Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

#46    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,815 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:42 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

water absorption of co2 is inversely proportional to its temperature - cold water absorbs more co2, warm water releases co2.
http://www.newton.de...06/gen06306.htm

merely stating the relationship (like al gore and his zealous minions do) means very little and cannot be used as evidence that co2 causes warming.

So, you're saying that increase temp causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way round. I've considered this myself, but the arguments seem to be a case of cherry picking data that suits and discarding that which doesn't.

Just a word of advice: try not to mention Al Gore so much. He's not a scientist and I don't hear too many people citing him. There are far more credible sources. And it does make it appear that your opinion is politically motivated.


#47    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 11 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

So, you're saying that increase temp causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way round. I've considered this myself, but the arguments seem to be a case of cherry picking data that suits and discarding that which doesn't.
co2 is more soluble in cold water, less soluble in warm water. so a warming ocean can expect to give way to more co2 in the atmopshere, a cooling ocean can be expected to give way to declining atmospheric co2, so determination of cause and effect has not been established.
Posted Image

Quote

Just a word of advice: try not to mention Al Gore so much. He's not a scientist and I don't hear too many people citing him. There are far more credible sources. And it does make it appear that your opinion is politically motivated.
you may not hear people cite him, but his influence and funding behind the public scene in this matter is not to be underestimated, unfortunately it's not science that matters, it is public perception that matters, which manifests into the political realm.

Edited by Little Fish, 11 August 2012 - 11:17 AM.


#48    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:18 AM

We could discuss the isotopic fingerprint of the astmospheric CO2 which shows it is anthropgenic in origin and the parallel decline in atmospheric O2 (showing that combustion is causing it), but it would be a waste of all of our time to do so.

Simply describing a well known feedback mechanism which amplifies the effects of the anthreopogenic CO2 is hardly helping your case Little Fish.


Some states of denial are to deep to penetrate with facts.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 11:21 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#49    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

We could discuss the isotopic fingerprint of the astmospheric CO2 which shows it is anthropgenic in origin and the parallel decline in atmospheric O2 (showing that combustion is causing it), but it would be a waste of all of our time to do so.
but it is the temperature response we are talking about, not the amount and cause of recent co2. using prehistoric ice core graph to argue cause and effect doesn't resolve it.

Quote

Simply describing a well known feedback mechanism which amplifies the effects of the anthreopogenic CO2 is hardly helping your case Little Fish.
a warming world will produce more water vapour, but this give rise to more cloud which have a big cooling effect reflecting the sun's energy back into space, its not as simple as you are making out. the core issue is the feedbacks. which is biggest and whether they are understood correctly and accurately.

Quote

Some states of denial are to deep to penetrate with facts.
funny, our last several discussions have resulted in your admission of uncertainties and not enough data, if you are uncertain then you shouldn't use the term 'denier'.

Edited by Little Fish, 11 August 2012 - 12:01 PM.


#50    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:07 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

but it is the temperature response we are talking about, not the amount and cause of recent co2. using prehistoric ice core graph to argue cause and effect doesn't resolve it.

a warming world will produce more water vapour, but this give rise to more cloud which have a big cooling effect reflecting the sun's energy back into space, its not as simple as you are making out. the core issue is the feedbacks. which is biggest and whether they are understood correctly and accurately.

funny, our last several discussions have resulted in your admission of uncertainties and not enough data, if you are uncertain then you shouldn't use the term 'denier'.

If you had been paying attention for the last 5 years you would know that clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming.
Uncertainties are not a basis for denial -they are a spur to research. The warming trend is clear and the only driver which explains it is anthropogenic CO2. The process of climate science is refining the understanding. It is the empirically measured energy flux in and out of the planet and the recorded  temperature trend which is the basis of recommendatiolns to curtail emissions. Perfect understanding is neither possible or necessary to act on the strong evidence we already have.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 12:09 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#51    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:50 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming.
can i see that please.


#52    hetrodoxly

hetrodoxly

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2006

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:50 PM

"Global warming" is a multi trillion $ industry and probably the most corrupt, what ever happens it wont stop it's a runaway train it feeds off peoples fear and there's nothing better than that for making money just by adding eco. green bio etc to the name of your company will increase the worth of it's shares.

Thank god i'm an athiest.

Veni, vidi, Vertigo, i came i saw i couldn't get down.
Hetrodoxly.

#53    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 01:50 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

can i see that please.

The trend is warming - if the trend were cooling then we could say that clouds were damping it. They are not.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#54    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,409 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 01:54 PM

disregard,

Edited by questionmark, 11 August 2012 - 01:55 PM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#55    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:22 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

The trend is warming
this is what you said "clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming."
I am asking for you to show empirical evidence that the net effect of more clouds is warming, in other words I am asking for empirical evidence of a net positive feedback.

Quote

- if the trend were cooling then we could say that clouds were damping it. They are not.
then you are not understanding feedback.
a positive feedback response to warming means something adds further heat, negative feedback means something adds cooling (or reduces the warming).

it is still possible for a system to warm with a negative feedback if the cooling feedback is less than the initial warming, this is damping.

the alarmist point of view requires a positive feedback, otherwise there is nothing to worry about.

here's a thought experiment - would the world be warmer or cooler if the planet was completely white with cloud?

Edited by Little Fish, 11 August 2012 - 02:27 PM.


#56    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:26 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

this is what you said "clouds are both coolers and warmers. The empirical evidence shows that the net effect is warming."
I am asking for you to show empirical evidence that the net effect of more clouds is warming, in other words I am asking for empirical evidence of a net positive feedback.


then you are not understanding feedback.
a positive feedback response to warming means something adds further heat, negative feedback means something adds cooling (or reduces the warming).

it is still possible for a system to warm with a negative feedback if the cooling feedback is less than the initial warming, this is damping.

the alarmist point of view requires a positive feedback, otherwise there is nothing to worry about.

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks. If it were anything else then we would be expecting less warming than is currently occuring. The various models all allow for different levels of moisture amplification - and the fit that those models are to hindcasts and current events is a measure of how successfully they predict the degree of amplification.

Atmospheric moisture is both an amplifier and smoother of warming. It is not of itself the cause of a runaway feedback - it is simply a factor.
Additionally to this the increased atmospheric moisture contributes directly to significant local climatic changes - such as the increased risk of extreme precipitation events - which are observed throughout the planet. This has direct consequences for people on the ground.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 02:36 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#57    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,409 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:30 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks. If it were anything else then we would be expecting less warming than is currently occuring.

Br Cornelius

Where clouds are in fact cooling (insignificantly) while accelerating the global heating trend, see Rossow and Zang (1995).

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#58    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:48 PM

From that paper;
"Clouds generally decrease both the net SW heating and the net LW cooling cooling of Earth, the former effect being about twice the magnitude of the latter"

So the warming effect is twice as strong as the cooling effect.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#59    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me put this simply - the net radiative flux shows that heat is accumulating in the system. This shows that the climate is warming and is warming at a rate predicted by climate models which show positive atmospheric moisture feedbacks.
that is not empirical evidence. it is an assumption.

just because climate models may have been programmed with a positive feedback does not mean there is a positive feedback in the real world.

clouds have a net cooling effect.


#60    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:06 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

that is not empirical evidence. it is an assumption.

just because climate models may have been programmed with a positive feedback does not mean there is a positive feedback in the real world.

clouds have a net cooling effect.

Refer to the study which shows the net effect been warming by a factor of two based on empirical evidence. I am certain there are other papers showing similar results.

No they are not cooling. Only the unsupported Iris theory of Lindzen makes that false claim.

Quote

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all


I am going to ask this simple question - how many times do you have to be shown to be wrong before you actually admit you are wrong ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 03:49 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users