Handbook for AGW sceptics

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

I don't recall anyone claiming that CO2 was the ONLY cause of any event. You really should quit using straw men.

We've been discussing CO2 the whole thread - the IPCC talks about CO2 all the time - any 'strawman' is your own.

Pretty lame logic even for you.

And NO logic from you. Funny how you were perfectly happy talking about CO2 the entire thread, until evidence came to light that it WASN'T the boogeyman under the bed.

STILL waiting for proof on that positive feedback too, John.

Mnealtx error #1: Other factors besides CO2 HAVE been described in THIS thread (see post#54 for example) as well as very frequently in this forum.

Mnealtx error #2: Talking about CO2 is not a statement that ONLY CO2 is important.

Mnealtx error#3: YOU keep posting the evidence for positive feedback. . Don't you even know what you are claiming?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Peer-reviewed science does work fairly well, though.

+1

I've been working my way through various literature, including the IPCC report (much thanks to billvon for sharing references with me).

The IPCC report is a pretty significant piece of work. Any literature that bothers to document/define their language is one worth reading, and the IPCC report does that in spades.

Radiant forcing is well defined, but does not account for any increases in water vapor in the atmosphere, which is by far the dominant "green house" gas. Increased water vapor will have an impact on increased cloud cover, which is another significant driver.

I'm still reading some stuff, and trying to work my way through the math. If I get somewhere, I'll gladly post it here for review.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

>Radiant forcing is well defined, but does not account for any increases in
>water vapor in the atmosphere, which is by far the dominant "green
>house" gas. Increased water vapor will have an impact on increased cloud
>cover, which is another significant driver.

Absolutely! Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas there is. In addition, cloud formation at night warms us; cloud formation during the day cools us. And cloud formation is strongly tied to water vapor in the atmosphere.

That's one of the most significant secondary factors in the whole debate, and will determine whether we see primarily negative feeback (which will reduce the warming we see) or positive feedback (which will increase the warming we see.)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

That's one of the most significant secondary factors in the whole debate, and will determine whether we see primarily negative feeback (which will reduce the warming we see) or positive feedback (which will increase the warming we see.)

Agreed, IMO. The fact there could be a negative feedback really makes it one of several primary factors, not a secondary factor.

Thanks for the links you provided. I learned something.

China and India are going to make this whole debate mute. What's Congress going to do with the money they take from us? Time to go nuclear.

Another thing that I'm seeing re: "AGW" is the output from the Sun. That is by far the strongest driver in the system. It's really not a constant.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

>The fact there could be a negative feedback really makes it one of
>several primary factors, not a secondary factor.

Well, the very idea of feedback implies that there is a primary term (voltage, temperature, current etc) perturbed by some other influence that is brought back into regulation by feedback, so it sort of requires a primary external perturbation to work at all. Without the perturbation there is no feedback.

>Another thing that I'm seeing re: "AGW" is the output from the Sun. That
>is by far the strongest driver in the system. It's really not a constant.

I agree. Solar output varies over an 11-year cycle. In addition, over the past 2 cycles it's been surprisingly low.

[StreetScooby 5]

Here's an interesting article. I was surprised to find it in the NYTimes:

Is the Sun Missing Its Spots?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Here's some quotes from the article:

Quote

With better telescopes on the ground and a fleet of Sun-watching spacecraft, solar scientists know a lot more about the Sun than ever before. But they do not understand everything. Solar dynamo models, which seek to capture the dynamics of the magnetic field, cannot yet explain many basic questions, not even why the solar cycles average 11 years in length.

Quote

The Sun, the Danish scientists say, influences how many cosmic rays impinge on the atmosphere and thus the number of clouds. When the Sun is frenetic, the solar wind of charged particles it spews out increases. That expands the cocoon of magnetic fields around the solar system, deflecting some of the cosmic rays.

But, according to the hypothesis, when the sunspots and solar winds die down, the magnetic cocoon contracts, more cosmic rays reach Earth, more clouds form, less sunlight reaches the ground, and temperatures cool.

Quote

Dr. Svensmark and his colleagues found a correlation between the rate of incoming cosmic rays and the coverage of low-level clouds between 1984 and 2002.

Quote

But other scientists found no such pattern with higher clouds, and some other observations seem inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Clearly, there are many driving forces besides CO2 in this complicated debate. Should we try and minimize CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should Obama/Waxman impose a whole new regime of tax laws on our country in some belief that it'll have any practical difference? No. Nuclear power is a clear way to reduce CO2 emissions while meeting our society's current energy needs. China and India are going to make our CO2 reductions mute. Go nuclear, and over the next decade or two make sure our scientists are are the best to be found.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

> Should we try and minimize CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should
>Obama/Waxman impose a whole new regime of tax laws on our country
>in some belief that it'll have any practical difference? No.

OK. Waxman will almost certainly reduce future CO2 levels - but you do not like that approach. So what would yours be?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

OK. Waxman will almost certainly reduce future CO2 levels...

But, will it be significant enough to justify the economic hit on our society? Especially considering that China and India will make our CO2 emissions mute.

Quote

So what would yours be?

Nuclear. Make that a focus for the next several decades, while keep real innovation going in our country.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

>But, will it be significant enough to justify the economic hit on our society?

That's the big question. Will the economic stimulus brought about by hundreds of new companies in the solar, wind, geothermal and alternate fuel industries outweigh the loss of coal miner jobs? I think it will be about a wash, although both sides try to portray their scenario as the best possible balance between those two.

>Nuclear. Make that a focus for the next several decades, while keep
>real innovation going in our country.

Sure, nuclear's great. But that doesn't reduce CO2. Given a choice most power companies will still burn coal when they can because it's cheaper than uranium.

So let's say you build lots of new nuclear plants, and companies sell more power to consumers (because it's now cheaper) while keeping their coal plants running. Consumers respond by tossing their expensive CFL's and energy efficient appliances and buying the cheaper, higher powered appliances. How have we reduced CO2 emissions?

(Now, if you added a limitation on total coal tonnage burned or something you might see a decrease.)

[StreetScooby 5]

So, do you favor the Waxman bill?
If so, why?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

>So, do you favor the Waxman bill?

I don't like it much. The carbon-trading mechanism is incredibly diluted by giving away so many credits so early, and it has more loopholes than the income tax code. I fear that it will become like the New Source Review fiasco, a nearly unenforceable set of rules that people find ever new and innovative ways to get around.

However, the Clean Air Act worked, even with the New Source Review nonsense, and our air is cleaner because of it. And after seeing firsthand what the pollution in LA and NY was in the 70's that's a very good thing.

So to answer your question - if someone came up with a better solution I would support it in a heartbeat. But lacking that, I do favor the bill, because it's better than nothing.

[StreetScooby 5]

For those of you who haven't found the link to the Waxman bill, it's here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

I'm finding it staggering that this far reaching, massive bill, was forced through our Congress. While the debt-o-crats may understand how/why they crafted individual pieces of this legislation, I find it hard to believe anyone can understand it's full impact in the time frame being allotted. The debt-o-crats are trying to force this on us. It's pure government power grab.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm finding it staggering that this far reaching, massive bill, was forced through our Congress. While the debt-o-crats may understand how/why they crafted individual pieces of this legislation, I find it hard to believe anyone can understand it's full impact in the time frame being allotted. The debt-o-crats are trying to force this on us. It's pure government power grab.

This and health reform. no difference between the two.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

This and health reform. no difference between the two.......

+1

And, probably the "financial reform" that Barney Frank and his guys are pushing. Barney Frank is an equal rewards guy, not an equal opportunity guy. Maybe its a Massachusetts thing?

We are all engines of karma

[chasteh 0]

>I find it hard to believe anyone can understand it's full impact in the time frame being allotted. The debt-o-crats are trying to force this on us. It's pure government power grab.


Well... when you consider the deficit of 1.... WOAaaah (CRASH!)

Ouuch! Oh man that hurt. That slope is just so damned slippery!

[StreetScooby 5]

You lost me....

We are all engines of karma

[chasteh 0]

You are guilty of the Libertarian's slippery slope.

It is a Rhetorical fallacy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You are guilty of the Libertarian's slippery slope.

It is a Rhetorical fallacy.

Ahh, I am with Scobby, you make no sense here at all.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

(Deep sigh)

Nevermind Rushmc.

(Pats Rush on back)

Nevermind.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

(Deep sigh)

Nevermind Rushmc.

(Pats Rush on back)

Nevermind.

So you have no point. Cool
Glad you admited it

And keep your grubby hands off me......
I have my space as Hillary had hers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

>So you have no point. Cool

False

>you admited it
False

>And keep your grubby hands off me......

Cmon baby, you know you fucking want it

>I have my space as Hillary had hers
Uhhh, ok.

[rushmc 23]

>I have my space as Hillary had hers
Uhhh, ok.

[chasteh 0]

I don't really care as I don't support either Clinton.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't really care as I don't support either Clinton.

Wasnt the point. Not surprised you missed it however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln