere (which they haven't for the last 10 >years)? ?? 2005 was the hottest year in over a century. >Why did temperatures rise before without Co2 increases? Because many things affect our climate besides CO2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #398 July 16, 2009 Quote>the real empiric data since the first IPCC reports have not come true and you should know it. 1990: IPCC predicts .3 degrees C per decade rise in temperature. 1990 anomaly: .3C over baseline 2009 anomaly: .55C over baseline Actual rise: .16C per decade Then why has the temperature trended DOWNWARD since 1998, while CO2 concentrations continued to rise? And a little something from Nature Geoscience about the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum: QuoteAs a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels from the ice cores...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #399 July 16, 2009 Quote>Firstly Antarctica holds something like 80% of the earths ice - so quite a bit bigger. Agreed! >And the ice has actually increased lately - completely contrary to the >AGW alarmists predictions and the stories distributed by the media. ============= Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica ....snip >Temperatures in Greenland have also stabilised lately and the last 2 >winters were colder then previous. 2 winters does not a climactic trend make. I assume that if the next 2 winters are warmer you will come to the same conclusion. Firstly - there are several studies showing increase in ice - especially in Antarctica. See attached graph (you are very good attaching graphs - does not mean they are correct...) which is actually measured ice. Top is global, then Southern hemisphere and bottom Northern. You are not happy that that I use the data of cooling on Greenland the last few years, but it was fine to use a period of stronger warming of about 10 years to "prove" your point? BTW - let me repeat - NOBODY says it has not got warmer! The problem is that the focus on CO2 is rubbish and it has been clearly shown that the climate is changing constantly and we are actually in a cooling period now. The septics are saying that the science is NOT settled and that we simply do not fully understand the climate and we have jumped to conclusions that fit a "green guilt" philosophy and based on this we are undertaking very expensive and stupid economic initiatives. Let me repeat what Bjorn Lomborg has shown even if you accept all the assumptions for the AGW theory: QuoteAt a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, it will have virtually no impact on climate change. If all of the bill's many provisions were entirely fulfilled, economic models show that it would reduce the temperature by the end of the century by 0.11C, reducing warming by less than 4 per cent. Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills -- which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs -- the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now. Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought? Today's focus on ineffective and costly climate policies shows poor judgment. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #400 July 16, 2009 Quote>So what does this prove when temperatures are no longer following >CO2 increase in the atmosphere (which they haven't for the last 10 >years)? ?? 2005 was the hottest year in over a century. >Why did temperatures rise before without Co2 increases? Because many things affect our climate besides CO2. Thats rubbish. Check the satellite data for global temperatures.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites