Climate Change due to Global Warming – a hoax?

[bottleweb]

I think it's easy to argue with the idea of anthropological global warming (AGW), simply because it's not 'proven'. In the same way, one can quite easily dispute the theory of evolution, because it's not proven either.

That is not to say the theories and considered valid based on overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. It just means that anything which isn't proven doesn't force people to accept it, so they would rather dispute it until the end.

I'm not going to say that AGW is a reality nontheless (even though I strongly believe this), but I'd like to propose a simple rhetorical question (ofcourse you can answer it if you wish, but consider it a thought excercise);

If AGW was true, what would it take - that hasn't already happened - to convince you?

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by bottleweb

I think it's easy to argue with the idea of anthropological global warming (AGW), simply because it's not 'proven'. In the same way, one can quite easily dispute the theory of evolution, because it's not proven either.

That is not to say the theories and considered valid based on overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. It just means that anything which isn't proven doesn't force people to accept it, so they would rather dispute it until the end.

I'm not going to say that AGW is a reality nontheless (even though I strongly believe this), but I'd like to propose a simple rhetorical question (ofcourse you can answer it if you wish, but consider it a thought excercise);

If AGW was true, what would it take - that hasn't already happened - to convince you?

At present time, either another mechanism or perhaps a change in the basic laws of nature concerning radiative transfer and a massive increase in atmospheric viscosity might be a good start. Another important factor might also be the complete separation of scientific enquiry from politics and public policy, but hey, we're just dreaming here anyway with your 'what if' question.

Beyond that, just the usual non-politicized science investigation techniques devoid of lunnies like hansen would be a fair start. After a few more centuries of measurements, we might be able to get more of a handle on things.

You'll note that 50 years after Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMB, effectively annointed the big bang theory as the theory of the universe, that after more band-aids exist on that theory than virtually what it started out as, Hoyle's dead steady state theory now exists in some circles as a quasi steady state theory. You'll also note that we have recently invented dark matter (or more aptly, exotic dark matter) and dark energy to help explain the new discrepancies as it appears the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down. All this with the further appearance that the unverse is actually apparently euclidean at the largest scale.

If you think AGW can be caused by the current levels of co2 introduced by man, then feel free to explain why there is no GH effect on mars despite there being 40 times the amount of co2 molecules in an atmospheric column.

Note that what I am arguing is more to the insignificance of co2 effects rather than to a total absence of an effect.

[flogger]

I used to be in the pro AGW camp until I started trawling for verifiable facts and credible science supporting it. The lack of data and often gross misrepresentation of what little science there is I found extremely disturbing. I dont like being manipulated in such a fashion and frankly niether should anyone else.

Given that there isnt a single scientific Peer review study done by real climatologists (and there have been over 900 in recent years) that suggest primary human culpability for global warming. Where is it the 51 signatories of the IPCC's latest draft are getting thier idea that there is in actual fact 'consensus' amongst the climate community that we are to blame ? Or is it perhaps that there is consensus amongst those 51 members benefitting from keeping this lucrative gravy train going maybe ?

Its a conundrum that I cannot square with reason frankly. And it suggests quite a bit of poltical opportunism and fairly sinister hidden agendas might be at play in the background here.

I would certainly urge posters to look more closely at this current barrage of misinformation we are being fed by our sensationalist media (especially here in Britain) and start questioning what we are being told here. We hear that the debate on climate change is over . I certainly dont remember any debate, indeed we have only ever been spoonfed ever more alarmist theories and models with any contrarian view however well qualified being stifled with the utmost ruthlessness or smeared as some kind of oil company stooge. The BBC for example NEVER gives any opposant spokesman airtime of any kind yet allows pro AGW gurus (often not even scientists) to make the most ludicrous yet unchallenged pronouncements of climate doom should we not do as they say.

Its utter madness

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

give something to the grandkids? - like the bill for medicare? the bill for social security? ulcers from thinking mankind is a bull in a china shop? the belief that if they turn the thermostat up above 68 F in wintertime that they're going to die? I'm beginning to wonder who is treating their grandkids better, you or the arab jihadhist.

Don't you think the statement "What goes around, comes around," seem likely. Free health helps all in the end.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

Don't you think the statement "What goes around, comes around," seem likely. Free health helps all in the end.

so do free lunches, free cars, free shelter... Until the bill comes due. Suffice to realize that someone always has to pay the bill and it's there you find out that free often means it's the most expensive of all. Just remember, free labor is slavery and free money is theft.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

so do free lunches, free cars, free shelter... Until the bill comes due. Suffice to realize that someone always has to pay the bill and it's there you find out that free often means it's the most expensive of all. Just remember, free labor is slavery and free money is theft.

The world will fall to bits if everyone believed the way you do! Insurance was invented because of the chance of inevitable disaster would happen. So if you want to hoard up your money for yourself and rely upon what life dishes up to you without some form of cushion, then go right ahead.

You pay all your life to a HMO then when your old and retired and the HMO becomes unbearably expensive. Don't expect them to give you some sympathy the first payment you miss, then you injure yourself, because you've been with them for twenty years.

Free Health and Free Education within certain boundaries will create productivity and wealth for all.

Lose an employee because he was rejected for an operation by a HMO under some stupid technicality costs him his house and possibly family, and your business approximately $10,000 in hiring and retraining a new employee.

Life is like rock climbing. By adding those safety features in society you are hammering pins into the rock face and clipping yourself onto them as you go. Without them, your free climbing, but one slip and it will take weeks to clean up the remains.

20 extra minutes to nearly guarentee your destination doesn't seem much at all.

As I see it, Chapter 11 and bankruptcy is a safety feature for the rich to take extra risks. Why not the rest.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by icareforyou

Can somebody come out with any man-made reasons for earlier occurances of global warming, sever floods, etc. We are only imagining man-made reasons for present climate change situation.

In fact, the main reason for the climate change may be due to global warming caused by other natural, earthly and solar events such as eruption of volcanoes, 11 year cyclic sun storms, etc. However, one can only try to minimize the contribution from man-made activities for global warming such as use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and for fueling transportation vehicles, including aircrafts and space vehicles.

Also, the Global Warming Potential of other greenhouse gases like fluorine compounds, methane, etc is much more than carbon dioxide. Methane is released from the decaying vegitation and is much more potent (http://icareforyou2007.blogspot.com).

It is difficult to believe that a fractional rise in the ambient and ocean temperature can cause the great meltdown of large Greenland and west Antarctica glaciers.

It is also possible that the actual gravity of the situation was not told seriously to the world in time by the responsible organizations (like IPCC), or there are yet unknown natural reasons such as effect of variations in the geothermal energy for the climate change.

How about 14.5*10^22J of energy, increase only, since 1950 sound? Peer reviewed published paper source. Homework is to calculate how many nuclear bombs that would make.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by flogger

I used to be in the pro AGW camp until I started trawling for verifiable facts and credible science supporting it. The lack of data and often gross misrepresentation of what little science there is I found extremely disturbing. I dont like being manipulated in such a fashion and frankly niether should anyone else.

Given that there isnt a single scientific Peer review study done by real climatologists (and there have been over 900 in recent years) that suggest primary human culpability for global warming. Where is it the 51 signatories of the IPCC's latest draft are getting thier idea that there is in actual fact 'consensus' amongst the climate community that we are to blame ? Or is it perhaps that there is consensus amongst those 51 members benefitting from keeping this lucrative gravy train going maybe ?

Its a conundrum that I cannot square with reason frankly. And it suggests quite a bit of poltical opportunism and fairly sinister hidden agendas might be at play in the background here.

I would certainly urge posters to look more closely at this current barrage of misinformation we are being fed by our sensationalist media (especially here in Britain) and start questioning what we are being told here. We hear that the debate on climate change is over . I certainly dont remember any debate, indeed we have only ever been spoonfed ever more alarmist theories and models with any contrarian view however well qualified being stifled with the utmost ruthlessness or smeared as some kind of oil company stooge. The BBC for example NEVER gives any opposant spokesman airtime of any kind yet allows pro AGW gurus (often not even scientists) to make the most ludicrous yet unchallenged pronouncements of climate doom should we not do as they say.

Its utter madness

Another chance to dig in the conspiracy theory. Don't worry, a bedside lamp coming from my manufacturing plant slightly flashes morse code to your eyeballs while your sleeping for a decent subliminal climate change is bad, stop driving your car, is being mailed right to your door step.

Oh and they make to donate to green lobbyists pushing forward the subliminal lamp technique in lowering greenhouse gases.

[draypoker]

The BBC for example NEVER gives any opposant spokesman airtime of any kind yet allows pro AGW gurus (often not even scientists) to make the most ludicrous yet unchallenged pronouncements of climate doom should we not do as they say.

They don't put up supporters of Phlogiston, either.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

How about 14.5*10^22J of energy, increase only, since 1950 sound? Peer reviewed published paper source. Homework is to calculate how many nuclear bombs that would make.

Sounds ok if you're assuming around 3/4 of a w/m^2 of power absorption over 58 years. A megaton is supposed to be about 4.18E+15 Joules. Assuming an average of 1 megaton per bomb, which is probably way on the high end as most are not strategic in the arsenals, this amount is the equivalent of about 49 million strategic nuclear bombs. Nuclear arsenals have never had more than perhaps 70,000 nukes with an average far less than 1 megaton.

As a comparison in that 58 years, the amount of energy reaching the southern hemisphere and south pole compared to the northern hemisphere and north pole amounts to around 5.1E+24 Joules which is equivalent to about 1.2 billion megaton bombs. The difference here is the difference is the summer time distance to the sun for the southern hemisphere versus to the northern hemisphere summer time distance. It's a rough difference in incoming solar insolation due to the eccentricity of earths orbit which is closer during southern hemisphere summer versus northern hemisphere mid summer.

Now, the problem with your argument, other than the lack of context for the amount of energy, is that you assume this 3/4 w/m^2 of power is actually being absorbed into the earth's surface/atmosphere in the form of heat, raising the temperature. The short answer is that it isn't. Were it true. If it were, that would be about 380 million calories of heat per m^2. The atmosphere has about 11million grams / m^2. That means the atmosphere only would have heated by 140 degrees K since it's about 1/4 calorie per g K. If one were to do this for a uniform temperature increase say for the ocean and atmosphere of 10 K for both, then one would have the atmosphere and about 370 meters of ocean depth increase by 10 degrees kelvin - based upon this 3/4W/m^2 being absorbed. Remember now that the difference in SH and NH energy due to the insolation change is a hundred times this.

Consequently, your impressive number has no more validity than my impressive number = 1.0E+110 and my number is lots bigger than your's. Neither have anything to do with anything physical concerning the earth. Your number is meaningless like mine because it doesn't represent anything. What is absorbed in IR radiation is re-emitted as IR at that wavelength and other wavelengths, converted to thermal energy often prior to reradiation and if not, creates warmer air that moves upward as convection. Also, an ideal gas absorbing heat in a system such as earth's atmosphere tends to be a bit constrained to constant pressure, but really isn't limited to constant volume, meaning that temperature doesn't always have to increase with additional energy.

The net result is that significant changes in ghg concentrations will result in virtually undetectable variations in temperature due to massive negative feedbacks that must exist for the earth system to have any chance of stability because everything else in the system varies significantly over time. One sees pyramids setting on their bases, not on their tips. That's because systems with 'tipping' points as presumed by and promoted by the alarmists don't exist in nature because nature isn't a sheet of paper with a few equations written down with approximations, simplifications, assumptions reduced to the minimum to permit it to be comprehended.